Softpanorama

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

Demonization of President Putin bulletin, 2015

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2011

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

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

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

Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors

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

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

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

[Dec 20, 2015] Michael Hudson The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia

Notable quotes:
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is ..."
"... KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts. ..."
"... After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20. [8] ..."
"... The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests. [10] ..."
"... China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion. ..."
"... It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us". ..."
"... what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war? ..."
December 18, 2015 | naked capitalism

By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy

The nightmare scenario of U.S. geopolitical strategists seems to be coming true: foreign economic independence from U.S. control. Instead of privatizing and neoliberalizing the world under U.S.-centered financial planning and ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration on the basis of Russian oil and tax exports and Chinese financing. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace the IMF and World Bank programs that favor U.S. suppliers, banks and bondholders (with the United States holding unique veto power).

Russia's 2013 loan to Ukraine, made at the request of Ukraine's elected pro-Russian government, demonstrated the benefits of mutual trade and investment relations between the two countries. As Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov points out, Ukraine's "international reserves were barely enough to cover three months' imports, and no other creditor was prepared to lend on terms acceptable to Kiev. Yet Russia provided $3 billion of much-needed funding at a 5 per cent interest rate, when Ukraine's bonds were yielding nearly 12 per cent."[1]

What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts.

On December 3 (one week before the IMF changed its rules so as to hurt Russia), Prime Minister Putin proposed that Russia "and other Eurasian Economic Union countries should kick-off consultations with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on a possible economic partnership."[2] Russia also is seeking to build pipelines to Europe through friendly instead of U.S.-backed countries.

Moving to denominate their trade and investment in their own currencies instead of dollars, China and Russia are creating a geopolitical system free from U.S. control. After U.S. officials threatened to derange Russia's banking linkages by cutting it off from the SWIFT interbank clearing system, China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System (CIPS), with its own credit card system to protect Eurasian economies from the shrill threats made by U.S. unilateralists.

Russia and China are simply doing what the United States has long done: using trade and credit linkages to cement their geopolitical diplomacy. This tectonic geopolitical shift is a Copernican threat to New Cold War ideology: Instead of the world economy revolving around the United States (the Ptolemaic idea of America as "the indispensible nation"), it may revolve around Eurasia. As long as the global financial papacy remains grounded in Washington at the offices of the IMF and World Bank, such a shift in the center of gravity will be fought with all the power of the American Century (indeed, American Millennium) inquisition.

Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building high-speed railroads, ports power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries, enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming on line to repay the infrastructure loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy needed for these projects.

To U.S. neocons this specter of AIIB government-to-government lending and investment creates fear of a world independent of U.S. control. Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for debtor countries. There would be less need for foreign government to finance budget shortfalls by selling off their key public infrastructure privatizing their economies. Instead of dismantling public spending, the AIIB and a broader Eurasian economic union would do what the United States itself practices, and seek self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, technology, banking, credit creation and monetary policy.

With this prospect in mind, suppose an American diplomat meets with the leaders of debtors to China, Russia and the AIIB and makes the following proposal: "Now that you've got your increased production in place, why repay? We'll make you rich if you stiff our New Cold War adversaries and turn to the West. We and our European allies will help you assign the infrastructure to yourselves and your supporters, and give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London. Then, you can spend your surpluses in the West."

How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court will recognize their claim – that is, what court that the West would pay attention to?

That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing for more than a year. The looming conflict was made immediate by Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default. U.S. lobbyists have just changed the IMF rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other governments have long relied to enforce payment of their loans.

The IMF's Role as Enforcer of Inter-Government Debts

When it comes down to enforcing nations to pay inter-government debts, the International Monetary Fund and Paris Club hold the main leverage. As coordinator of central bank "stabilization" loans (the neoliberal euphemism for imposing austerity and destabilizing debtor economies, Greece-style), the IMF is able to withhold not only its own credit but also that of governments and global banks participating when debtor countries need refinancing. Countries that do not agree to privatize their infrastructure and sell it to Western buyers are threatened with sanctions, backed by U.S.-sponsored "regime change" and "democracy promotion" Maidan-style.

This was the setting on December 8, when Chief IMF Spokesman Gerry Rice announced: "The IMF's Executive Board met today and agreed to change the current policy on non-toleration of arrears to official creditors." The creditor leverage that the IMF has used is that if a nation is in financial arrears to any government, it cannot qualify for an IMF loan – and hence, for packages involving other governments. This has been the system by which the dollarized global financial system has worked for half a century. The beneficiaries have been creditors in US dollars.

In this U.S.-centered worldview, China and Russia loom as the great potential adversaries – defined as independent power centers from the United States as they create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative to NATO, and the AIIB as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank tandem. The very name, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, implies that transportation systems and other infrastructure will be financed by governments, not relinquished into private hands to become rent-extracting opportunities financed by U.S.-centered bank credit to turn the rent into a flow of interest payments.

The focus on a mixed public/private economy sets the AIIB at odds with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its aim of relinquishing government planning power to the financial and corporate sector for their own short-term gains, and above all the aim of blocking government's money-creating power and financial regulation. Chief Nomura economist Richard Koo, explained the logic of viewing the AIIB as a threat to the US-controlled IMF: "If the IMF's rival is heavily under China's influence, countries receiving its support will rebuild their economies under what is effectively Chinese guidance, increasing the likelihood they will fall directly or indirectly under that country's influence."[3]

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov accused the IMF decision of being "hasty and biased."[4] But it had been discussed all year long, calculating a range of scenarios for a long-term sea change in international law. The aim of this change is to isolate not only Russia, but even more China in its role as creditor to African countries and prospective AIIB borrowers. U.S. officials walked into the IMF headquarters in Washington with the legal equivalent of financial suicide vests, having decided that the time had come to derail Russia's ability to collect on its sovereign loan to Ukraine, and of even larger import, China's plan for a New Silk Road integrating a Eurasian economy independent of U.S. financial and trade control. Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the NATO-oriented Atlantic Council, points out:

The IMF staff started contemplating a rule change in the spring of 2013 because nontraditional creditors, such as China, had started providing developing countries with large loans. One issue was that these loans were issued on conditions out of line with IMF practice. China wasn't a member of the Paris Club, where loan restructuring is usually discussed, so it was time to update the rules.

The IMF intended to adopt a new policy in the spring of 2016, but the dispute over Russia's $3 billion loan to Ukraine has accelerated an otherwise slow decision-making process.[5]

The Wall Street Journal concurred that the underlying motivation for changing the IMF's rules was the threat that Chinese lending would provide an alternative to IMF loans and its demands for austerity. "IMF-watchers said the fund was originally thinking of ensuring China wouldn't be able to foil IMF lending to member countries seeking bailouts as Beijing ramped up loans to developing economies around the world."[6] In short, U.S. strategists have designed a policy to block trade and financial agreements organized outside of U.S. control and that of the IMF and World Bank in which it holds unique veto power.

The plan is simple enough. Trade follows finance, and the creditor usually calls the tune. That is how the United States has used the Dollar Standard to steer Third World trade and investment since World War II along lines benefiting the U.S. economy.

The cement of trade credit and bank lending is the ability of creditors to collect on the international debts being negotiated. That is why the United States and other creditor nations have used the IMF as an intermediary to act as "honest broker" for loan consortia. ("Honest broker" means in practice being subject to U.S. veto power.) To enforce its financial leverage, the IMF has long followed the rule that it will not sponsor any loan agreement or refinancing for governments that are in default of debts owed to other governments. However, as the afore-mentioned Aslund explains, the IMF could easily

change its practice of not lending into [countries in official] arrears … because it is not incorporated into the IMF Articles of Agreement, that is, the IMF statutes. The IMF Executive Board can decide to change this policy with a simple board majority. The IMF has lent to Afghanistan, Georgia, and Iraq in the midst of war, and Russia has no veto right, holding only 2.39 percent of the votes in the IMF. When the IMF has lent to Georgia and Ukraine, the other members of its Executive Board have overruled Russia.[7]

After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20.[8]

Inasmuch as Ukraine's official debt to Russia's sovereign debt fund was not to the U.S. Government, the IMF announced its rules change as a "clarification." Its rule that no country can borrow if it is in default to (or not seriously negotiating with) a foreign government was created in the post-1945 world, and has governed the past seventy years in which the United States Government, Treasury officials and/or U.S. bank consortia have been party to nearly every international bailout or major loan agreement. What the IMF rule really meant was that it would not provide credit to countries in arrears specifically to the U.S. Government, not those of Russia or China.

Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Institute of Globalization Problems, understood the IMF's double standard clearly enough: "The Fund will give Kiev a new loan tranche on one condition that Ukraine should not pay Russia a dollar under its $3 billion debt. Legally, everything will be formalized correctly but they will oblige Ukraine to pay only to western creditors for political reasons."[9] It remains up to the IMF board – and in the end, its managing director – whether or not to deem a country creditworthy. The U.S. representative naturally has always blocked any leaders not beholden to the United States.

The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests.[10]

IMF executive board member Otaviano Canuto, representing Brazil, noted that the logic that "conditions on IMF lending to a country that fell behind on payments [was to] make sure it kept negotiating in good faith to reach agreement with creditors."[11] Dropping this condition, he said, would open the door for other countries to insist on a similar waiver and avoid making serious and sincere efforts to reach payment agreement with creditor governments.

A more binding IMF rule is that it cannot lend to countries at war or use IMF credit to engage in warfare. Article I of its 1944-45 founding charter ban the fund from lending to a member state engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes in general. But when IMF head Lagarde made the last IMF loan to Ukraine, in spring 2015, she made a token gesture of stating that she hoped there would be peace. But President Porochenko immediately announced that he would step up the civil war with the Russian-speaking population in the eastern Donbass region.

The problem is that the Donbass is where most Ukrainian exports were made, mainly to Russia. That market is being lost by the junta's belligerence toward Russia. This should have blocked Ukraine from receiving IMF aid. Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force peace and adherence to the Minsk agreements, but U.S. diplomatic pressure led that opportunity to be rejected.

The most important IMF condition being violated is that continued warfare with the East prevents a realistic prospect of Ukraine paying back new loans. Aslund himself points to the internal contradictions at work: Ukraine has achieved budget balance because the inflation and steep currency depreciation has drastically eroded its pension costs. The resulting lower value of pension benefits has led to growing opposition to Ukraine's post-Maidan junta. "Leading representatives from President Petro Poroshenko's Bloc are insisting on massive tax cuts, but no more expenditure cuts; that would cause a vast budget deficit that the IMF assesses at 9-10 percent of GDP, that could not possibly be financed."[12] So how can the IMF's austerity budget be followed without a political backlash?

The IMF thus is breaking four rules: Not lending to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan. Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors goes against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel. And the IMF is now lending to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally, the IMF is lending to a country that has little likelihood of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities" on its population – without putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead of being treated as an outcast from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed and financed.

The upshot – and new basic guideline for IMF lending – is to create a new Iron Curtain splitting the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and all other economies, including those seeking to maintain public investment in infrastructure, progressive taxation and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. Russia and China may lend as much as they want to other governments, but there is no international vehicle to help secure their ability to be paid back under what until now has passed for international law. Having refused to roll back its own or ECB financial claims on Greece, the IMF is quite willing to see repudiation of official debts owed to Russia, China or other countries not on the list approved by the U.S. neocons who wield veto power in the IMF, World Bank and similar global economic institutions now drawn into the U.S. orbit. Changing its rules to clear the path for the IMF to make loans to Ukraine and other governments in default of debts owed to official lenders is rightly seen as an escalation of America's New Cold War against Russia and also its anti-China strategy.

Timing is everything in such ploys. Georgetown University Law professor and Treasury consultant Anna Gelpern warned that before the "IMF staff and executive board [had] enough time to change the policy on arrears to official creditors," Russia might use "its notorious debt/GDP clause to accelerate the bonds at any time before December, or simply gum up the process of reforming the IMF's arrears policy."[13] According to this clause, if Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP, Russia's government would have the right to demand immediate payment. But no doubt anticipating the bitter fight to come over its attempts to collect on its loan, President Putin patiently refrained from exercising this option. He is playing the long game, bending over backward to accommodate Ukraine rather than behaving "odiously."

A more pressing reason deterring the United States from pressing earlier to change IMF rules was that a waiver for Ukraine would have opened the legal floodgates for Greece to ask for a similar waiver on having to pay the "troika" – the European Central Bank (ECB), EU commission and the IMF itself – for the post-2010 loans that have pushed it into a worse depression than the 1930s. "Imagine the Greek government had insisted that EU institutions accept the same haircut as the country's private creditors," Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov asked. "The reaction in European capitals would have been frosty. Yet this is the position now taken by Kiev with respect to Ukraine's $3 billion eurobond held by Russia."[14]

Only after Greece capitulated to eurozone austerity was the path clear for U.S. officials to change the IMF rules in their fight to isolate Russia. But their tactical victory has come at the cost of changing the IMF's rules and those of the global financial system irreversibly. Other countries henceforth may reject conditionalities, as Ukraine has done, and ask for write-downs on foreign official debts.

That was the great fear of neoliberal U.S. and Eurozone strategists last summer, after all. The reason for smashing Greece's economy was to deter Podemos in Spain and similar movements in Italy and Portugal from pursuing national prosperity instead of eurozone austerity. Opening the door to such resistance by Ukraine is the blowback of America's tactic to make a short-term financial hit on Russia while its balance of payments is down as a result of collapsing oil and gas prices.

The consequences go far beyond just the IMF. The fabric of international law itself is being torn apart. Every action has a reaction in the Newtonian world of geopolitics. It may not be a bad thing, to be sure, for the post-1945 global order to be broken apart by U.S. tactics against Russia, if that is the catalyst driving other countries to defend their own economies in the legal and political spheres. It has been U.S. neoliberals themselves who have catalyzed the emerging independent Eurasian bloc.

Countering Russia's Ability to Collect in Britain's Law Courts

Over the past year the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have discussed ploys to block Russia from collecting under British law, where its loans to Ukraine are registered. Reviewing the repertory of legal excuses Ukraine might use to avoid paying Russia, Prof. Gelpern noted that it might declare the debt "odious," made under duress or corruptly. In a paper for the Peterson Institute of International Economics (the banking lobby in Washington) she suggested that Britain should deny Russia the use of its courts as an additional sanction reinforcing the financial, energy, and trade sanctions to those passed against Russia after Crimea voted to join it as protection against the ethnic cleansing from the Right Sector, Azov Battalion and other paramilitary groups descending on the region.[15]

A kindred ploy might be for Ukraine to countersue Russia for reparations for "invading" it, for saving Crimea and the Donbass region from the Right Sector's attempt to take over the country. Such a ploy would seem to have little chance of success in international courts (without showing them to be simply arms of NATO New Cold War politics), but it might delay Russia' ability to collect by tying the loan up in a long nuisance lawsuit.

To claim that Ukraine's debt to Russia was "odious" or otherwise illegitimate, "President Petro Poroshenko said the money was intended to ensure Yanukovych's loyalty to Moscow, and called the payment a 'bribe,' according to an interview with Bloomberg in June this year."[16] The legal and moral problem with such arguments is that they would apply equally to IMF and US loans. Claiming that Russia's loan is "odious" is that this would open the floodgates for other countries to repudiate debts taken on by dictatorships supported by IMF and U.S. lenders, headed by the many dictatorships supported by U.S. diplomacy.

The blowback from the U.S. multi-front attempt to nullify Ukraine's debt may be used to annul or at least write down the destructive IMF loans made on the condition that borrowers accept privatizations favoring U.S., German and other NATO-country investors, undertake austerity programs, and buy weapons systems such as the German submarines that Greece borrowed to pay for. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted: "This reform, which they are now trying to implement, designed to suit Ukraine only, could plant a time bomb under all other IMF programs." It certainly showed the extent to which the IMF is subordinate to U.S. aggressive New Cold Warriors: "Essentially, this reform boils down to the following: since Ukraine is politically important – and it is only important because it is opposed to Russia – the IMF is ready to do for Ukraine everything it has not done for anyone else, and the situation that should 100 percent mean a default will be seen as a situation enabling the IMF to finance Ukraine."[17]

Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the Committee for International Affairs at the Federation Council (the upper house of Russia's parliament) accused the United States of playing "the role of the main violin in the IMF while the role of the second violin is played by the European Union. These are two basic sponsors of the Maidan – the symbol of a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014."[18]

Putin's Counter-Strategy and the Blowback on U.S.-European and Global Relations

As noted above, having anticipated that Ukraine would seek reasons to not pay the Russian loan, President Putin carefully refrained from exercising Russia's right to demand immediate payment when Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP. In November he offered to defer payment if the United States, Europe and international banks underwrote the obligation. Indeed, he even "proposed better conditions for this restructuring than those the International Monetary Fund requested of us." He offered "to accept a deeper restructuring with no payment this year – a payment of $1 billion next year, $1 billion in 2017, and $1 billion in 2018." If the IMF, the United States and European Union "are sure that Ukraine's solvency will grow," then they should "see no risk in providing guarantees for this credit." Accordingly, he concluded "We have asked for such guarantees either from the United States government, the European Union, or one of the big international financial institutions." [19]

The implication, Putin pointed out, was that "If they cannot provide guarantees, this means that they do not believe in the Ukrainian economy's future." One professor pointed out that this proposal was in line with the fact that, "Ukraine has already received a sovereign loan guarantee from the United States for a previous bond issue." Why couldn't the United States, Eurozone or leading commercial banks provide a similar guarantee of Ukraine's debt to Russia – or better yet, simply lend it the money to turn it into a loan to the IMF or US lenders?[20]

But the IMF, European Union and the United States refused to back up their happy (but nonsensical) forecasts of Ukrainian solvency with actual guarantees. Foreign Minister Lavrov made clear just what that rejection meant: "By having refused to guarantee Ukraine's debt as part of Russia's proposal to restructure it, the United States effectively admitted the absence of prospects of restoring its solvency. … By officially rejecting the proposed scheme, the United States thereby subscribed to not seeing any prospects of Ukraine restoring its solvency."[21]

In an even more exasperated tone, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev explained to Russia's television audience: "I have a feeling that they won't give us the money back because they are crooks. They refuse to return our money and our Western partners not only refuse to help, but they also make it difficult for us."[22] Adding that "the international financial system is unjustly structured," he promised to "go to court. We'll push for default on the loan and we'll push for default on all Ukrainian debts."

The basis for Russia's legal claim, he explained was that the loan

was a request from the Ukrainian Government to the Russian Government. If two governments reach an agreement this is obviously a sovereign loan…. Surprisingly, however, international financial organisations started saying that this is not exactly a sovereign loan. This is utter bull. Evidently, it's just an absolutely brazen, cynical lie. … This seriously erodes trust in IMF decisions. I believe that now there will be a lot of pleas from different borrower states to the IMF to grant them the same terms as Ukraine. How will the IMF possibly refuse them?

And there the matter stands. As President Putin remarked regarding America's support of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and other ISIS allies in Syria, "Do you have any idea of what you have done?"

The Blowback

Few have calculated the degree to which America's New Cold War with Russia is creating a reaction that is tearing up the world's linkages put in place since World War II. Beyond pulling the IMF and World Bank tightly into U.S. unilateralist geopolitics, how long will Western Europe be willing to forego its trade and investment interest with Russia? Germany, Italy and France already are feeling the strains. If and when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.

The oil and pipeline war designed to bypass Russian energy exports has engulfed the Near East in anarchy for over a decade. It is flooding Europe with refugees, and also spreading terrorism to America. In the Republican presidential debate on December 15, 2015, the leading issue was safety from Islamic jihadists. Yet no candidate thought to explain the source of this terrorism in America's alliance with Wahabist Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hence with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daish as a means of destabilizing secular regimes seeking independence from U.S. control.

As its allies in this New Cold War, the United States has chosen fundamentalist jihadist religion against secular regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and earlier in Afghanistan and Turkey. Going back to the original sin of CIA hubris – overthrowing the secular Iranian Prime Minister leader Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 – American foreign policy has been based on the assumption that secular regimes tend to be nationalist and resist privatization and neoliberal austerity.

Based on this fatal long-term assumption, U.S. Cold Warriors have aligned themselves not only against secular regimes, but against democratic regimes where these seek to promote their own prosperity and economic independence, and to resist neoliberalism in favor of maintaining their traditional mixed public/private economy.

This is the back story of the U.S. fight to control the rest of the world. Tearing apart the IMF's rules is only the most recent chapter. The broad drive against Russia, China and their prospective Eurasian allies has deteriorated into tactics without a realistic understanding of how they are bringing about precisely the kind of world they are seeking to prevent – a multilateral world.

Arena by arena, the core values of what used to be American and European social democratic ideology are being uprooted. The Enlightenment's ideals of secular democracy and the rule of international law applied equally to all nations, classical free market theory (of markets free from unearned income and rent extraction by special vested interests), and public investment in infrastructure to hold down the cost of living and doing business are to be sacrificed to a militant U.S. unilateralism as "the indispensible nation." Standing above the rule of law and national interests, American neocons proclaim that their nation's destiny is to wage war to prevent foreign secular democracy from acting in ways other than submission to U.S. diplomacy. In practice, this means favoring special U.S. financial and corporate interests that control American foreign policy.

This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to turn out. Classical industrial capitalism a century ago was expected to evolve into an economy of abundance. Instead, we have Pentagon capitalism, finance capitalism deteriorating into a polarized rentier economy, and old-fashioned imperialism.

The Dollar Bloc's Financial Iron Curtain

By treating Ukraine's nullification of its official debt to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund as the new norm, the IMF has blessed its default on its bond payment to Russia. President Putin and foreign minister Lavrov have said that they will sue in British courts. But does any court exist in the West not under the thumb of U.S. veto?

What are China and Russia to do, faced with the IMF serving as a kangaroo court whose judgments are subject to U.S. veto power? To protect their autonomy and self-determination, they have created alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, NATO and behind it, the dollar standard.

America's recent New Cold War maneuvering has shown that the two Bretton Woods institutions are unreformable. It is easier to create new institutions such as the A.I.I.B. than to retrofit old and ill-designed ones burdened with the legacy of their vested founding interests. It is easier to expand the Shanghai Cooperation Organization than to surrender to threats from NATO.

U.S. geostrategists seem to have imagined that if they exclude Russia, China and other SCO and Eurasian countries from the U.S.-based financial and trade system, these countries will find themselves in the same economic box as Cuba, Iran and other countries have been isolated by sanctions. The aim is to make countries choose between impoverishment from such exclusion, or acquiescing in U.S. neoliberal drives to financialize their economies and impose austerity on their government sector and labor.

What is lacking from such calculations is the idea of critical mass. The United States may use the IMF and World Bank as levers to exclude countries not in the U.S. orbit from participating in the global trade and financial system, and it may arm-twist Europe to impose trade and financial sanctions on Russia. But this action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is the eternal Newtonian law of geopolitics. The indicated countermeasure is simply for other countries to create their own international financial organization as an alternative to the IMF, their own "aid" lending institution to juxtapose to the U.S.-centered World Bank.

All this requires an international court to handle disputes that is free from U.S. arm-twisting to turn international law into a kangaroo court following the dictates of Washington. The Eurasian Economic Union now has its own court to adjudicate disputes. It may provide an alternative Judge Griesa's New York federal court ruling in favor of vulture funds derailing Argentina's debt negotiations and excluding it from foreign financial markets. If the London Court of International Arbitration (under whose rules Russia's bonds issued to Ukraine are registered) permits frivolous legal claims (called barratry in English) such as President Poroshenko has threatened in Ukrainian Parliament, it too will become a victim of geopolitical obsolescence.

The more nakedly self-serving and geopolitical U.S. policy is – in backing radical Islamic fundamentalist outgrowths of Al Qaeda throughout the Near East, right-wing nationalist governments in Ukraine and the Baltics – the greater the catalytic pressure is growing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, AIIB and related Eurasian institutions to break free of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system run by the U.S. State, Defense and Treasury Departments and NATO superstructure.

The question now is whether Russia and China can hold onto the BRICS and India. So as Paul Craig Roberts recently summarized my ideas along these lines, we are back with George Orwell's 1984 global fracture between Oceanea (the United States, Britain and its northern European NATO allies) vs. Eurasia.

... .... ....

RabidGandhi December 18, 2015 at 9:16 am

My issue with Hudson is that he tends to paint things in a "good guys/bad guys" dichotomy viz. the IMF vs. the AIIB. Personally, I think it's quite positive that the international sovereign finance institutions will now be more international and less unipolar, but his scenario where

Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for debtor countries.

is rather pie-in-the sky. What reason do we have to believe that concentrated Chinese capital would somehow be more benevolent than our current overlords? Oh because AIIB has the word "infrastructure" in its title (just as the Interamerican Development Bank is all about development) /sarc.

Furthermore, if US planners had half a clue about economics, they would be jumping for joy that the AIIB and the CIPS will finally help release them (eventually) from the burden of having the USD as the global reserve currency, thus relieving the US of the albatross of having to ship its internal demand to China and other net exporters.

All in all, yes AIIB should be positive, but as Hudson himself points out, this is not so much about economics as it is geopolitics. The world should tread with the utmost caution.

Dino Reno December 18, 2015 at 9:48 am

I think his main point is not so much about economics or geopolitics, it's about the rule of law, specifically international law and how it applies to the debt collection brokered between counties.

China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion.

Even if they come up with a lending facility, the West will thwart their ability to collect on those debts at every turn by simply declaring those debts null and void and extending new funds using the infrastructure build by the bad (Russian/Chinese) debt as collateral. The thirst for power and profit will always be with us, but now it will not be tempered by any international order under the rule of law.

Nick December 18, 2015 at 10:15 am

China is learning the hard way how the game is played. For example, they're discovering that much of the tens of billions in no-strings attached loans given to Africa will not provide the returns initially thought (even accounting for massive corruption on all sides), which is why they have been reduced for the first time in a decade this past year.

Alejandro December 18, 2015 at 10:41 am

Don't see how "economics" and "social" can be de-linked from "politics"…understanding the limits of "local" may provide an awareness of the "quid pro quo" of extending, direction of extension, and what defines (in/inter) "dependency"…how sacrifice is "shared" or imposed, and how "prosperity" is concentrated or distributed…

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 18, 2015 at 2:50 pm

It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us".

It's like a playground with one big bully and lots of kids running scared, now a second bully appears and they all have to ask themselves whether Bully #2 will be nicer to them, in this case it appears Bully #2 is saying he won't tell them how to run their lives or steal their lunch money.

Post-comet in 2000 when everything started going to hell the worst casualty has been the rule of law, from hanging chads through to the Patriot Act, death by a thousand cuts of the Constitution, unprosecuted war crimes, unprosecuted financial crimes, and now the very fabric of international law being rent apart. I'm reminded of the Hunter Thompson scene where he has an expired driver's license and a cop pulls him over, he has two choices, hand over the license and get busted, or drive away and get busted… so he comes up with a third choice: he blows his nose all over the license and hands it over to the cop. The equivalent of Bully #1 taking the only soccer ball on the playground and kicking it over the fence so the game is screwed up for everybody, Pepe's "Empire of Chaos" indeed.

global123 December 18, 2015 at 9:47 am

stellar article michael hudson

1)Western economies depend on ocean transport…if chinese or ruskies destroy it, USA-EU will be bankrupt in weeks..USA-EU are consumers and not producers..their exports to rest of world are tiny..So,their position is very weak at this point
2)The asian countries like china-india will be forced to join hands under joint attack by US financial system and islamic jihadists..Russia and china,former enemies,are now friends…who could have imagines it?
Russo-chinese-iranian alliance is huge failure of US foreign policies
3)Using islamic terrorists and islamic countries like turkey-saudi arabia-pakistan-indonesia-egypt is not going to work for USA because muslims think USA as enemy no.1…
4)A military superiority can not guarantee permanent -everlasting victory against too many opponents
What i see here is USA has made entire islamic world their enemy,alongwith china and russia
In case of real war,USA position will be very weak

camelotkidd December 18, 2015 at 9:49 am

This is an amazing article. Bravo!
Now it's becoming clear just what Margaret Thatcher meant when she told everyone that there was no alternative to neoliberalism.

Steve H. December 18, 2015 at 10:00 am

Thank you for continuing to mark the historical specifics of the finance/legal wing of geopolitical conflict, and the perverse failings of Full Spectrum Dominance.

The Oceana/Eurasia dichotomy is a dangerous frame of reference. It essentially contrasts the transport efficiencies of water to the solid defensive capacity of the frozen steppes. But when things get bloody, they usually crack along language lines. Not only as a proxy for migrations of the gene, but also world-views. How horse-people see things, what metaphors they use, are very different than how cow-people categorize the world.

This highlights that Russia is continuing to operate within the language and legal framework of the Indo-European languages. In other words (!), it is a fight between the U.S. and Russia for European alliances. If this is the case, then the alliance of NATO with Turkic and Arabic lines is of convenience, in that they are not partners but proxies. Europe is faced with the habit of the U.S. in saying, Let's you and him fight. But there's an oceans difference between the U.S. and European interests.

It also means that Russia and China are being pushed together by western exclusion, like drops of oil on the water. I maintain that Russia has doubled down on global warming, to open up northern sea routes and make the steppes arable. China is already a sea-power, but its massive population will need lebensraum as the fossil-fuel support for the energy needs of megapoli decay. The mountains are a formidable barrier for them to take the steppes by force.

The question for the rest of the world then becomes, who do you want to have as a friend in a hundred years. Do you bet on the Wizards of Wall Street, with their Magic Money Wand of Fiat? Or do you think Russia will ground-n-pound the fairy dust into the mud?

SocietalIllusions December 18, 2015 at 11:17 am

what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war?

The game of brinksmanship continues…

Jim Haygood December 18, 2015 at 11:18 am

'The Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration.'

Whereas the U.S. is 'investing' in new military bases to cement U.S. global domination.

Guess which model actually benefits local living standards, and 'wins hearts and minds'?

Global domination as a policy goal bankrupted the USSR. It's not working for the USSA either, as the U.S. middle class (once the envy of the world) visibly sinks into pauperization.

Thus the veracity of Michael Hudson's conclusion that 'when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.'

Steven December 18, 2015 at 1:56 pm

I get the same thrill reading Hudson the religiously devout must experience reading their bibles or Korans – a glimpse of 'truth' as best it can be known. My first encounter was this interview in Counterpunch: An Interview with Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism That led directly to "Super Imperialism" (and just about every book since its publication). After reading it, I was left with the uneasy feeling that no good would come from an international monetary system that allowed any one nation to pay its way in the world by creating money 'out of thin air' i.e. as sovereign and private debt or, almost the same thing, Federal Reserve Notes.

The race to the bottom of off-shored jobs and industries freed from all environmental restrictions, AKA 'globalization', had started to really kick in but it was just before Operation Iraqi Liberation (get it?). Fundamentally, it wasn't war for oil, of course, but a war to preserve the Dollar Standard. Recycling petrodollars bought a little time after the 1971 collapse of Bretton Woods. But with the world's treasuries filling up with US dollars and debt, the product of the Congressional-military-industrial-complex running wild and more recently the U.S. 0.01% successfully evading almost all forms of taxation, some kind of control more basic than controlling the world's access to money (which basically means credit) was required.

When people like Alan Greenspan (pretend to) come clean, you really want to look twice:

THOUGH it was not understood a century ago, and though as yet the applications of the knowledge to the economics of life are not generally realized, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally a struggle for energy, in which discovery after discovery brings life into new relations with the original source.

Frederick Soddy, WEALTH, VIRTUAL WEALTH AND DEBT, 2nd edition, p. 49
The world can live without American dollars, especially these days when the U.S. no longer makes much the world needs or can afford but most obviously because it already possesses more of them than can ever be redeemed ('debt that can't be repaid and won't be') What it can't live without is ENERGY.

So long as most of that energy needs to be pumped out of the ground, the nation that ultimately controls access to the pumps – or to the distribution networks required to deliver it to the ultimate user – controls the world. This is most likely why Reagan promptly dismantled Jimmy Carter's White House solar panels. It is why the US and its European vassals have been dragging their feet for a half-century on the development of renewable energy sources and the electrification of transportation. It is why the banks and Wall Street will stand solidly behind the various electrical utilities efforts to discourage the development of any alternative energy sources from which their executives and shareholders can not extract the last pint of blood or has Hudson more politely calls it 'economic rent'.

P.S. Hudson seems to have a dangerous monopoly on economic truth these days. Is there anyone else who even comes close?

[Dec 19, 2015] Ukraine still committed to good faith debt talks with Russia Finance Ministry

Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine remains committed ... to negotiating in good faith a consensual restructuring of the December 2015 Eurobonds, Nonsense, they are nothing but thieves in suits; Fascist politicians stealing from the taxpayers in the USA, EU, Russia and the Ukraine. You supporters of modern Fascism are disgusting little NeoCon trolls, yes you are! ..."
"... Under this IMF restructuring deal with the Ukraine, the oligarchs mandated that Monsanto GMO comes in. Now the once fertile farms will grow poisoned food. ... They also mandated hydraulic fracking rights to Exxon and BP. Now the aquifers will be poisoned. ... Moreover, the IMF social chapter destroys family values and requires that corrosive gay propaganda be thrust into the children's minds. ... Welcome to the new Globalist Business Model. ..."
"... The Ukraine is like a dying carcass. ... The EU jackals are howling, the IMF vultures are circling, and the NATO hyenas are picking the flesh off of the bones. ..."
"... Ukraine's Finance Minister, who promised in the above Reuters article today Dec 18, 2015, to talk in good faith with the Russian Federation about their $3 Billion Loan due and payable on Dec 15, as of today is in Default on that $3 Billion Loan , and therefore isn't eligible to receive any Loan from the IMF, headed by Chief Lagarde who must now stand trial for an improper loan of $434 Million . ..."
"... Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch ..."
"... The deadbeat American lackeys in Kiev have no intention of paying their debts to Russia because Washington DC is run by thieves and immoral people. You know this is true. ..."
"... Meanwhile Ukraine has restricted air travel, cutoff Crimea, and fought efforts to grant autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. With unpaid debt, the country still stokes war with Russia after being warned by Mr. Kerry to stop. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Algis

"Ukraine remains committed ... to negotiating in good faith a consensual restructuring of the December 2015 Eurobonds," Nonsense, they are nothing but thieves in suits; Fascist politicians stealing from the taxpayers in the USA, EU, Russia and the Ukraine. You supporters of modern Fascism are disgusting little NeoCon trolls, yes you are!

Robert

This is the new Globalist Business Model.

  1. Overthrow a sovereign country by revolution or outright bombing campaign.
  2. Appoint oligarchs to run it and fascists to rule the streets.
  3. Rack the country with unpardonable debt.
  4. Bring in the IMF and other global banks to 'restructure' the economy.
  5. Loot the country's resources by selling off the infrastructure for pennies on the dollar.
  6. Impose huge austerity programs. ... Cuts pensions in half and double basic living costs.
  7. Finally, colonialize the citizens under multi-national corporate rule where the people have little or no say.

Under this IMF restructuring deal with the Ukraine, the oligarchs mandated that Monsanto GMO comes in. Now the once fertile farms will grow poisoned food. ... They also mandated hydraulic fracking rights to Exxon and BP. Now the aquifers will be poisoned. ... Moreover, the IMF social chapter destroys family values and requires that corrosive gay propaganda be thrust into the children's minds. ... Welcome to the new Globalist Business Model.

The Ukraine is like a dying carcass. ... The EU jackals are howling, the IMF vultures are circling, and the NATO hyenas are picking the flesh off of the bones.

Algis

Russia needs to take payment out of their proverbial hides. No one consider it unjustified except a few brainwashed Americans and of course the immoral and corrupt ruling class of the Empire!

new_federali...

Ukraine's Finance Minister, who promised in the above Reuters article today Dec 18, 2015, to talk in good faith with the Russian Federation about their $3 Billion Loan due and payable on Dec 15, as of today is in Default on that $3 Billion Loan , and therefore isn't eligible to receive any Loan from the IMF, headed by Chief Lagarde who must now stand trial for an improper loan of $434 Million .

Therefore, Gold did achieve an all-important triple bottom at $1,050 per ounce this week, and is now in a furious rally up $15 to $1,065 per ounce as DXY (U.S. Dollar Index) falls sharply today due to utter failure of U.S.- led IMF to rescue Ukraine from Financial Collapse today -- Thus Gold will now rally sharply through at least Feb 2016 when Gold will be at $1,500 per ounce, and ultimately going to new all-time highs above $2,000 per ounce -- Dec 18, 2015 at 11:53 a.m. PST.

Commenter

Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch

Algis

The deadbeat American lackeys in Kiev have no intention of paying their debts to Russia because Washington DC is run by thieves and immoral people. You know this is true.

RonP

Meanwhile Ukraine has restricted air travel, cutoff Crimea, and fought efforts to grant autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. With unpaid debt, the country still stokes war with Russia after being warned by Mr. Kerry to stop.

[Dec 17, 2015] Putin hails Donald Trump as bright and talented

economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs said... December 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Putin hails Donald Trump as 'bright and talented'
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/12/17/putin-hails-donald-trump-bright-and-talented/CCIktxBPs0ax3bGNMz7yqO/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Vladimir Isachenkov - Associated Press - December 17, 2015

MOSCOW - Russia and the US agree on a general approach to settling the Syrian crisis, President Vladimir Putin said Thursday, saying that Moscow stands ready to improve ties with Washington.

Putin also said that Russia will continue its air campaign in Syria until a political process starts, and lashed out at Turkey for trying to ''lick the Americans in some of their private parts'' by downing a Russian warplane. ...

Commenting on relations with Washington, Putin said that Russia supports a US-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution on settling the Syrian crisis, presented by US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to Moscow earlier this week.

''In general, we like it,'' Putin said. ''I believe that the Syrian authorities should be OK with it too, although they may not like something in it.''

He added that ''concessions must be made by both sides'' to end the conflict that has killed more than 250,000 and turned millions into refugees since 2011.

He said the Russian approach, ''strangely as it may seem, coincides with the US vision: joint work on a constitution, creation of instruments of control over future early elections, holding the vote and recognizing its results on the basis of that political process.''

''We will help settle this crisis in every possible way,'' Putin said. At the same time, he reaffirmed Russia's stance on the key issue that divided Russia and the West, the fate of Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the Syrians themselves must determine who rules them. ...

Already on his way out of the hall, he was asked about US presidential candidate Donald Trump and praised him as a ''very bright and talented man,'' adding that he welcomes the Republican's pledges to establish closer ties with Russia. ...

[Dec 16, 2015] Cornering Russia, Risking World War III

Notable quotes:
"... "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89. ..."
"... "And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... "TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct. ..."
"... "Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. … ..."
"... In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically. ..."
"... unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world. ..."
"... Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless. ..."
"... As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures , in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war. ..."
"... Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear. ..."
"... In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war. ..."
Consortiumnews
Official Washington is awash with tough talk about Russia and the need to punish President Putin for his role in Ukraine and Syria. But this bravado ignores Russia's genuine national interests, its "red lines," and the risk that "tough-guy-ism" can lead to nuclear war, as Alastair Crooke explains.

We all know the narrative in which we (the West) are seized. It is the narrative of the Cold War: America versus the "Evil Empire." And, as Professor Ira Chernus has written, since we are "human" and somehow they (the USSR or, now, ISIS) plainly are not, we must be their polar opposite in every way.

"If they are absolute evil, we must be the absolute opposite. It's the old apocalyptic tale: God's people versus Satan's. It ensures that we never have to admit to any meaningful connection with the enemy." It is the basis to America's and Europe's claim to exceptionalism and leadership.

And "buried in the assumption that the enemy is not in any sense human like us, is [an] absolution for whatever hand we may have had in sparking or contributing to evil's rise and spread. How could we have fertilized the soil of absolute evil or bear any responsibility for its successes? It's a basic postulate of wars against evil: God's people must be innocent," (and that the evil cannot be mediated, for how can one mediate with evil).

Westerners may generally think ourselves to be rationalist and (mostly) secular, but Christian modes of conceptualizing the world still permeate contemporary foreign policy.

It is this Cold War narrative of the Reagan era, with its correlates that America simply stared down the Soviet Empire through military and – as importantly – financial "pressures," whilst making no concessions to the enemy.

What is sometimes forgotten, is how the Bush neo-cons gave their "spin" to this narrative for the Middle East by casting Arab national secularists and Ba'athists as the offspring of "Satan": David Wurmser was advocating in 1996, "expediting the chaotic collapse" of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that "the phenomenon of Baathism" was, from the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy."

Moreover, apart from being agents of socialism, these states opposed Israel, too. So, on the principle that if these were the enemy, then my enemy's enemy (the kings, Emirs and monarchs of the Middle East) became the Bush neo-cons friends. And they remain such today – however much their interests now diverge from those of the U.S.

The problem, as Professor Steve Cohen, the foremost Russia scholar in the U.S., laments, is that it is this narrative which has precluded America from ever concluding any real ability to find a mutually acceptable modus vivendi with Russia – which it sorely needs, if it is ever seriously to tackle the phenomenon of Wahhabist jihadism (or resolve the Syrian conflict).

What is more, the "Cold War narrative" simply does not reflect history, but rather the narrative effaces history: It looses for us the ability to really understand the demonized "calous tyrant" – be it (Russian) President Vladimir Putin or (Ba'athist) President Bashar al-Assad – because we simply ignore the actual history of how that state came to be what it is, and, our part in it becoming what it is.

Indeed the state, or its leaders, often are not what we think they are – at all. Cohen explains: "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89.

"And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia.

"Many people in politics and in the media don't want to call it this, because if they admit, 'Yes, we are in a Cold War,' they would have to explain what they were doing during the past 20 years. So they instead say, 'No, it is not a Cold War.'

"Here is my next point. This new Cold War has all of the potential to be even more dangerous than the preceding 40-year Cold War, for several reasons. First of all, think about it. The epicentre of the earlier Cold War was in Berlin, not close to Russia. There was a vast buffer zone between Russia and the West in Eastern Europe.

"Today, the epicentre is in Ukraine, literally on Russia's borders. It was the Ukrainian conflict that set this off, and politically Ukraine remains a ticking time bomb. Today's confrontation is not only on Russia's borders, but it's in the heart of Russian-Ukrainian 'Slavic civilization.' This is a civil war as profound in some ways as was America's Civil War."

Cohen continued: "My next point: and still worse – You will remember that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Washington and Moscow developed certain rules-of-mutual conduct. They saw how dangerously close they had come to a nuclear war, so they adopted "No-Nos,' whether they were encoded in treaties or in unofficial understandings. Each side knew where the other's red line was. Both sides tripped over them on occasion but immediately pulled back because there was a mutual understanding that there were red lines.

"TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct.

"Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. …

"My next point is a question: Who is responsible for this new Cold War? I don't ask this question because I want to point a finger at anyone. The position of the current American political media establishment is that this new Cold War is all Putin's fault – all of it, everything. We in America didn't do anything wrong. At every stage, we were virtuous and wise and Putin was aggressive and a bad man. And therefore, what's to rethink? Putin has to do all of the rethinking, not us."

These two narratives, the Cold War narrative, and the neocons' subsequent "spin" on it: i.e. Bill Kristol's formulation (in 2002) that precisely because of its Cold War "victory," America could, and must, become the "benevolent global hegemon," guaranteeing and sustaining the new American-authored global order – an "omelette that cannot be made without breaking eggs" – converge and conflate in Syria, in the persons of President Assad and President Putin.

President Obama is no neocon, but he is constrained by the global hegemon legacy, which he must either sustain, or be labeled as the arch facilitator of America's decline. And the President is also surrounded by R2P ("responsibility-to-protect") proselytizers, such as Samantha Power, who seem to have convinced the President that "the tyrant" Assad's ouster would puncture and collapse the Wahhabist jihadist balloon, allowing "moderate" jihadists such as Ahrar al-Sham to finish off the deflated fragments of the punctured ISIS balloon.

In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. President Obama privately may understand the nature and dangers of the Wahhabist cultural revolution, but seems to adhere to the conviction that everything will change if only President Assad steps down. The Gulf States said the same about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. He has gone (for now), but what changed? ISIS got stronger.

Of course if we think of ISIS as evil, for evil's sake, bent on mindless, whimsical slaughter, "what a foolish task it obviously [would be] to think about the enemy's actual motives. After all, to do so would be to treat them as humans, with human purposes arising out of history. It would smack of sympathy for the devil. Of course," Professor Chernus continues, "this means that, whatever we might think of their actions, we generally ignore a wealth of evidence that the Islamic State's fighters couldn't be more human or have more comprehensible motivations."

Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically.

America lies far away from Syria and the Middle East, and as Professor Stephen Cohen notes, "unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world."

It is a meme of perpetual national insecurity, of perpetual fears about America's standing and of challenges to its standing, Professor Chernus suggests.

But Europe is not "far away"; it lies on Syria's doorstep. It is also neighbor to Russia. And in this connection, it is worth pondering Professor Cohen's last point: Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless.

Cohen again:

"The false idea [has taken root] that the nuclear threat ended with the Soviet Union: In fact, the threat became more diverse and difficult. This is something the political elite forgot. It was another disservice of the Clinton Administration (and to a certain extent the first President Bush in his re-election campaign) saying that the nuclear dangers of the preceding Cold War era no longer existed after 1991. The reality is that the threat grew, whether by inattention or accident, and is now more dangerous than ever."

As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures, in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war.

Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear.

In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war.

Alastair Crooke is a British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West. [This article also appeared at the Conflicts Forum's Web site and is republished with permission.]

[Dec 03, 2015] It's a pretty tough situation for Putin

Recently annonced: Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline
marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile, December 3, 2015 at 4:39 am

Just announced:

Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline

Earlier, during his address to the nation, the Evil One questioned the sanity of the Turkish political leadership, stressing that Russia is nor criticising the Turkish nation for the recent downturn in Russo-Turksh relationships.

marknesop, December 3, 2015 at 7:37 am

Washington will be delighted, as it was one of the hoped-for consequences of the major downturn in relations. Hoped for by Washington and Brussels, I mean. Brussels will now ramp up its rhetoric against Nord Stream II, and if the coalition building it have not got all their ducks in a row the EC will be all too ready to put a stop to it. The objective will be leaving Russia no option but to continue transit through Ukraine, because the transit fees are vital to its solvency. The EU can't afford to give it $2 Billion a year for nothing for as far as the eye can see.

kirill, December 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm

As I posted elsewhere, Russia needs to make a formal announcement that the transit of gas via Ukraine will stop at the end of 2016 regardless of the state of alternative routes. Brussels can then go and eat shit.

likbez, December 3, 2015 at 8:21 pm

It's a pretty tough situation for Putin. No friends anywhere. Everybody want a peace of Russia economically or otherwise. The situation reminds me a Russian cruiser Varyag at the Battle of Chemulpo Bay with the Japanese squadron of Admiral Uriu.

Fledging political alliance of Turkey and Ukraine is not a very good development. Also while economic sanctions are not that damaging to Russia per se as they are for Turkey, they still increase isolation of Russia. Exactly what the USA wanted from the very beginning.

So this whole incident with shooting down Russian Su-24 looks like another victory of the US diplomacy in its efforts to isolate Russia. And it might well be a plot similar to MH17 plot, if you wish. It does not matter if Erdogan acted on his own initiative or with gentle encouragement. The net result is the same.

Also a new Saudi leadership is a pretty impulsive and aggressive folk. And the are definitely adamantly anti-Russian.

[Dec 02, 2015] BOMBSHELL Ambush of Russian Bomber Was Guided by US Reconnaissance

Looks like Obama revenge to Putin for entering Syria...
Notable quotes:
"... The American E-3A was supposed to determine the activity of the Su-24M2s onboard targeting radar, to determine if it was in search mode or if it had already locked on to a target and was processing launch data. It is known that the AWACS can direct the activity of aircraft in battle, conveying information to their avionics and flight computers. ..."
"... This plane [the F-16CJ] had been specifically built for Turkey. Its distinctive feature is a computer that controls a new, AN/APG-68 radar system, and which fulfills the role of a copilot-navigator. ..."
"... Indeed, the interception accuracy of the F-16CJ fighters was augmented by ground-based U.S. Patriot air defense systems, which are deployed in Turkey, or more precisely, their multirole AN/MPQ-53 radars. The Patriot can work with an E-3 or with MENTOR spy satellites, and it cant be ruled out that the satellite assets involved the Geosat space system as well. ..."
"... The flight trajectory of the F-16CJ indicates a precision interception of its target by means of triangulation: A pair of E-3s plus the Patriots air defense radar plus the geostationary MENTOR spy satellites plus, possibly, the Geosat space system. ..."
"... Of course. A pair of F-16CJs flew to the [missile] launch zone and, at a distance of 4-6 kilometers, practically point blank!, launched an AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile into the rear hemisphere of our Russian bomber. Besides which, the AN/APG-68 onboard radar of the fighter which launched the missile, was working in "target illumination" mode. That is, it turned on at the moment of launch, and turned off as soon as the missile definitively locked on to its target. ..."
"... The Turks nonetheless committed one mistake, which led to their provocation not quite working out. The F-16CJ went out on its interception two minutes late, when the Su-24M2 had already left the disputed 68-kilometer zone in the north of Syria [this may be referring to the Turks self-styled no-fly-zone against Assad]; to leave it required at most 1.5 minutes. But the "kill" command to the F-16CJ had not been revoked; thus the missile launch was carried out a bit further than the intended point. This is confirmed by the fact that the [Turkish TV] footage of the Su-24M2s fall was planned to be filmed from both Syrian territory and Turkish territory; however, the "Syrian footage" is more detailed. It appears that this saved our navigator. He was able to go into the woods and wait for a rescue team. ..."
russia-insider.com

A Russian military expert and columnist of the journal Arsenal of the Fatherland explains the details of the downing of the bomber and why not all went smoothly in an interview to the news agency Regnum

How did it all happen?

A U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS plane took off on 24 November from the Preveza airbase in Greece. A second E-3A of the Saudi Arabian air force took off from the Riyadh airbase. Both planes were executing a common task-determining the precise location of Russian aircraft. It is they that picked the "victim."

The American E-3A was supposed to determine the activity of the Su-24M2's onboard targeting radar, to determine if it was in search mode or if it had already locked on to a target and was processing launch data. It is known that the AWACS can direct the activity of aircraft in battle, conveying information to their avionics and flight computers.

That is, to determine how defenseless was our plane?

As it turns out, yes. As we know, the Su-24M2 was returning from its mission, and its flight computer was operating in "navigation" mode in tandem with the GLONASS [Russian GPS system.] It was returning to base and was not preparing for action. The whole time, the E-3s were transferring detailed information about the Su-24M2 to a pair of Turkish F-16CJ's. This plane [the F-16CJ] had been specifically built for Turkey. Its distinctive feature is a computer that controls a new, AN/APG-68 radar system, and which fulfills the role of a copilot-navigator.

But this information is obviously not enough to precision-strike a small target. Was something else used?

Indeed, the interception accuracy of the F-16CJ fighters was augmented by ground-based U.S. Patriot air defense systems, which are deployed in Turkey, or more precisely, their multirole AN/MPQ-53 radars. The Patriot can work with an E-3 or with MENTOR spy satellites, and it can't be ruled out that the satellite assets involved the Geosat space system as well.

The flight trajectory of the F-16CJ indicates a precision interception of its target by means of triangulation: A pair of E-3s plus the Patriot's air defense radar plus the geostationary MENTOR spy satellites plus, possibly, the Geosat space system.

Besides which, the E-3s provided guidance as to the location of our plane in the air; they determined its route, speed, and the status of its weapons control systems; and the Patriot's air defense radar together with the MENTOR spy satellite provided telemetry on the SU-24M2's movement relative to the ground surface-that is, it provided a precise prediction as to where our plane would be visible relative to the mountainous terrain.

So it turns out that the Turkish fighters knew with absolutely certainty where to wait in ambush for our plane?

Of course. A pair of F-16CJ's flew to the [missile] launch zone and, at a distance of 4-6 kilometers, practically point blank!, launched an AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile into the rear hemisphere of our Russian bomber. Besides which, the AN/APG-68 onboard radar of the fighter which launched the missile, was working in "target illumination" mode. That is, it turned on at the moment of launch, and turned off as soon as the missile definitively locked on to its target.

Did our pilots have a chance to save their plane?

No. The Su-24M2 crew's probability of escaping destruction was equal to zero…

…Turkey does not have its own capabilities for such a detailed and very precise operation. And don't forget about the second E-3, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The whole scenario was very fast-moving, lasting just seconds.

Did it really happen that smoothly?

The Turks nonetheless committed one mistake, which led to their provocation not quite working out. The F-16CJ went out on its interception two minutes late, when the Su-24M2 had already left the disputed 68-kilometer zone in the north of Syria [this may be referring to the Turk's self-styled no-fly-zone against Assad]; to leave it required at most 1.5 minutes. But the "kill" command to the F-16CJ had not been revoked; thus the missile launch was carried out a bit further than the intended point. This is confirmed by the fact that the [Turkish TV] footage of the Su-24M2's fall was planned to be filmed from both Syrian territory and Turkish territory; however, the "Syrian footage" is more detailed. It appears that this saved our navigator. He was able to go into the woods and wait for a rescue team.

[Dec 02, 2015] Russia Presents Detailed Evidence Of ISIS-Turkey Oil Trade

Notable quotes:
"... Now obviously, conclusive evidence that Ankara is knowingly facilitating the sale of ISIS crude will probably be hard to come by, at least in the short-term, but the silly thing about Erdogans pronouncement is that were talking about a man who was willing to plunge his country into civil war over a few lost seats in Parliament. The idea that he would ever step down is patently absurd. ..."
"... Whats critical is that the world gets the truth about whos financing and facilitating Raqqas Rockefellers. If a NATO member is supporting this, and if the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks for 14 months as part of an understanding with Erdogan, well then we have a problem. ..."
"... In the opening address, the Deputy says the ISIS oil trade reaches the highest levels of Turkeys government. He also says Erdogan wouldnt resign if his face was smeared with stolen Syrian oil. Antonov then blasts Ankara for arresting journalists and mocks Erdogans lovely family oil business. Antonov even calls on the journalists of the world to get involved and help Russia expose and destroy the sources of terrorist financing. ..."
"... I might be too harsh, but at the hands of the Turkish military killed our comrades. The cynicism of the Turkish leadership is unlimited. Look what theyre doing ?! Climbed to a foreign country, it shamelessly robbed. And if the owners interfere, then they have to be addressed. ..."
"... No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business! ..."
"... National intelligence agencies watch Facebook, Twitter, Google and other search engines to see if they have to do damage control. If a few sites come out with articles implicating Bilal but the little people dont do many searches for him or re-tweet links, then theres no reason to react. They simply ignore the story. ..."
"... The government defines the narrative, and MSM stenographers fill in the pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Google are checked to see if they had the desired effect. They can also use a bit more direct techniques like massaging the Google search result rankings or blowing away Facebook and Twitter accounts they dont like. Israel is insane about collecting this data from Americans and reacting. Uncle Sugar isnt going to cough up that free $3 billion a year handout to them if the people are in the streets with pitchforks and torches. They are especially interested in de-ranking Google results that make Israel look bad, and promoting sites that deliver the message they want. Google is the worst search engine to look for Israeli current events. ..."
"... Obama Administration Supporting Islamic State -- OASIS. It certainly is if youre a terrorist rebel or well-connected oil pimp... ..."
"... The US made a deal with OPEC: the US would help to remove Assad, and in return, OPEC would dump oil to weaken Russia and Iran, fulfilling PNAC/Cheneys pet dream of consolidating the remaining oil reserves under US-friendly control. ISIS was a tool to that end. ..."
"... Now that the cat is out of the bag, now that Chinas overdue correction has been triggered, now that Brazil and Canada know who is largely responsible for their collapsing economies, now that Europe knows why they are overrun by refugees, I wonder how friendly those countries will be moving forward. ..."
"... As I read it, according to traditional international law, the Russian Federation may legally seize Erdogans Maltese-flagged neutral tankers carrying ISIS crude oil, because that crude oil constitutes a significant portion of ISIS war making potential, that tanker then effectively constituting an enemy merchant vessel, with the tankers subsequent condemnation in Russian prize courts, as the capturing belligerent power. ..."
"... A former police commander from Tajikistan was featured in an ISIS video recently where he admitted he was trained by the U.S. State Department and former military contractor Blackwater all the way up until last year. ..."
"... It was Turkeys national intelligence agency, known as MIT, that first organized Syrian military defectors into Western-backed groups under the banner of the Free Syrian Army. ..."
"... Free Syrian Army factions still convene on Turkish soil in the Joint Operations Center, a CIA-led intelligence hub that gives vetted rebels training as well as U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles used to destroy Syrian army tanks and armored units. ..."
"... Islamist groups, however, have benefited from Turkeys pro-opposition policy as well. In May, the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published video from 2014 showing customs agents impounding a truck owned by the MIT. The trucks manifest said it was carrying humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Instead it was bearing a cache of ammunition and shells the newspaper said were destined for Islamist rebels. The videos release caused a furor. Erdogan vowed to prosecute Cumhuriyet, a threat he carried out Friday when authorities arrested two of the papers journalists on charges of espionage and aiding a terrorist organization. ..."
"... According to a 2015 United Nations study, two border crossings controlled by a faction of the Army of Conquest handle more than 300 trucks a day, a figure that exceeds prewar levels. The traffic yields an estimated $660,000 a day. ..."
Zero Hedge
On Monday, Turkey's sultan President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said something funny. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's contention that Russia has additional proof of Turkey's participation in Islamic State's illicit crude trade, Erdogan said he would resign if anyone could prove the accusations.

Now obviously, conclusive evidence that Ankara is knowingly facilitating the sale of ISIS crude will probably be hard to come by, at least in the short-term, but the silly thing about Erdogan's pronouncement is that we're talking about a man who was willing to plunge his country into civil war over a few lost seats in Parliament. The idea that he would ever "step down" is patently absurd.

But that's not what's important. What's critical is that the world gets the truth about who's financing and facilitating "Raqqa's Rockefellers." If a NATO member is supporting this, and if the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks for 14 months as part of an understanding with Erdogan, well then we have a problem. For those who need a review, see the following four pieces:

Unfortunately for Ankara, The Kremlin is on a mission to blow this story wide open now that Turkey has apparently decided it's ok to shoot down Russian fighter jets. On Wednesday, we get the latest from Russia, where the Defense Ministry has just finished a briefing on the Islamic State oil trade. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Turkey may be in trouble.

First, here's the bullet point summary via Reuters:

That's the Cliff's Notes version and the full statement from Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov is below. Let us be the first to tell you, Antonov did not hold back.

In the opening address, the Deputy says the ISIS oil trade reaches the highest levels of Turkey's government. He also says Erdogan wouldn't resign if his face was smeared with stolen Syrian oil. Antonov then blasts Ankara for arresting journalists and mocks Erdogan's "lovely family oil business." Antonov even calls on the journalists of the world to "get involved" and help Russia "expose and destroy the sources of terrorist financing."

"Today, we are presenting only some of the facts that confirm that a whole team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from their neighbors is operating in the region," Antonov continues, setting up a lengthy presentation in which the MoD shows photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes and maps detailing the trafficking of stolen oil. The clip is presented here with an English voice-over. Enjoy.

... ... ...

Oh, and for good measure, Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy says the US is not bombing ISIS oil trucks.

* * *

Full statement from Anatoly Antonov (translated)

At a briefing for the media, "the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the fight against international terrorism. The new data "

International terrorism - is the main threat of our time. This threat is not illusory but real, and many countries, primarily Russia, knows this firsthand. The notorious "Is Islamic state" - the absolute leader of the terrorist international. This is a rearing monster of international terrorism can be countered. And you can win. Over the past two months, Aerospace Russian forces is clearly demonstrated.

We are firmly convinced that victory over LIH need to deliver a powerful and devastating blow to the sources of its funding, as repeatedly mentioned by President Vladimir Putin. Terrorism has no money - is a beast without teeth. Oil revenues are a major source of terrorist activity in Syria. They earn about $ 2 billion. Dollars annually, spending this money on hiring fighters around the world, providing them with weapons, equipment and weapons. That's why so LIH protects thieves oil infrastructure in Syria and Iraq.

The main consumer of stolen from legitimate owners - Syria and Iraq - the oil is Turkey. According to the data entered in this criminal business involved the highest political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family.

We have repeatedly talked about the dangers of flirting with terrorists. It's like that stokes. The fire from one country can spill over to others. This situation we are seeing in the Middle East. Today, we present only part of the facts, confirming that the region has a team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from the neighbors.

This oil in large numbers on an industrial scale, for the living pipelines from thousands of oil tankers entering the territory of Turkey. We are absolutely convinced today present you the hard facts about what the final destination of the stolen oil - Turkey. There is a large number of media representatives, and Our briefing will see more of your colleagues. In this regard, I would like to say the following. We know and appreciate the work of journalists. We know that in the journalistic community, many courageous, fearless people honestly do its job. Today, we have clearly shown you how the illegal trade in oil, the result of which - the financing of terrorism. Provided concrete evidence that, in our opinion, may be the subject of investigative journalism.

We are confident that the truth with your help will, will find its way. We know the price to Erdogan. He has already been caught in a lie again Turkish journalists who opened Turkey delivery of arms and ammunition to militants under the guise of humanitarian convoys. For this imprisoned journalists.

Do not resign Turkish leaders, particularly Mr. Erdogan, and did not recognize, even if their faces will be smeared by oil thieves. I might be too harsh, but at the hands of the Turkish military killed our comrades. The cynicism of the Turkish leadership is unlimited. Look what they're doing ?! Climbed to a foreign country, it shamelessly robbed. And if the owners interfere, then they have to be addressed.

I stress that Erdogan's resignation is not our goal. It is - it is the people of Turkey. Our goal and the goal to which we urge you, ladies and gentlemen, - joint action to block the sources of funding for terrorism. We will continue to provide evidence of robbery by Turkey of its neighbors. Maybe I'll be too straightforward, but the control of these thieves in business can be entrusted only to the most close people.

No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business!

This, in general, may elsewhere? Well, once again, of course, such cases can not be charging anyone, only the closest people. Votes this fact in the Western media we do not see much, but it sure can not hide the truth. Yes, of course, dirty petrodollars will work. I am sure that there are now discussions about the fact that everything you see here, - falsification. Well. If it did not - let be allowed in those places that we showed journalists.

It is obvious that today the publicity was devoted only part of the information about the monstrous crimes of the Turkish elites who directly finance international terrorism. We believe that any sane journalist should fight this plague of the XXI century. The world experience has repeatedly argued that the objective journalism is able to be an effective and formidable tool in the fight against various financial corruption schemes. We invite colleagues to investigative journalism on the disclosure of financial schemes and supplies oil from the terrorists to the consumers. Especially since the oil produced in the controlled militants territories in transit through Turkish ports shipped to other regions. For its part, the Ministry of Defense of Russia will continue to disclose new evidence on the supply of terrorists oil to foreign countries and to talk about the conduct of aerospace forces of Russia operations in Syria.Let's unite our efforts. We will destroy the sources of financing of terrorism in Syria, as you get involved in the kind of work abroad. "

Latina Lover

Doesn't matter what evidence Putin offers, the USSA Minion Mainstream Media liars will bury, distort or outright lie to defend Turkey. If Putin wanted any media play, he should photoshop the detailed evidence on a picture of Kim Kardasians ass.

The good news is that the Turks will figure it out, along with the rest of the world.

The9thDoctor

The main difference between al-CIAduh and CIsisA is that even the dumbest of the dumb have figured out that ISIL is controlled and equipped by Western Intelligence.

two hoots

John Kerry can explain this....to his own satisfaction.

Gaius Frakkin' ...

I've already seen more evidence for ISIS-Turkey oil trading than Saddam's WMDs... still waiting for that BTW.

farflungstar

NATO cunts supporting terrorists deserve whatever they get.

There was a lull when the Russians made their entrance into Syria, as Thinktank Land had to recalibrate their bullshit and get on message for the sheep. A couple weeks later the AmeriKans are crying crocodile tears over civilians and Russia killing kinder, gentler terrorists rather than ISIS.

LOL AmeriKans concerned over civilian casualties.

Kirk2NCC1701

And yet, we are still suppose to "Support Our Troops"

If they had 'truth in advertising', they'd call it "Support Our Storm-Troopers", to serve the Empire

Wise up, people. We have a MERCENARY ARMY -- by Definition.

MERCENARY =

a. You Volunteered 1,

b. You are getting Paid,

c. You have a Contract (with or w/o a Retirement Package)

d. After said Contract has expired, and if Released from further Duty (at sole discretion of Employer), you may enter a new Contract with a private 'security firm', i.e. "Mercs R US", or retire to pursue other activities (work for Gov.US, or one of its para-Gov units known as NGOs). In some cases, you may be so disillusioned or burned out, that you actually join the private sector. In some rare cases, assuming you haven't killed yourself, you may actually have become an open or closet anti-war activist. Which makes you a Born-Again Citizen, and a genuine Hero. If you are married with children, you are a mutha-facking hero, aka... 'Dad'.

[1] It matters not/naught if you're a well-meaning 'Patriot' (10%), a Economic Desperado (85%) or a Closet Psycho (5%). They'll take you even if you're not a US Citizen. In which case, you can become one after a mere 2 years, and in the Naturalization Process their Look-back Window is literally 2 years. I know this for fact. If you want to challenge me on this, you'll have to put your money where your mouth is, and pony up some serious Cash/BTC

McMolotov

For people of a certain age, "Russia is evil" is their default setting. They literally had that message pounded into their brains for decades, and unless they frequent alternative media sites, it's hard to overcome.

I see it with my parents. I can talk to them about this stuff for a few hours and gradually get them to see glimmers of the truth, but they usually completely revert to their normal thinking by the next time I see them. It doesn't help that they have Fox News on all the time.

rwe2late

UndergroundPost

Su-24 you say?

There is fair certainty that the SU-24 was hit (inside Syria) by radar-guided missiles(s) fired by the Turk jets,

and the missiles were guided and the SU-24 targeted by airborne US AWACS.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bombshell-turkish-attack-russian-s...

The Chief

Im not sure which is worse, domestic frackers and their rape of the the american consumer and retiree with ridiculous oil and gas prices, junk bond sales to pensioners, etc, or ISIS. ISIS, in my view is no threat at all. These are contractors working for deep state functionaries intent on a long-term rape of the global population...but really, just hoodlums intent on taking a vig from illegal oil sales. Just ask Bush, Cheney, and now the democratic machine. New guys at the trough.

Frackers, however, are scum of the fucking earth. The business doesnt work unless oil prices are high. Fuck that. They pay their bills with a junk bond ponzi.

As for frackers themselves...its a tiny fraction of the workforce. Go be auto mechanics or go back to selling meth, fuckers.

847328_3527

Canada could take 50,000 refugees by end of 2016

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/governor-general-urges-support-fo...

The Canadian Gubmint will need to cut benefits to its citizens for the benefit of newcomers just as Barry wants to cut SS for Senior Americans so he can import thousands more.

"Yes we can!"

kralizec

Must be Vlad is daring the Turk to invoke Artcile 21 of Montreux: Erdogan has a trump card against Putin that would transform the Syrian war

You have to admire their bold manner, they are fearless.

They love warning NATO to back off. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-nato-montenegro-invite-111359017.html

But who doesn't? They are a paper tiger, seems pointless to join them.

They get to build on newly seized territory ala China. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-building-military-bases-islands-claimed-jap...

The annexation of Crimea and Donbas is secure. Oil, gas and currency deals with China, India...nuclear deals with Iran.

And nobody is stopping him. Who can? That Muzzie faggot pretender in Washington? The toothless NATO police? The bed-wetting Euro's submitting to Islam?

Ha!

It is a de facto Russian/Chinese world now. Most still have no clue. The kabuki is so strong, the illusion of states and freedom and wealth...all an illusion.

Pah, who cares? Put on the DWTS, snort some lines and pop the bubbly! All is well!

Life of Illusion

Kralizec, you need to complete the illusion......wheres the oil goes when in Turkey.....

http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/news/Pages/210714-goldman-sachs-buys-turkish-petkim-aegean-port.aspx

Goldman Sachs buys into Turkish Petkim's Aegean port 21.07.2014

Hurriyet Daily News – Global leader US investment firm Goldman Sachs has become a partner in Turkey's largest integrated port, operated by petrochemicals maker Petkim, in a deal that will boost Petkim's plans to develop the port as the largest in the Aegean region.

Petkim announced that it has reached a preliminary agreement to sell its 30 percent stake in Petkim Limanc?l?k (Petlim) for USD 250 million, after months of talks beginning in February of this year.

Petkim and Petlim are controlled by the Turkish branch of Azeri energy giant SOCAR. Petlim was founded to run the financial operations of Petkim's port in the Alia?a district of the Aegean province of ?zmir.

"For one of the world's biggest investors to become a partner in our port company means approval of the value and finance of our project," SOCAR Turkey President Kenan Yavuz said, speaking after a ceremony to mark the signing of the deal

Urban Redneck

The yahoos at Yahoo!News should really stick to message boards and perhaps one day expand to fringe blogging (if they can ever pull their heads of their asses). Neither the Russians nor the Turks are interested in seeing the Straights closed.

The purpose of the Montreaux Convention is to prevent another Russo-Turkish war by guaranteeing Russia (and other States that border the Black Sea) will have full military and commercial access to the Straights, while foreign powers will have only limited access. In return for providing this guarantee Turkey was allowed to build fortification to support its obligations under the treaty, while maintaining Turkey's natural right to self defense.

Any attempt by Turkey to prevent Russian access to the Straights, is an act of blockade, and invites either a blockade of Turkish ports (and pipelines) on the Mediterranean, if not another Russo Turkish war. Closing the Straights is simply not some trump card, and even the Sultan of Ankara isn't dumb enough to view such an action as a step towards extending his grip on power.

moonshadow

Putin with "checkmate". Erdogan can only flip the board over and walk away muttering to the int'l crowd somethin bout "Putin...cheater". Great article, Antonov's comments priceless, and video worth a smirk a minute

Noplebian

The NATO led escalation and it's push towards WW3, continues unabated……

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

JustObserving

Will Erdogan resign?

How about detailed evidence on the shooting of the Russian jet?
BOMBSHELL: Ambush of Russian Bomber Was Guided by US Reconnaissance

A U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS plane took off on 24 November from the Preveza airbase in Greece. A second E-3A of the Saudi Arabian air force took off from the Riyadh airbase. Both planes were executing a common task-determining the precise location of Russian aircraft. It is they that picked the "victim."

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bombshell-turkish-attack-russian-s...

JustObserving

Erdogan and his oil-smuggling son, Bilal, will be welcomed as heroes in Neocon-controlled Washington. Argentina and Paraguay are now for minor criminals only.


Calmyourself

Erdogan you Islamist bastard Ataturk is laughing at you from beyond the grave, GTFO

edit: why the hell has no one dropped cluster munitions on that truck park? US has been there a year and just missed it? Apparently Obama's (Stalin's) purge of the military has been quite successful because none of them have any balls.

RockySpears

Because cluster bombs are illegal. Not that this is exactly what they were designed for, but people cried about the little bomblets that failed to go off and were subsequently "ploughed" up by civilian farmers.

War is bad, but sometimes it is made worse by the intention to do good.

Same as Chemical weapons, for the most part, they kill no one, they just incapacitate. And anyway, why is a 1,000lb of TNT NOT chemical?

Calmyourself

Only against civilians and nobody signed on anyway.

"During Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively, dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against armor, artillery, and personnel targets. The remainder were dropped by Air Force (5,346) and Navy (6,813) aircraft.[1]"

Chairman

2003-2006: United States and allies attacked Iraq with 13,000 cluster munitions, containing two million submunitions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. At multiple times, coalition forces used cluster munitions in residential areas, and the country remains among the most contaminated by this day, bomblets posing a threat to both US military personnel in the area, and local civilians.

When these weapons were fired on Baghdad on April 7, 2003 many of the bomblets failed to explode on impact. Afterward, some of them exploded when touched by civilians. USA Today reported that "the Pentagon presented a misleading picture during the war of the extent to which cluster weapons were being used and of the civilian casualties they were causing." On April 26, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the US had caused only one civilian casualty.

margincall575

Follow up

Breaking: Did the US and Saudis use AWACS to help target the SU-24?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/breaking-did-the-us-and-saudis-u...

zeroboris

I used to read the soviet newspaper Pravda and am reading modern western media. And know what? Pravda was many times more truthful. Many of us, Russians, didn't understand this in soviet times (we had no access to western papers). But now I can tell this without any doubt. Most of modern Russian papers are less truthful too.


ThanksChump

I'd be surprised if the WPost ignores this. They did cover the Iraqi claim that the US is backing ISIS.

Paveway IV

National intelligence agencies watch Facebook, Twitter, Google and other search engines to see if they have to do damage control. If a few sites come out with articles implicating Bilal but the 'little people' don't do many searches for him or re-tweet links, then there's no reason to react. They simply ignore the story. If they notice enough little people start Googling Bilial and illegal oil sales or retweeting damaging articles, then they let the boss know. The U.S. MSM is ordered to send out a few stories quoting each other to spin it one way or another.

The government defines the narrative, and MSM stenographers fill in the pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Google are checked to see if they had the desired effect. They can also use a bit more direct techniques like massaging the Google search result rankings or blowing away Facebook and Twitter accounts they don't like. Israel is insane about collecting this data from Americans and reacting. Uncle Sugar isn't going to cough up that free $3 billion a year handout to them if the people are in the streets with pitchforks and torches. They are especially interested in de-ranking Google results that make Israel look bad, and promoting sites that deliver the message they want. Google is the worst search engine to look for Israeli current events.

You'll notice none of the MSM ISIS oil sales articles will mention U.S. stooge Barzani's involvement, and they for damn sure won't mention Israel as a destination for much of the stolen oil. They'll simply steer the narrative to focus on Turkish oil sales, and somehow blame it on Assad.

krispkritter

Obama Administration Supporting Islamic State --> OASIS. It certainly is if you're a terrorist 'rebel' or well-connected oil pimp...

ThanksChump

Occam's Razor.

The US made a deal with OPEC: the US would help to remove Assad, and in return, OPEC would dump oil to weaken Russia and Iran, fulfilling PNAC/Cheney's pet dream of consolidating the remaining oil reserves under US-friendly control. ISIS was a tool to that end.

That's the easy obvious part.

Less obvious is the tie to Ukraine. Ukraine should have been "converted" after Assad was driven out, and not before. This has me confused. Was it only a mistake in timing?

Now that the cat is out of the bag, now that China's overdue correction has been triggered, now that Brazil and Canada know who is largely responsible for their collapsing economies, now that Europe knows why they are overrun by refugees, I wonder how friendly those countries will be moving forward.

Mike Masr

https://www.rt.com/news/324252-russian-military-news-briefing/

US pal and NATO ally Turkey

  • 12:26 GMT

    2,000 fighters, 250 vehicles and over 120 tons of ammo have been sent in the past weeks from Turkey to terrorists in Syria, fuelling the violence in the country.

  • 12:31 GMT

    Russia cannot comprehend that such a large-scale business as oil smuggling could not have been noticed by the Turkish authorities. Russia concludes that the Turkish leadership is directly involved in the smuggling.

  • 12:35 GMT

    Russia doesn't expect Turkish President Erdogan to resign in the face of the new evidence, even though he had promised to do so. His resignation is not Russia's goal and is a matter for the Turkish people.

SoDamnMad

I' m watching the rebroadcast live right now. Video of all these trucks. Damn good video and stills. Gee, why can't the USSA produce these(oh yeah, the MSM isn't allowed to show the truth. Better to show some college campus protest rather than the truth about whose side is really trying to stop terrorism.) Maybe our reconaissence equipment isn't as good as Russian equipment and our satelittes can't find the Turkish-Syrian border. Never seen so many trucks back to back, even on the Jersey Turnpike or the Long Beach Freeway before a holiday when the economy was good.s a lot of bucks going into Erdogan son's pocket (and Israel's)

fel.temp.reparatio

Erdogan: "So what if the MIT trucks were filled with weapons?"

Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

Statements available in English here:

http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/news/more.htm?id=12070726@cmsArticle

Duc888

....another interesting point here...

http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/11/26/raqqas-rockefellers...

"The Islamic State group uses millions of dollars in oil revenues to expand and manage vast areas under its control, home to around five million civilians.

IS sells Iraqi and Syrian oil for a very low price to Kurdish and Turkish smuggling networks and mafias, who label it and sell it on as barrels from the Kurdistan Regional Government.

It is then most frequently transported from Turkey to Israel, via knowing or unknowing middlemen, according to al-Araby's investigation.

The Islamic State group has told al-Araby that it did not intentionally sell oil to Israel, blaming agents along the route to international markets."

no1wonder

Official media release (and speech translation into English) by Russia's Defense Ministry:

http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/brief.htm

cn13

This story is finally hitting the MSM in the U.S. after being reported here for the past week. The powers to be must have needed time to get their lies straight. Anyway, check out the comment section on Yahoo regarding this story. It is almost 100% pro-Russian and anti-NATO/U.S.

I have never seen anything like this before.

The U.S. public has lost total confidence in the government. They are finally catching on to the lies and deceit of those in power.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-proof-turkey-main-consumer-islamic-state-124337872.html

MadVladtheconquerer

Looks like Putin is simply trying to maintain what little remains of the status quo in Syria:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/is-russia-fighting-isil-or-occupying-sy...

gregga777

As I read it, according to traditional international law, the Russian Federation may legally seize Erdogan's Maltese-flagged "neutral" tankers carrying ISIS' crude oil, because that crude oil constitutes a significant portion of ISIS' war making potential, that tanker then effectively constituting an enemy merchant vessel, with the tanker's subsequent condemnation in Russian prize courts, as the capturing belligerent power.

I hope that the Russian Federation's Navy seizes all of Erdogan's tankers, bankrupting Erdogan's company. Let them then sit in port for the next several years awaiting disposition in a Russian prize court.

dot_bust

Then there's this rather enlightening bit of information:

ISIS Colonel was Trained By Blackwater and U.S. State Department for 11 Years

A former police commander from Tajikistan was featured in an ISIS video recently where he admitted he was trained by the U.S. State Department and former military contractor Blackwater all the way up until last year.

http://theantimedia.org/isis-colonel-trained-by-blackwater-and-us-state-...

Amun

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-turkey-20151201-stor...

"It was Turkey's national intelligence agency, known as MIT, that first organized Syrian military defectors into Western-backed groups under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.

Free Syrian Army factions still convene on Turkish soil in the Joint Operations Center, a CIA-led intelligence hub that gives vetted rebels training as well as U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles used to destroy Syrian army tanks and armored units.

Islamist groups, however, have benefited from Turkey's pro-opposition policy as well. In May, the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published video from 2014 showing customs agents impounding a truck owned by the MIT. The truck's manifest said it was carrying humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Instead it was bearing a cache of ammunition and shells the newspaper said were destined for Islamist rebels. The video's release caused a furor. Erdogan vowed to prosecute Cumhuriyet, a threat he carried out Friday when authorities arrested two of the paper's journalists on charges of espionage and aiding a terrorist organization.

Turkish assistance has been instrumental in empowering the Army of Conquest, a loose coalition of hard-line Islamist factions including Al Nusra Front, which seized control of Idlib province in March in an offensive backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Economic ties also have been forged between Turkey and rebel factions.

According to a 2015 United Nations study, two border crossings controlled by a faction of the Army of Conquest handle more than 300 trucks a day, a figure that exceeds prewar levels. The traffic yields an estimated $660,000 a day. "

[Nov 28, 2015] An Invisible US Hand Leading to War Turkey's Downing of a Russian Jet was an Act of Madness

www.counterpunch.org

In considering the terrifying but also sadly predictable news of a Russian fighter jet being downed by two Turkish fighters, let's start with one almost certain assumption - an assumption that no doubt is also being made by the Russian government: Turkey's action, using US-supplied F-16 planes, was taken with the full knowledge and advance support of the US. In fact, given Turkey's vassal status as a member of US-dominated NATO, it could well be that Ankara was put up to this act of brinksmanship by the US.

... ... ...

Russia - knowing that this is really not about Turkey, but about push-back by the US against growing Russian power and influence, both globally and in the Middle East region - could also choose to respond in a venue where it has more of an advantage, for example in Ukraine, where it could amp up its support for the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, perhaps by downing a Ukrainian military plane, or more broadly, providing air cover to protect those regions. Russia could also, less directly, provide aid to Kurdish rebels in both Syria and in Turkey itself who are fighting against Turkish forces.

... ... ...


It is all terribly dangerous and it is hard to predict where things will lead. One thing seems certain, though. This outrageous shootdown of a Russian plane that was in no way posing a threat to Turkey or Turkish forces, will not end here, because Russia and President Putin cannot allow Turkey and NATO to so blatantly act against Russia and its pilots and go unpunished, particularly as it is Russia that is acting legally in Syria, while the US, Turkey and other nations backing rebel forces there are in all acting blatant violation of international law.

Unless saner heads start prevailing in Washington, this could all quickly spiral into the kind of situation in 1914, where a lot of ill-conceived treaties led to a minor incident in the Balkans turning inexorably into World War I.


Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Nov 27, 2015] Putin Accuses Obama Of Leaking Flight Details To Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... which the US knew about well in advance, ..."
"... It looks like the shootdown was a planned ambush, and they were trying to capture a Russian pilot. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
This is what Putin said:

"We told our US partners in advance where, when at what altitudes our pilots were going to operate. The US-led coalition, which includes Turkey, was aware of the time and place where our planes would operate. And this is exactly where and when we were attacked. Why did we share this information with the Americans? Either they don't control their allies, or they just pass this information left and right without realizing what the consequences of such actions might be. We will have to have a serious talk with our US partners.

In other words, just like in the tragic bombing of the Kunduz hospital by US forces (which has now been attributed to human error), so this time the target was a Russian plane which the US knew about well in advance, was targeted however not by the US itself, but by a NATO and US-alliance member, Turkey.

strannick

America gave ISIS the TOW rocket that exploded Russia's helicopter on a search and rescue mission to save the remaining pilot.

America gave Turkey the co ordinates to shoot down the Russian bomber, so Turkeys corrupt leader could continue profiting from selling oil for ISIS to fund ISIS terrorism.

Putin's patience is what keeps the world from the brink of nuclear war.

God bless and keep Vladimir Putin.

America is a piece of shit nation with a piece of shit president .

America ruins the world to rule it.

God help us all.

turtle

U.S. knew Russian jet flight path: https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30212396/us-knew-flight-path-of-plane-downed...

HowdyDoody

The US says ISIS doesn't have an air force?

Is it April 1 already?

Turkey ,a prime supporter and enabler of ISS, just gagging to open a consulate for ISIS, shot down a Russian aircraft involved in attacking ISIS. That seems like an ISIS airforce attack to me, even if we ignore the fact that the USAF attacks Assad instead of ISIS etc.

socalbeach

Russian MOD briefing on the rescue of the navigator, and other subjects. Terrorists and "other mysterious groups" with "special purpose locators" to find the pilot were eliminated by Russian airstrikes and Syrian artillery. "Western" special forces maybe? It looks like the shootdown was a planned ambush, and they were trying to capture a Russian pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdtQpfwOoSg

Rakshas

I thought this one was funny as well.....

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30178705/suspected-isis-recruiter-bombed-dur...

It's unclear when the footage was filmed, but video shows a man being hit by a strike.

The French launched airstrikes on Islamic State following the tragic Paris attacks, which killed 130 people, but it's unclear if they were responsible for this bomb.

France has since released video of their strikes against ISIS.

It's believed the video was filmed between November 15 and 17, it was uploaded to YouTube on November 18.

O Tempora O Morons

Directly from the troll house

Max Steel
I find it amusing when muritards can't use logic against facts and truth they conveniently
paint others as trolls ( Ever thought why West MSM never reported on CIA disinfo agent
and State Deptt of US trolls , do you think they don't exist? Ha! They do but western
censor media is not allowed to report it even rest Google browser being american will
flash non-usa troll msm articles first.

Western Media is a Troll Army

[Nov 27, 2015] Putin Hard to imagine Turkish gov't unaware of oil supplies from ISIL

Notable quotes:
"... He also said that the shooting down by Turkey of a Russian jet was an act of betrayal by a country Russia considered to be its friend. ..."
www.todayszaman.com

It is hard to imagine that the Turkish government is unaware of oil supplies to Turkey from areas controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday after talks with French leader Francois Hollande.

Putin used the opportunity of the joint news conference with Hollande to repeat his accusations against Turkey of turning a blind eye to oil smuggling by ISIL. He said it was "theoretically possible" that Ankara was unaware of oil supplies entering its territory from ISIL-controlled areas of Syria but added that this was hard to imagine.

He also said that the shooting down by Turkey of a Russian jet was an act of betrayal by a country Russia considered to be its friend.

[Nov 25, 2015] Russia accuses Turkey of hypocrisy after Erdogan admits airspace violation does not justify attack

independent.co.uk

Turkey has been accused of hypocrisy over the downing of a Russian warplane on the Syrian border, after it emerged that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself said "a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack".

The Russian jet which came down on Tuesday morning entered a small sliver of Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, according to the Turkish military's own data, while the Russian defence ministry says the Su-24 bomber was in Syria at all times.

The incident has echoes of a reverse situation in 2012, when the Syrian regime shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom which, it said, entered its airspace off the country's north-east coast.

Then, Turkey spoke of its "rage" at the decision to shoot down the jet, which was on a training flight testing its own country's radar systems.

"A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack", Mr Erdogan said at the time, threatening in response that "every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border… will be assessed as a military threat and treated as a military target".

[Nov 24, 2015] The Russians had it coming to them

Schadenfreude ecstasies of UK conservatives. They are glad that Turkey shot down Russian bomber. Not very surprising as Cameron wanted to ally with ISIS against President Asad forces just two years ago. Comments were not allowed for this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Turks would certainly resist any attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was later denied by Turkish officials. ..."
"... Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. ..."
"... Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict. ..."
Nov 24, 2015 | Telegraph

The challenge now, for Nato as well as for Russia, is to prevent tensions between Moscow and Ankara from spiralling out of control. Turkey's relations with Russia are already strained following Moscow's Syrian intervention, with the Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan warning that Turkey could cut its lucrative energy ties with Russia. The Turks would certainly resist any attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was later denied by Turkish officials.

Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. It is unlikely the Turks would tolerate Russian attacks on their ethnic allies, which could easily lead to direct military confrontation between Russia and Turkey, with all the implications that would have for the Nato alliance, which would then be obliged to defend Turkey's borders.

Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict. He has also made life more difficult for David Cameron, who will tomorrow tell the Commons about his own plans for Britain to participate in the air war against Isil. Like Mr Putin, Mr Cameron says he wants to launch air strikes against Isil in Syria. But, after yesterday, Mr Cameron can be in no doubt that, however he views Mr Putin's role in the conflict, it will most certainly not be that of an ally.

[Nov 24, 2015] Putin's response

marknesop.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7343nXyGS0s

et Al, November 24, 2015 at 5:30 am

A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.

Sultan Erdogan has been served notice. I hope he's bricking it. Let him stew.

It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from western states. It also help him to present NATO with a stark choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground. Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO meeting and not the usual meaningless waffle, he's lost support from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.

et Al, November 24, 2015 at 5:45 am
At about 8:30 he points out that terrorists from Russia are located north of Latakia and could come back to kill Russians.

He mentions stab in the back twice. He's called Turkey as complicit in supporting terrorism in all but direct name and called the shooting down a crime. He's furious.

Still, this is King Abdullah of Jordan, a loyal American ally, coming to Moscow. Crikey.

Moscow Exile, November 24, 2015 at 5:52 am
Abdullah's mother was English, daughter of an officer and gentleman, no less, in the colonial service. That's why old Abdullah is so well house-trained, I guess.
Patient Observer, November 24, 2015 at 6:12 am
Putin's comment characterizing the Turkish action as a "stab in the back" was spot on. As my father used to say in such situations "They just shitted in their mess kit".
Warren, November 24, 2015 at 5:11 am

Moscow Exile, November 24, 2015 at 5:34 am
Good point that he made about the Turks immediately contacting their NATO allies after downing the Russian warplane, which was making no threat against Turkey, and not contacting Russia. "As if we downed a Turkish jet", he says and asks: "Do they want NATO to serve the interests of ISIS?" A stab in the back, he adds, as the Turks are allegedly fighting terrorism in the area together with their NATO partners.
et Al, November 24, 2015 at 7:15 am
BBC's Jonothan Marcus, their chief diplomatic bloke, has just said that the Su-24 may only have crossed Turkish airspace for 15 or 20 seconds so shooting it down looks dodgy and comments that other military analysts point this out and that this is 'browned off' Turkey telling the Russians to keep out. Most normal people would call it an 'ambush', which is exactly what Moon of Alabama called it hours ago.
karl1haushofer , November 24, 2015 at 9:21 am
Russia's "allies" Belarus and Kazakhstans supported the UN resolution recognizing the nuclear facilities in the Crimea as Ukrainian: http://nnr.su/75218#hcq=2cNuCup

They did not even abstain, but instead supported the resolution.

It is scary how alone Russia seems to be in it's western hemisphere. Surrounded by Finland (coldly hostile against Russia), the Baltics (extremely hostile chihuahuas), Ukraine (hostile enough to nuke Russia if it had nukes), Belarus (not really hostile, but not friendly either. Next target for a Western coup attempt), Turkey (hostile enough to shoot down Russia's military jets), Georgia (hostile), Azerbaijan (hostile/neutral), Armenia (friendly, but poor and meaningless).and Kazakhstan (seems to be the best of Russia's neighbors, but refuses to back Russia in international stage).

Further to West there are also hostile Sweden, very hostile Poland and Romania, and hostile Bulgaria. Those European countries with warm relations towards Russia (like Serbia and Montenegro) are small and strategically unimportant for Russia.

How did it ever come to this?

Patient Observer, November 24, 2015 at 11:24 am

Seems like a good response so far per RT:
https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
"Three steps as announced by top brass:
– Each and every strike groups' operation is to be carried out under the guise of fighter jets
– Air defense to be boosted with the deployment of Moskva guided missile cruiser off Latakia coast with an aim to destroy any target that may pose danger
– Military contacts with Turkey to be suspended"

The Russian action of using ship-based anti-aircraft systems suggest that the stories about S-300 or S-400 being deployed in Syria are likely not true (and conforming with what Russia has maintained).

[Nov 23, 2015] Putin's crushing strategy for Syria

Notable quotes:
"... The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest. ..."
"... For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. ..."
"... The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai, Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent Russia ..."
bostonglobe.com

LATAKIA, Syria - When Russian jets started bombing Syrian insurgents, it was no surprise that fans of President Bashar Assad felt buoyed. What was surprising was the outsized, even over-the-top expectations placed on Russian help.

"They're not like the Americans," explained a Syrian government official responsible for escorting journalists around the coastal city of Latakia. "When they get involved, they do it all the way."

Naturally, tired supporters of the Assad regime are susceptible to any optimistic thread they can cling to after five years of a war that the government was decisively losing when the Russians unveiled a major military intervention in October. Russian fever isn't entirely driven by hope and ignorance. Many of the Syrians cheering the Russian intervention know Moscow well.

A fluent Russian speaker, the bureaucrat in Latakia had spent nearly a decade in Moscow studying and working. Much of Syria's military and Ba'ath Party elite trained in Moscow, steeped in Soviet-era military and political doctrine, along with an unapologetic culture of tough-talking secular nationalism (there's also a shared affinity for vodka or other spirits).

The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest.

The world reaction to the Russian offensive in Syria has been as much about perception as military reality. Putin, according to Russian analysts who carefully study his policy, wants more than anything else to reassert Russia's role as a high-stakes player in the international system.

Sure, they say, he wants to reduce the heat from his invasion of Ukraine, and he wants to keep a loyal client in place in Syria, but most of all, he wants Russia's Great Power role back.

For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai, Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent Russia and a prickly Iran. Until now, Russia's new role in Syria has stymied the West, impinging on its air campaign against ISIS and all but eliminating the possibility of an anti-Assad no-fly zone. ...

-----

The Syria agreement: Too good to be true
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/11/19/the-syria-agreement-too-good-true/0diRPSdAE92OY2uOQnrIaO/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - editorial - Nov 19

A day after the horrific attacks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced a silver lining: The world had come together and agreed to end the Syrian civil war. At a press conference in Vienna, they laid out an ambitious time line. A cease-fire would be negotiated in a matter of weeks between the Assad regime and rebel groups, with the exception of "terrorists." Talks between Assad and the opposition would be held by Jan. 1. A "credible, inclusive, nonsectarian" government would be established within six months. A new constitution and free and fair elections would materialize within 18 months.

If their plan - backed by the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates - sounds too good to be true, that's because it probably is.

Much like Kerry's overly optimistic goal of creating a Palestinian state within two years, the Syria plan is based more on the desire for peace than the prospects for it actually happening on the ground. ...

-----

I'm a Muslim - ask me about Islam.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/19/saadia-ahmad-muslim-ask-about-islam/KuZ7PqboSznrQRciyYa1II/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Saadia Ahmad - November 19, 2015

... One of the goals of radical Islamic terrorist groups is to divide Muslims and the rest of the world. The disparity in our concern for victims of terrorism, depending on the country attacked and the dominant religion, inadvertently feeds into their narrative. ...

I am as committed to my American identity as I am to my Muslim identity, but I often cannot feel fully at home in either due to misunderstandings and poorly managed conflicts between the two. Muslims like myself seeking to bring reconciliation often encounter backlash and distrust from extremist Muslims and Americans alike.

But my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American born and raised in New Jersey serves as the foundation for my commitment to dialogue facilitation, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding. As an American, I know the sheer terror that 9/11 instilled in our individual and collective psyche. I understand the desire to regain a sense of security and comfort in our everyday lives and to defend against any group or ideology that appears even remotely threatening. As a Muslim, I know the exasperation of having our religion hijacked and used for something that was never its purpose. I understand the outrage of being held responsible for what we did not do – in the form of discrimination, prejudice, and warfare against home countries.

The sources of misunderstanding and pain for Americans and Muslims are actually not so different: They arise out of fear and trauma. So, too, the sources for healing are shared, and can be found in dialogue, compassion, and community. I see my purpose as guiding members of these groups to realizing these commonalities, and from this basis developing relationships that mitigate and prevent violent manifestations of conflict. Through my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American, I strive to provide one of many examples of how it is indeed possible to move past fear of "the other" and toward mutually beneficial relationships.

One of my most treasured verses in the Qur'an - introduced to me by a Catholic - has a universal message: "If God had so willed, He could have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you, so strive as one human race in all virtues according to what He has given you (5:48)." Most especially in the wake of trauma and terror, how we each decide to engage with "the other" is our own individual choice, but the fate is shared by us all. ...

(Saadia Ahmad is a student studying conflict resolution at the McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston.)

Selected Skeptical Comments from Economist's View blog

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs, November 22, 2015 at 06:25 AM

'Putin, according to Russian analysts who carefully study his policy, wants more than anything else to reassert Russia's role as a high-stakes player in the international system.'

It's almost like Putin wants Russia to 'assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle' them. What nerve?

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs, November 22, 2015 at 06:35 AM

US, Russia, and World Powers (but Not Syrians) Agree to Syria Peace Plan
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/14/vienna_talks_negotiators_agree_to_syria_peace_road_map_in_the_wake_of_paris.html via @slate
Joshua Keating = November 14

A day after the attacks in Paris underlined the global danger posed by the continuing violence in Syria, Russia, the United States, and governments in Europe and the Middle East agreed at talks in Vienna to a road map for ending the devastating and destabilizing war.

The proposal (*), which appears to draw heavily from a Russian peace plan circulated before the talks, sets Jan. 1 as a deadline for the start of negotiations between Bashar al-Assad's government and opposition groups. Within six months, they would be required to create an "inclusive and non-sectarian" transitional government that would set a schedule for holding new, internationally supervised elections within 18 months. Western diplomats involved in the talks told the Wall Street Journal that the meeting had produced more progress than expected, and the events in Paris may have added new urgency to the proceedings, given the need to build a united front against ISIS, but stumbling blocks remain.

The biggest one is the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose role is side-stepped in the agreement. ...

*- AP: Diplomats set plan for political change in Syria http://apne.ws/1kvMdAi

im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs., November 22, 2015 at 06:50 AM

US, Russia, and World Powers (but Not Syrians) Agree to Syria Peace Plan"

Oh yea which 'Syrians' did they ask, the Assad group, the ISIL group, the Islamist Rebels, the Iran backed Syrians, or the Democracy Rebels?

Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc, November 22, 2015 at 06:58 AM

Not them, but apparently 'the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates' are on board.

Could be the other parties were otherwise engaged.

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...

There is a story going around about Iranian F-14's escorting Russian Bear bombers on their way through to bomb Syrian deserts.

US navy went all out for F-18 and Tom Cruse's F-14 been in the boneyard for years.

Syaloch -> ilsm, November 22, 2015 at 07:23 AM

Do Israel's New Fighter Jets Mean Stealth Is Going Out of Style?

https://news.vice.com/article/do-israels-new-fighter-jets-mean-stealth-is-going-out-of-style

November 6, 2015

Israel just did something a wee bit nutty with their most recent wish list of US war goodies. It's one of those nerdtastically insider geek things that might actually mean some really interesting stuff.

So - drumroll please - reports have just emerged that Israel wants to buy a proposed, but as yet unmade, version of the F-15 fighter jet called the F-15SE Silent Eagle, in addition to several F-35s.

Okay, so it's not that exciting, unless you've been following the Israeli Air Force. But if you have, this purchase tells you something interesting about what advice those guys are getting from their strategic-planning Ouija boards on the topic of stealth...

ilsm -> Syaloch, November 22, 2015 at 10:14 AM

Not so much stealth.

Israel is using US aid money to "buy" F-35's, likely because the "F-35 sale is a string" for support for more aid to the IDF. There are many things the F-35 cannot do, there are many issues that mean sustaining 18 F-35's is less "capability" than 12 F-15 or F-16's.

Stealth is less a game changer than the reality of F-35 expenses and flaws. I am no fan of stealth it adds expense and overhead with unproven theory as to its "use".

A single engine fighter that carries 16000 of jet fuel is troubling. Rumblings USAF wants a buy of F-16s and F-35s for the same reasons.

Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm, November 22, 2015 at 11:02 AM

I recall that terms between US & Israel *require* them to purchase US arms, in huge amounts.

If Iran is still flying F14 Tomcats, what of their cobbled together yet shrinking fleet of F4 Phantoms, the '57 Chevy of US jets?

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs, November 22, 2015 at 01:04 PM

A story on Iran F-14.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/persian-cats-9242012/?no-ist

Seems the Iran AF used F-4's in a ground attack on ISIS positions in 2014. Last recorded F-4 ejection in 2012. The site stopped updating in 2012.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/iranian_f_4_phantom_losses.html

I have a regard for F-4's if nothing else they are only a little less ugly than the A-10, unless they save your bacon in a tight spot on the front line.

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

Related?

Powerful pill is called toxic
fuel for fighters in Syrian war http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/11/21/the-tiny-pill-fueling-syria-war-and-turning-fighters-into-superhuman-soldiers/gLUkphVvyEN8Y5WzzowNhL/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

Peter Holley Washington Post November 21, 2015

The war in Syria has become a tangled web of conflict dominated by competing military factions fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.

Just below it, experts suspect, they're powered by something else: Captagon.

The tiny, highly addictive pill is produced in Syria and now widely available across the Middle East. Its illegal sale funnels hundreds of millions of dollars back into the war-torn country's black-market economy each year, likely giving militias access to new arms, fighters, and the ability to keep the conflict boiling, according to the Guardian.

''Syria is a tremendous problem in that it's a collapsed security sector, because of its porous borders, because of the presence of so many criminal elements and organized networks,'' the UN Office on Drugs and Crime regional representative, Masood Karimipour, told Voice of America.

''There's a great deal of trafficking being done of all sorts of illicit goods - guns, drugs, money, people. But what is being manufactured there and who is doing the manufacturing, that's not something we have visibility into from a distance.''

A powerful amphetamine tablet based on the original synthetic drug known as fenethylline, Captagon quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing Syria's fighters to stay up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.

''You can't sleep or even close your eyes; forget about it,'' said a Lebanese user, one of three who appeared on camera without their names for a BBC Arabic documentary that aired in September. ''And whatever you take to stop it, nothing can stop it.''

''I felt like I own the world high,'' another user said. ''Like I have power nobody has. A really nice feeling.''

''There was no fear anymore after I took Captagon,'' a third man added. ...

... production of Captagon has taken root in Syria, long a heavily trafficked thoroughfare for drugs journeying from Europe to the Gulf States, and it has begun to blossom.

''The breakdown of state infrastructure, weakening of borders and proliferation of armed groups during the nearly three-year battle for control of Syria, has transformed the country from a stopover into a major production site,'' Reuters reported.

''Production in Lebanon's Bekaa valley - a traditional center for the drug - fell 90 percent last year from 2011, with the decline largely attributed to production inside Syria,'' the Guardian noted.

Cheap and easy to produce using legal materials, the drug can be purchased for less than $20 a tablet and is popular among those Syrian fighters who don't follow strict interpretations of Islamic law, according to the Guardian. ...

[Nov 07, 2015] Russia and China Victory-by-default

Notable quotes:
"... Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions. ..."
"... Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more. ..."
"... The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. ..."
"... Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir ..."
Nov 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK FOR ORIGNAL)

... ... ...

While the American Empire still exists and has extended its imperialistic reach, it is a very different empire from the days of the Reaganites. Most obviously, the Rule of Law is dead. Saturation corruption permeates this now rancid empire.

Financial criminals (primarily based in the U.S.) commit crimes literally a thousand times larger than anything previously seen in our history, and then repeat these crimes again and again. The U.S. 'Justice' Department spends its time not in prosecuting and incarcerating these criminals (and criminalized "banks"). Rather, it expends its energies explaining why it refuses to prosecute these criminals.

The primary "prey" of this banking crime syndicate is now the American people and the U.S. economy , itself. The United States has not merely become insolvent, it is obviously bankrupt. The Oligarchs who control its puppet government literally shipped the U.S. manufacturing base to the low-wage regimes of Asia, which ironically included China. As a result, the once-envied U.S. Middle Class has been transformed into the Working Poor .

In most respects (outside of economic parameters), the American Empire would be judged to be "stronger than ever". Clearly this is true militarily. Despite having no real "enemies" since the defeat-by-default of the Soviet Union, U.S. Neo-Cons have been busy as beavers inventing Boogeymen (and then destroying them) in order to justify the continued, relentless expansion of its war machine.

Politically, successively more-fascist regimes have rendered the U.S. Constitution essentially obsolete. Legally illegitimate (i.e. null-and-void), fascist laws have been wallpapered over the Constitution, stripping the American people of their rights and liberties.

In legitimate democracies, Constitutions are the ultimate Law of the Land, which serve primarily to protect the People from the State. In fascist regimes, invariably illegitimate governments create endless laws designed to protect the State from the People. The American Empire used to represent the former paradigm. Now it epitomizes the latter .

At one time, the closer that one moved toward the "heart" of the American Empire, the more strict was adherence to the Rule of Law. Today, the closer one approaches to the political cesspool known as "Washington, D.C.", or the financial cesspool known as "Wall Street", the more-overpowering becomes the stench of corruption – and lawlessness.

In a perverse twist of fate, the American Empire now mirrors the Soviet Union, in almost every respect. In the Soviet Union, voters were given the choice of two candidates, in what it called "elections". However both of those candidates represented the Communist Party.

In the American Empire, voters are also given the choice of two candidates, they simply pretend to represent two, different parties. Incredibly, this political charade has managed to persist for at least a century.

"There is no material difference now in the old political parties, except which shall control the patronage."

- (former Congressman/prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr., The Economic Pinch (p.61), 1923

Perhaps more significantly, the American Empire now bears considerable resemblance to the Roman Empire, as well. Historians are in agreement that at the time the Roman Empire was at the absolute peak of its military might that "the decline of the Roman Empire" had already been underway for centuries.

Where the ancient Roman Empire differs from the modern American Empire is that in the 21 st century, events – including the rise-and-fall of empires – progress much, much more rapidly. Roughly speaking, what used to stretch over centuries now takes place in decades. Instant communication, rapid global transportation, computerization, and numerous, other technological advances are responsible for this accelerated pace of political/economic/social evolution.

Morally and economically bankrupt, the American Empire now relies more and more heavily on its Big Stick, which it wields with ever more impunity and recklessness. Statesmen such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts have regularly warned that the current generation of Neo-Cons (who wield all, real power in the U.S. government) are marching relentlessly toward World War III.

However, while we see Psychopaths on the left/West, we see an entirely opposite political dynamic in the East. The strengthening alliance between China and Russia, represents two, large, global powers which (at least at this point in time) demonstrate no imperial aspirations. But this is only one significant way in which the East differs from the West.

In an essay titled Grandmaster Putin's Trap , Russian writer Dmitry Kalinichenko provides us with aninsightful allegory . Cold War II is not a militarily-oriented confrontation, rather it is a geopolitical chess match. The important point here is that only one "side" understands how to play (and win) a chess match.

How does a skilled chess-player achieve victory? Positioning, positioning, and more positioning. It is only once one's opponent has been completely out-positioned that any thought is given to overt attack. Chess is a game of patience, and (often) a game of simply waiting for one's opponent to self-destruct, via strategic error, or mere impatience.

This brings us back to the current geopolitical stage. In the East, we see Russia and China constantly engaged in improving their position. Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – notcannibalizing them. They are relentlessly adding to their gold reserves ("He who has the gold makes the rules" – The Golden Rule), while the American Empire has squandered most of its own reserves .

While the U.S., and the West, in general, unremittingly alienates the Rest of the World, Russia and China have been rapidly improving their political and economic cooperation with other nations. While the political/economic institutions created or sponsored by the American Empire lose their legitimacy due to corruption, Russia and China are creating parallel, corruption-free institutions – to replace them.

If this was a real chess match, the player on the left would have already 'pushed over his King' (i.e. capitulated). The player on the right now has such superior position that the outcome of the game is no longer in doubt. However, this is not a game, but rather real life – where one side has utterly no respect for anything resembling "rules".

Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II. The psychopaths of the American Empire have demonstrated that they are ready-and-willing to do literally anything to prevent this seemingly inevitable outcome. For this reason, the warnings of people such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts should be given our most serious consideration.

GreatUncle

Russia & China, you might want to add India too.

It is called mutual support because as each year passes the US becomes more and more aggressive and to be out on your own and a threat to those in power there you will be turned upon to keep you in your place.

If anything I expect this coalition of nations to only get stronger because if any become isolated and seems to be current foreign policy with Russia you are in for a bit of brutality. Then once one side or the other is eliminated and that can be economically too they will turn on the another to keep them in their place.

Top dog is always going to have an inferiority complex against any who may challenge it.

Consequence? In the last decade reckon under its own steam the US has magnificently turned a substantial portion of the global population against it. It might not be in the MSM, it will be undercurrents of all the brutality like killing innocent citizens with drones or a shoot to kill policy by the US military and the if you are not with us you are against us mentality.

laomei

Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II.

Lol, the Russian economy is collapsing, it relies entirely on oil and oil is dirt cheap. Russia gave the EU an out with sanctions to tear up the contracts and will soon be able to turn to alternative sources. That leaves China as their main partner for oil, while Russia buys up cheap Chinese garbage. But, at the same time, China is more or less in the same position as Mexico was, combined with systemic problem that are virtually identical to the Japan bust. It's a ticking time bomb and the government is literally locking up anyone who dares to even suggest that such a thing is even possible now. Purely out of fear that someone might be listening. China is still dealing with record outflows of cash and is rapidly liquidating those vast reserves. Once the economic growth drops (official numbers or not), there will be no choice left but to devale, which is great for exporters, but toxic for all companies that have borrowed USD. It's enough to destroy entirely their advanced sectors, and they do not have the willing labor at competitive rates to rush back to manufacture like they used to.

Setarcos

Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions.

Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more.

bthunder

If corruption is what brings empires down, then considering level of corruption in China and Russia vs in the US of A, Russia and China will collapse long before USA will.

As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills supposedly demonstrated by Russia's "positioning, positioning, and more positioning", during 15 years of his rule Russia's economy has been positioned for oil exports, nat gas exports, and more oil exports. That takes some grndmaster-like skills indeed.

Now that he's involved in 2 conflicts and China is refusing to pay previously negotiated prices for oil and nat gas (china demands discounts to reflect current low prices) it will be interesting to see how he can conduct and pay for 2 wars at the same time.

Crash N. Burn

"As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills..."

Perhaps you should have clicked the link in that paragraph:

"After realizing its failure in Ukraine, the West, led by the US set out to destroy Russian economy by lowering oil prices, and accordingly gas prices as the main budget sources of export revenue in Russia and the main sources of replenishment of Russian gold reserves....

..Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.

Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!..

..in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at all-time high record levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in the amount of 55 tons. It's more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined"


Grandmaster Putin's Trap

strangewalk

The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. Now things have reversed, it is Americas turn.

Freddie

The USSR was totally corrupt just like the USA today. The USA has been on a slipperly slope since before the Banksters - Civil War. I pretty much expected when Obola was selected by Soros and other zios that the uSA was headed towards an implosion like the old USSR.

Phillyguy

Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir

GC

Now, I'm pretty pro-Russia these days, but..

"Only Mother Russia remained intact."

I suggest checking an atlas, or googlemap. "mother Russia" most certainly included Belarus and, arguably, some if not all of Ukraine. They don't seem to be part of the Russian federation nowadays.

"Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – not cannibalizing them."

That's, unfortunately, very arguable about Russia. Russia lived on the oil price highs of the last 10 years, but its economy is largely unchanged, imports are rampant, agriculture can't keep up with internal demand and infrastructures, in general but in particular in the immense Asian part, has not much changed since the 90s, or maybe even 60s (with the exception of the oil related projects) and corruption is omnipresent.

datura

you don't seem to know much about Russia.

1] Belarus is not technically part of Russia, but in many way it is and still heading for greater integration. Belarus is now part of what is legally called Union State of Russia and Belarus. Interestingly, although economic integration has proved difficult at this point, the two states are integrated militarily. Besides, Belarus is a member of the Eurasian Union, which is a Russian parallel to the European Union. It is perhaps more easy for Russia to have this Union instead of incorporating the former Soviet countries directly into Russia again. Although there are regions, who would very much like to rejoin Russia directly, but cannot do so, because it would provoke fury of the American Empire. So all the integration and rejoining must be done very quietly and under the blanket for now.

2) asian part, has not much changed since the 90s: ummm....this has been true for entire thousands of year long history of Russia. It is incredibly difficult for Russia to develop all its territory, because it is huge. Russia will need help of China and other Asian states to do this. But cities like Vladivostok have changed for better already and are booming. There are plans for greater development of those regions and many projects in place. One of them is the new Russian cosmodrome, which will provide jobs and centre of life for many people, once it is completed. But of course, developing those regions is an enormous effort for generations to come, which Putin can only start and his successors will have to continue.

3) Apart from Far East, Russia is also positioning itself in the Artics, building bases and projects. This is also task for future generations.

4) Russian economy is certainly not unchanged! Russia jumped higher in the ranking of easy to do business chart and the World Bank says that d oing Business in Russia is now easier than in China. Russian debts (both state and external) are still decreasing and gold reserves growing. Agriculture is self-sufficient already (no Russians dying from hunger and import bans still in place). It also has much to improve, but Russians can now feed themselves without the help of the West. For example dairy production has grown 26%. And more than that, for example Russia is now surpassing USA in wheat export. Poorer regions like Africa and Middle-Eastern countries like Egypt and Iran are buying more and more food from Russia, as it is cheaper.

5) Imports rampant? I don't get what rampant means, but imports are much smaller than last year and still dropping. And most imports are now undertandably coming from China. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/imports

6) Corruption is also decreasing and it is nowhere as terrible as in the USA (if only for the simple reason that Russia does not print money and does not increase its debts, so the amount of money to steal from is limited). This should be an example for future Americans. Corruption will always exist, but it will be much less, if you don't print money out of nothing and if you don't increase debts to pass them on to your children.

People tend to forget that Russia, despite being an old civilization, is actually a very young as a state in the current form. Its economy and capitalism have had far less time to develop than USA! The Russian Constitution was created only in 1993, so even its political system is very young. So it is logical that everything is still in its beginnings and evolving. Russia is now where USA was in, say, 1791:-) But that is not necessarily a bad thing, as Russians still have a lot of space for creativity and building of their state - they are in the beginning of a new cycle, while USA is in the end of a cycle.

GC

And you don't seem to understand the arguments made.

1) The writer said that "mother Russi has remained intact". Belarus and Ukraine are part of teh concept of "MOther Russia". ukraine goes without saying, considering that it is where the whole concept of Russia begun (you know, Kievan Rus?). Now, Belarus was part of Kievan Rus and Minsk itself was settled by Russians in the 9th century (the city proper was created in the 11th, still by Russians). yes, it could be argued is that the polonization process that happened once it came under the Polish-Lithuanian union when the Russian state had been conquered by the mongols set belarus culturally and linguistically apart for a few centuries, but ideally, Belarus is undoubtly part of "mother Russia". You seem to know little of the history of the place yourself for accusing othes not to know much of it.

2) yes, indeed... but still, not even you countered my argument that infrastructure is basically what it used to be. of course, not exactly what it used to be.. note that I used "largely the same". there are a few exceptions.

3) true, but artict exploration is like the space age race of the 60s: a show of power and a technological feat, with large upfront costs and with limited impact on the real economy (or rather, a large impact, but on a very long timeframe since the technologies ended up mainstream).

4) saying that doing business in Russia in easier than in China is not saying much, considering how closed to foreigners the Chinese economy is (the fact that it is open to FDI doesn't mean it is an open economy, even if many confuse the two things). Russia can feed itself with grain and potatoes, of course, and it can also export them (as it has done for decades in its history), but it cannot actually produce for a diversified internal demand, forcing people to either pay a large premium for imports (even larger now with sanctions, hence the reduction of imports) or go for second line products via import substitution. the reason why food prices jumped with sanctions is that Russia wasn't able to produce enough to make do for the food it imported and prices raised as goods were to few to meet demand. There's simply no easier evidence than that AND the fact that just last july the ministry of agricolture for Russia promised MASSIVE subsidies to the agricolture sector to stimulate production. So, are we really arguing the insufficiency of Russian agricoltural sector? Which brings as to...

5) ...You confuse the fact that imports are slowing due the economic crisis and ruble depreciation with economic strenght, which is funny. Truth is, if you remove oil from russian exports, the balance of trade of Russia is utterly negative and getting worse. Russia is not Saudi Arabia, of course, where everythign revolves around oil, but most of the economic resurgence of the Putin era is due to oil windfall and not much has been done to improve other sectors of the economy. proof is, there is no major company that is considered a major player which has been born in Russia in the last 20 years. All top russian companies are oil related (Gazprom, Rosnef and Lukoil) or financial (which raised due the financial needs and revenues of oil), while there is a (relative) desert in services and computer technology. Russia has been and largely continue to be, a raw material exporting country with heavy industries tied to raw materials and armaments, not much of an advanced tertiary or high value added items economy. And I add, unfortunately so, as nothing would please me more to see a strong enough Russia to limit the American idiocy around Europe and teh middle East. The world has gone insane since the loss of a counterweight.

6) your understanding of corruption is.. well, not understanding. Corruption isn't tied to money production, it is tied with money transfers within an economy. If you have to pay for a permission or a to move goods around, that is a net loss for the economy. In transpareny international index, Russian CPI was 24 in 2014, ranking it 136 of 175 countries, in 2012 it was 28. It IS improving, but it's still one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

One can be a Russian fan (I am), but denying the limits of the country's economy doesn't help. Putin himself understands the limits and that's the reason why Russian isn't, differently than the US id in Iraq and Afghanistan, going with its army in Ukraine or Syria: they don't have the financial means to sustain a ground war. I wish Russia a bright future, but they have much to improve and their economy has much to diversify to self sustain.

Btw, Russia has another, immense bordering on the catastrophic, problem and that is demography. Between very low natality and, until very recently, a lowering life expectancy (which is still one of the lowest , if not the lowest, of all advanced economies) Russians risk to go extincted to irrilevance by the end of the century (but at least, they are not following the folly of our Europeans to substitute disappearing locals with muslims from the middle east and Africa). I really hope they will manage to reverse the trend.

Lucky Leprachaun

Destruction from within? Undoubtedly. Caused by Americans themselves? More problematical. You see the agents of this destruction - Neocons, banksters, Cultural Marxist degenerates - are largely the 'rootless cosmopolitans' of legend, with at best a transient attachment to the country.

[Oct 31, 2015] Congresswoman Calls US Effort To Oust Assad Illegal, Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists

Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
Notable quotes:
"... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
"... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
"... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
"... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
"... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
"... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
"... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
"... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
"... terrorism, ..."
"... uccessfulness ..."
"... insanities. ..."
"... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
"... http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ... ..."
"... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
"... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
"... That seed was already planted ..."
"... not a good interview for zio Wolfe ... ..."
Oct 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.

Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.

Well, it hasn't worked.

With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal." In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."

Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/IHkher6ceaA

For more on how Russia and Iran's efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see "ISIS In 'Retreat' As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As 'Weak With No Strategy'"

aint no fortunate son's

This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.

Paveway IV

"...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."

Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...

Sergeiab

Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago) "Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story". And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.

Is there a closing date for the primaries?

If not, she/he might well be the 45th president.

Sergeiab

Actually she's gonna be 35 in 2016...

And she did it again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSnXtapv9oQ

G.O.O.D

Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists.

She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.

Dick Buttkiss

"Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."

Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?

dot_bust

I agree. Good point.

I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

President Truman only intended the CIA to analyze data from the other U.S. intelligence agencies, not to engage in any field operations. Here's his original op-ed piece about that very subject: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger operations.

SWRichmond

Thanks for the link. Truman says:

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271482/Did-CIA-Director-Allen-D...

Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat to national security', a new book has claimed.

Bay of Pigs

Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds".

Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYqrPRvhgo

km4

Lookout because Tulsi Gabbard has some impressive credentials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]

Military service (2004–present)

https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard

In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.

Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence, courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.

Freddie

These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.

She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.

She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.

SWRichmond

Graham is the quintessential chickenhawk.

Radical Marijuana

While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists. The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.

Her basic opinion regarding 9/11 deliberately ignores that 9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters, the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups," as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions, and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which that was done.

The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the banksters to continue to control.

The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.

Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities. While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political problems only on very superficial levels ...

JLee2027

When a Hindu women who rides a surfboard starts making more sense than the President, and the entire Democratic Party I become speechless.

scrappy

She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?

UNDERDOG Cartoon Intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHej4ZqZDwo&html5=1

WTFRLY

White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

JustObserving

Heroin production up only 3500% since US invaded:

AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ...

MEFOBILLS

"Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb"

The beautiful Tulsi Gabbard excerpt from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism as a teenage

At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran. She is also on Senate Arms services committee.

The not so beautiful Wolf Blitzer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer

Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden), a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim, Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.

Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.

"Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."

Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.

To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians, as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history. Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.

rejected

Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that meme every chance they get.

The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger.

ebear

"....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."

I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.

One dragon at a time.

Omega_Man

not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...

I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.

She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke

[Oct 28, 2015] US Ground Troops In Syria Is Illegal, Big Mistake, Russia Warns Obama Of Unpredictable Consequences

Zero Hedge

Newbie lurker

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Manthong

..this should be Lit 101

TheReplacement

More like Modern American History 101.

Escrava Isaura

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

2015 - IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

http://thebulletin.org/clock/2015

Reg Morrison: "The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it, and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get-there will be no bright utopian future."- The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.

Haus-Targaryen

So we have Russian soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS & the "moderate" rebels alongside Iran & Syria -- while Russia blows said head choppers to smithereens. While the US will have soldiers on the ground fighting Assad & Hezbollah blowing them up from the air.

What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah. What happens then? (Then they call air strikes on one another and everyone figures out shit just went real wrong really quickly).

HowdyDoody

"What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah" That's a feature, not a bug. And that is why the Russians are calling out on it beforehand.

ZippyDooDah

Russia is providing air cover to Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, so that the USAF can't bomb the Shiite ground troops. America is providing ground troops in Syria to embed with "rebels," so that Russia can't bomb the Sunni ground troops. Proxy war at its most insane, cause it just went beyond proxies.

The Sunni-Shiite divide is centuries old, and not a fight we should ever have gotten involved with. Dumbassery at its most insane.

You might think the U.S. military might someday rebel against this kind of wanton waste of its resources. But no, I guess we are just going to grind ourselves away to nothing in the Middle East meat chopper.

TheReplacement

Wikileaks Ukraine has leaked a conversation regarding planning false flag shoot downs that involved a certain sitting US Senator who happens to have met with the Nazis in Ukraine and the terrorists in Syria. I believe the plan is to shoot down a US/NATO jet and then a Russian.

lakecity55

Russia needs to state the legal case before the UN Security Council and force the USG to veto the Resolution, thus making Vichy DC even more in the wrong internationally!

Paveway IV

Russia was already holding the UN's feet to the fire. Things just got a whole lot worse in the last two days.

The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the UN - ever since 1949. They recognize Israel is occupying it, but under international law (such as it were) the Golan Heights are still Syrian soverign territory. Technically, Syria and Israel are still at war. They are only maintaining a cease-fire/truce along a UNDOF neutral zone (= safe zone = no-fly zone) established in 1974. The 1974 truce didnt' 'give' Israel the Golan land. It was simply an agreement that Israel and Syria would stop attacking eachother and stay out of a neutral zone between each country's armies.

Herein lies the problem: Israel has been directly supporting al Nusra and ISIS forces hiding inside that neutral zone. The place is so over-run with head-choppers that the 1300 UN observers LEFT their own camps in that zone and have relocated to the Israeli side of the cease-fire line. They openly acknowledge that they can't do anything about defending the zone because Nusra/ISIS are not parties to the ceasefire, and Israel is covertly supplying them so there's no proof that they are violating the cease-fire.

Israel has repeatedly bombed SAA troops chasing al Nusra/ISIS into the neutral zone. This is a direct violation of the 1974 truce. Russia has always been pissed about that, but on Monday they bitch-slapped Israel without anything but a ridiculous cover story spewed by the MSM (the paraglider thing). Nobody seems to understand the profound implications of RUSSIA flying combat missions IN THE UNDOF ZONE to bomb Israeli's little al Nusra buddies. They just did this in al Qunaitra, which juts out into the occupied Golan Heights in such a way that it would be difficult to bomb anything there without overflying the neurtral zone into the Israeli side. Israel loves to use the word 'border' to suggest some kind of international recognition, but there is none. There is (was) only a UNDOF-maintained cease-fire zone arranged well into Syrian territory in 1974. Israel never left Syrian land and simply claim it as theirs.

Russia keeps reiterating how it is adhering to international law. Something tells me that this is in preparation for chasing any al Nusra/ISIS head-choppers into the Golan Heights as far as they need to. They are not 'violating' Israeli airspace or soverign lands because it is - by international recognition - still Syrian territory.

Everyone is waiting for a false flag, and it's been brewing right under our noses. Al Nusra and ISIS will retreat into the Golan Heights because they think it will offer them immunity from Russian air attacks. Russia recognizes (as does the world) that Syria STILL LEGALLY extends to the Jordan river - the Golan Heights IS SYRIAN SOVERIGN TERRITORY. Russia is not 'provoking' Israel - Israel shouldn't be there according to international law and UN recognition.

I think Russia is going to drive al Nusra and ISIS INTO the Golan Heights to force this issue - an issue that Israel has already LOST in the eyes of the international community. Would the U.S. go nuclear to 'defend' Israel's land-theft? Answer: Who cares. Dick Cheney's oil company just found a huge deposit there - of course the U.S. would go nuclear to protect his money. That's what the U.S. does.

cowdiddly

What's even funnier is Iraq has already said "NO THANKS" to ground troops in Iraq. They have seen enough of your so called help.

Also the little hero raid the other day was a complete farce. The Pershmerga was supposed to lead the raid and do all the dirty work while US troops come in behind. Of the casualties, The one US soldier that got wacked got a little to rambunctious and got out in front.

Yea hero, lead from behind and you Kurds charge the hill and we look like we did the raid and take the credit. WHATEVER.

The US is trying real hard to look relevent here. Just like the single ship to China crap. OOOOHHHHHH SCARY, No one is Intimidated, it makes you look weak ,and they just think your insane.

GO big or GO HOME. But mostly GO HOME WITH SOME DIGNITY LEFT. You can't afford to Play and you look sad and no one wants your help.

palmereldritch

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151028/1029209074/golan-heights-oil-...

We've found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are talking about significant quantities," Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.

"The Netanyahu government [is now] more determined than ever to sow chaos and disorder in Damascus and use that to de facto create an Israeli irreversible occupation of Golan and its oil," the expert stressed.

"Now an apparent discovery of huge volumes of oil by a New Jersey oil company whose board includes Iraq war architect, Dick Cheney, neo-con ex-CIA head James Woolsey, and Jacob Lord Rothschild… brings the stakes of the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria's Assad against ISIS [ISIL], al-Qaeda and other CIA-backed 'moderate terrorists' to a new geopolitical dimension," Engdahl underscored.

Raymond_K._Hessel

Do the Iraqis have a say in this matter?

NOTE: Alphahammer and Yomatti wants everyone to spend a half hour doing some research into the origins of ISIS: http://bfy.tw/2VnO

Raymond_K._Hessel

Iraq to Washington: We Don't Want Your Troops

What a difference a day makes. Just 24 hours ago US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was telling the Senate Armed Services Committee all about the Obama Administration's new military strategy for the Middle East. The headline grabber from his testimony was the revelation that the US military would begin "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS)," he told the Committee. The new strategy would consist of "three R's," he said: more US action, including on the ground, with Syrian opposition partners to take the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria; more intense cooperation with the Iraqi army including with US-embedded soldiers to retake Ramadi from ISIS in Iraq; and the beginning of US military raids, "whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."

That was news to the Iraqis, it turns out. And it wasn't very good news at that. Today Sa'ad al-Hadithi, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said "thanks but no thanks" to a third US invasion of his country. "We have enough soldiers on the ground," he said.

This raises the question of whether the US administration intends to insert US soldiers into Iraq against the wishes of its elected government, as it has done and promises to continue to do in Syria. In that case, the US would be shooting at ISIS and the Iraqi government, as well as the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who are coming to increasingly control large parts of the Iraqi military. Presumably all these forces would be shooting back at US troops on the ground as well. The US would likely be partnering in this task with the anti-ISIS Sunni fighters highlighted in Defense Secretary Carter's testimony yesterday. In other words, the US would be backing forces closer to those of Saddam Hussein, who they overthrew twelve years ago.

The Iraqi government had requested Russian assistance against ISIS earlier this month, after Russian strikes in Syria appear to have made a significant impact on the battlefield. But Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Iraqis if they accept Russian assistance they can forget about any more US aid.

It appears the US threat was not enough to put the Iraqis off asking for Russian help, as earlier this week the Iraqi parliament approved Russian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

So the big roll-out of the new US Middle East military strategy seems to have fizzled, as none of the intended beneficiaries of US assistance seem all that enthused about the partnership. For the moment, the US finds itself backing Iranian militias in Iraq while fighting them next door in Syria, while planning to place US troops in with "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in the path of falling Russian bombs. All the while, of course, the US is aiding the Kurds in Syria and Iraq which are currently being bombed by NATO ally Turkey.

What else could possibly go wrong?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/octob...

Crocodile

Since ISIS, ISIL, IS or the word of the day is a Pentagon formed, trained & funded operation, then the Pentagon is using the US Military, a Pentagon organization, against another Pentagon organization.

Only proves the insanity of it all and the devaluing of life of the ordinary person.

Then again Satan attacks the ordinances of God given to man for the good of all which is not limited to, marriage, family and the sanctity of life and unfortunately most people agree as shown by their personal behaviors.

[Oct 24, 2015] Turkish Parliament Members Turkey Provided Chemical Weapons for Syrian Terrorist Attack

Notable quotes:
"... The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria." ..."
"... Turkish government ..."
"... 'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.' ..."
"... And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins. ..."
"... The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria: ..."
"... –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades. ..."
"... –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary." ..."
"... –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria. ..."
"... – Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
"... – Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria . A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding. ..."
"... –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue. ..."
"... – Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar . ..."
"... "We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," ..."
Oct 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Two members of the Turkish parliament gave a press conference this week saying that they have wiretapped recordings and other evidence showing that Turkey supplied the sarin used in Syria. As reported by Turkey's largest newspapers, Today's Zaman:

CHP deputies Eren Erdem and Ali ?eker held a press conference in Istanbul on Wednesday in which they claimed the investigation into allegations regarding Turkey's involvement in the procurement of sarin gas which was used in the chemical attack on a civil population and delivered to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to enable the attack was derailed.

Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen. An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.

"The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the file," Erdem said while waving the file.

Erdem also noted that the prosecutor's office conducted detailed technical surveillance and found that an al-Qaeda militant, Hayyam Kasap, acquired sarin, adding: "Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism," Erdem noted.

Over 1,300 people were killed in the sarin gas attack in Ghouta and several other neighborhoods near the Syrian capital of Damascus, with the West quickly blaming the regime of Bashar al-Assad and Russia claiming it was a "false flag" operation aimed at making US military intervention in Syria possible.

Suburbs near Damascus were struck by rockets containing the toxic sarin gas in August 2013.

The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government.

CHP deputy speaker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria."

He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.

"The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities.

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam – previously reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.

As Hersh noted:

'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'

Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey. And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a causus belli was leaked … and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic. Turkey is a member of NATO. There are previous instances where Turkish government officials have admitted to carrying out false flag attacks. For example:

  • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

Turkey has also been busted massively supporting ISIS. And see this.

And other NATO members have also admitted to carrying out false flag terror to stir up war.

Reaper

Cui bono from the sarin attack in Syria? Not Assad. The educational training for American sheeple is to emote first, think way later, maybe.

jeff montanye

once more with feeling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyQ1RoEotPk

"they don't want a population capable of critical thinking" george carlin

Macon Richardson

And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins.

JustObserving

Turkey has been at war with Syria for years now.

The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:

–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.

–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary."

–Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.

Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.

Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.

–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.

Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

more at:

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/25/turkeys-troubling-war-on-syria/

Parrotile

Rest assured Russia is fully aware of all the clandestine goings-on.

Interesting that Turkey is keen on snuggling up close with those bastions of civil rights - SA and Qatar, just at the same time as they are making very loud noises re the involvement of what is Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict . . . .

Easy to see which side Turkey's desperately backing.

conscious being

Serena Shim, Shim had been reporting that IS militants had crossed the border from Turkey into Syria in trucks apparently affiliated with NGOs, some of which allegedly bore World Food Organization symbols. She claimed that she had received images from Islamic militants crossing the Turkish border and was one of the few reporters focusing on the matter.

"We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," she said.

lakecity55

I also remember the Terrorists taking over a pool supply/industrial supply house of Chlorine gas. They may have manufactured the chlorine at the same facility, so there was no shortage of ways for them to get ahold of poison gas.

The ideation that Assad would gas his own people is absurd. He throws some dissidents inot jail, but so does the USSA.

George Washington

Whistleblower: Powerful Congressman Hastert's Corruption Goes FAR Beyond Sex With a Student

Ms. Edmonds also told me that Hastert and other high-ranking officials helped funnel money for Gladio B false flag operations.

[Oct 23, 2015] Putin Just Warned Global War Is Increasingly More Likely Heres Why

Notable quotes:
"... "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. Whats the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] its just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with." ..."
"... hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies. ..."
"... We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all." ..."
"... the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of bad guys (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. ..."
"... They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this? ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Zero Hedge

... ... ...

... Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there's little chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.

... ... ...

Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from the erroneous labeling of some extremists as "moderates" to the futility of nuclear war.

"Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with."

"I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate, and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow's Mid-East strategy. And while he's probably telling the truth there, it's only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia's interests, The Kremlin is seeking to promote peace - it's more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin's desire for goodwill towards men.

And then there's Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct: The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies."

Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there's a way to take the "mutually" out of "mutually assured destruction."

That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it's possible to "win" a nuclear war. Commenting on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:

"We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all."

In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens.

... ... ...

ZerOhead

Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard. I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...

El Vaquero

For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy was during the Cold War:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/

While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. If you live near a target, this might be helpful:

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

sushi

The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec, Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.

Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.

Occident Mortal

Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.

Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated 'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need 20% more fuel.

All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.

But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.

In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good luck with that.

George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars program was scrapped within a month.

Anasteus

A shockingly open Putin's summary of the current situation that every American should hear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

Mr.BlingBling

They'd be practically useless on this continent because of the decoys accompanying the 'physics packages.' The sine qua non of an effective ABM system is the ability to destroy the missiles during the boost phase. The importance of eastern Ukraine is its proximity to Russian ICBM bases, which is why 'our' government spent $5 billion to foment the coup.

cowdiddly

Oh dont worry it is Carl. That little Caspian missile shoot off the shrimp boats has caused these morons to realize there may be a few gaping ass holes in the curtain has them scrambling. I present you their panic contract to "protect the homeland" just issued to..........Yep. Lockheed Martin. purveyors of the fine F35 aircraft.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/lockheed-radar-missile-defense...

I feel safer already

Speaking of military contracts, Last year Russia upgraded and refurbished over 5000 underground atomic bomb shelters built in the old Soviet days that are located in every province of Russia for their people. He knows what kind of nimcompoops he is dealing with. They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this?

Now ask yourself how many underground shelters has your government provided for us, other than the huge complex in Utah for the President and politicians to move safely too? I certainly don't know where one is in my state unless I was to dig it myself. The only thing I know of that they did to prepare for disaster is Fema built millions of plastic coffin like things that are being stored around everywhere.

They are only worried about protecting themselves and don't give a rats ass about you other than taxes. Their only concern for you is you might lay around to long stinking up the place.


[Oct 22, 2015] The Vineyard of the Saker Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

Notable quotes:
"... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
"... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
"... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
"... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
"... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
"... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
"... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
"... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
"... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
"... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
"... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
"... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
"... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

... ... ...

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

Colleagues, friends,

I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

[Oct 21, 2015] An invitation to Putin regarding Ukraine Do the maths

Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted. ..."
"... Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to add value (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either. ..."
"... Im still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring. ..."
"... This loan assumed that there wouldnt be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all... ..."
Oct 21, 2015 | FT Alphaville

Martin Wolf was fuming about Russia on Wednesday - incensed specifically about its stance towards Ukraine's attempted debt restructuring. He really doesn't like the fact that Russia's refusal to join August's $18bn deal with private bond holders will block Ukraine's access to IMF money, promising to collapse the country's economy.

Along the way, Wolf notes that there's a solution on the table here, albeit one that Russia is unlikely to accept. It comes from Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute - a man with some form in coming up with elegant solutions amid sovereign debt crises. (See Iceland, Greece and also Argentina.)

Here's Lerrick's detail on Ukraine, along with a table for Putin and pals…

Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted.

The American academic's approach actually accepts a core Russian claim - that the concessional terms of Russia's original loan put it on a different footing from private creditors in that Ukraine signed up to pay a coupon of 5 per cent, at a time when regular bond market investors would have demanded 12 per cent or more. But Lerrick then suggests that Russia be compensated for this concession (in the form of higher interest rates on newly issued replacement bonds), before then accepting the private creditor restructuring terms.

You can read the two options in full below. They look fair to all involved, which probably means there's no chance of Russia accepting the idea at all!

The Dork of Cork.

Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to "add value" (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either.

Upaswellasdown

What exactly will Russia do if it is not repaid? invade?

Pseudonym

I'm still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring.

ukrainewatcher

Really angers me, as this was political loan to finance last dying days of Yanukovich's regime. Probably used to pay towards the violence of the following months and to the cash that was taken out of the country in trucks. Russia consequently cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars, through invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine against very explicit guarantees provided by most superpowers (including US, Russia and UK) provided in return for dismantling world's third largest nuclear arsenal. Obligations that are in my books pretty much worthless, yet Ukraine continues to fulfil today (still destroying long term missiles as we speak)

And Ukraine still needs to deal with them as though they are normal creditors?

Something very wrong with the world of you ask me.

violet17

It was a political loan...correct! And it is a sovereign loan. And that is what the fuss is about!! This loan assumed that there wouldn't be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all...
FearTheTree
@ukrainewatcher Isn't the same true of Argentina. How much of its 80B in contested debt was used to support Menem and his cronies, thinking that the dollar-peso peg would hold indefinitely?

[Oct 19, 2015] An alliance of Russian liberasts Western pundits and putinslivsiks

Notable quotes:
"... It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before. ..."
"... They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. ..."
"... I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that Russia was warned in advance this time, by one of Americas poodles. Remember Gerashchenkos warning, on Mirotvorec ? ..."
"... On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled Slavs Against the Moscow terror . It will be a live transmission. ..."
"... – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. Im interested in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young Russian poets. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 3:23 am
It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before.

Indeed it was Nostradamized from the day 1 by the unlikely common opinion alliance of:

1) Russian liberasts.
2) Western pundits.
3) "Russian" patriotic putinslivsiks

They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. And the fact that terract was prevented is a reason not for concern but for a sense of pride of one's Security Services doing their job. For Russia "not to have any enemies" means to curl up and give up on any foreign policy, allowing "the adults" to run their freak show of "Here comes the Freedom and 'Mocracy. bitches!".

yalensis, October 12, 2015 at 7:35 am
I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that Russia was "warned" in advance this time, by one of America's poodles. Remember Gerashchenko's warning, on "Mirotvorec" ?
Patient Observer, October 12, 2015 at 10:50 am
Yes, the only difference now is that the masks are slipping revealing the truly hideous face of the Western empire. Other than that, business as usual.
Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 2:26 am
Guardian accused of passing off terrorist "hell cannon" as "barrel bombs"

Please share this as widely as possible and feel free to write your own emails or letters to the Guardian if you feel it is appropriate.

So iIhave done.

Warren, October 12, 2015 at 3:50 am

Published on 10 Oct 2015
Article here – http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.com/p/b

Warren, October 12, 2015 at 3:51 am
British Citizen Exposed as a Tool of Russia's FSB

http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/british-citizen-exposed-as-tool-of.html

Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:05 am
"Exposed" and then there follows a string of allegations.

"Russia's FSB and GRU (military intelligence) are mostly likely assigning Phillips 'mini-ops' to attack western organizations, journalists, reporters and researchers who debunk the Kremlin's propaganda narrative."

Case proven, m'lud?

marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 7:17 pm
Sad. So young – I'm assuming – and his mind already gone. Only in such an oxygen-deficient atmosphere could the FSB deliberately recruit somebody because they are "bumbling and incompetent" and speak Russian at the third-grade level or less. Lots of good press for Graham, though.
Pavlo Svolochenko, October 12, 2015 at 7:53 pm
It's even funnier because if the Ukrainians weren't the Goddamned barbarians they are, Philips would almost certainly have ended up on their side.
Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:39 am
Remember this kreakl?

Dmitry Bykov.

Know this bloke?

He's Andrei Piontkovskiy, former member of that very short-lived Coordinating Council of the Russian Opposition, you know – Navalny's parliament in waiting that met a couple of times in kreakl cafés: even Udaltsov (remember him?) called its members a "committee of wankers".

Well lookeee here:

On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission.

The Tweet is off a certain Sasha Sotnik of Sotnik TV.

Sotnik TV is not a typical Russian television channel: It is only available on the web, not on television screens. It has no live broadcasts. And it is run primarily by just two people: husband and wife Sasha Sotnik, the reporter, and Mariya Orlovskaya, the camera operator (both pictured above).

But what's most different about Sotnik TV is its outspoken criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has led to Sotnik and Orlovskaya being arrested briefly and accused of possessing explosives.

Strong views

Sasha Sotnik is a believer in the liberal "European values" that Putin has forcefully rejected in recent months, and does not flinch from expressing strong views in his videos, which are mainly distributed through the couple's YouTube channel.

Bet they love Sasha at Auntie BBC.

If he likes liberal "European values" so much, then why doesn't he stay in Banderastan?

After all, the Ukraine is Europe, is it not?

Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:53 am
Do you think Sotnik and Piontkovskiy and Bykov will be shot dead in the street when they return to Mordor, thereby becoming yet more tragic statistics attributed to the Dark Lord's reign of terror?

After all, Lord Putin's ever watchful eye not only knows what everyone is thinking, but also of what they are going to think and plan and usually punishes his enemies before they even think of doing something that he will not like, such is his awesome power and majesty that holds this once mighty nation in sway ….

These brave opposition souls must live a life of perfectly abject terror and despair.

I mean, look at Bykov: he looks like a really worried man – doesn't he?

I believe he's lost pounds since Putin seized control of the state, such has been his worry and concern over what has been going on here since 2000.

marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 7:26 pm
Too late, probably. Their personal addresses and the names of family members are probably all over whatyoucallem, that Russian squealer database that encourages people to inform on other people for anti-government views. There was a name for it…separatist! That's it, separatists who harbor anti-government attitudes!! I read all about it a while ago, but I forget the name of it. You could go there and rat out people for their personal views and then some wet-man from Putin's personal kill squad would go round to his house, make some excuse to get him outside and then cap him right there in the street. Poor Sotnik and Bykov and Piontkovskiy: they're as good as done for, like that murdered martyr Yulia Latynina.
Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 4:56 am
"On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission."

During her emigration in Paris, famous pre-Revolutionary satirical writer Nadezhda Teffi (nee Lokhvitskaya, in marriage – Buchinskaya) once became a witness to such a scene:

"- Сижу я вчера вечером в кафе, против монпарнасского вокзала. Вдруг вижу, из бокового зала выходят много пожилых евреев, говорят по-русски. Я заинтересовалась, остановила одного и спрашиваю, что это было такое… А это, оказывается, было собрание молодых русских поэтов"."

– I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. I'm interested in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young Russian poets. "

[Oct 19, 2015] Syrian Gambit: US at Pains to Create 'Another Afghanistan' for Russia

This is a very dangerous gambit for Russia. The USA and allies represents overwhelmingly stronger alliance economically, politically and technologically.
Notable quotes:
"... And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors, ..."
"... We will see fewer conventional offensives in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan ..."
"... While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the West have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage, he told Sputnik. ..."
"... given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation ..."
Oct 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

In September 2014, Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst, proposed a plan entitled "An Army to Defeat Assad." The CIA analyst envisaged the creation of a US Syrian proxy army that would take over the Syrian government forces (and deal a blow to Islamic State). However, the toppling of Bashar al-Assad was marked by Pollack as the overriding priority.

"Once the new army gained ground, the opposition's leaders could formally declare themselves to represent a new provisional government. The United States and its allies could then extend diplomatic recognition to the movement, allowing the US Department of Defense to take over the tasks of training and advising the new force – which would now be the official military arm of Syria's legitimate new rulers," Pollack elaborated.

In January 2015, the Pentagon announced that it kicked off a plan aimed at training Assad's opposition fighters, strikingly similar to that offered by Pollack in September 2014. So, nothing hinted at any trouble until September 30, when Russia suddenly threw a wrench in Washington's ingenious plan.

"To get to the root of the current crisis in Syria and the Middle East overall, we must look at US policy overall," Germany-based American political analyst Phil Butler explained in an exclusive interview to Sputnik.

"The current divisions within Syria and Northern Iraq are to a degree fabricated. Secular, religious, and even tribal differences in this region have been leveraged for centuries to divide Syria, as well as other nations in the region. You've mentioned Ken Pollack, and appropriately, I might add. Pollack, who's held many official positions within the Washington policy making establishment, is actually one of the authors of chaos in this region. Discussing such "bred" academics is a deep well, but suffice it to say the division of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring overall, the Georgia war, and the current Ukraine mess are all facets of the same flawed gem of US hegemony," the analyst told Sputnik.

According to Butler, the current mission in Syria is not intended to be a splintering as we saw with Kosovo, in the Balkans.

"As for the 'plan' in Syria, I believe there were 'contingencies' mapped out. As amoral as these schemes may be, they are not concocted by idiots. Contingency 1, in my view, was the literal overthrow of Assad. Vladimir Putin's moves, Russia's, have thwarted this potential at every turn. Contingency number two obviously involves another Yugoslavia in the making. And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors," the political analyst stressed.

Meanwhile, Western reputable media sources have reported of an upcoming offensive on Raqqa, ISIL's "capital," the Pentagon is preparing to launch along with its Arab and Kurdish military allies.

However, Middle East Eye reported on October 14 that there is no sign of such preparations on the ground: "The US-led anti-IS coalition dropped 50 tons of weapons to the newly created Syrian Arab Coalition on Monday in the Hasakah province, in order to avoid angering Turkey. But so far, no US weapons can be seen on the frontlines close to Raqqa, nor any sign of rebel troop preparations."

"The reason we have not seen these latest weapons shipments being used, is the complexity of strategy on the ground has changed. No standing force, Al-Nusra, ISIL, or other jihadists put together, could withstand Russian air power. I believe we are about to see Assad's opposition morph their strategy to full guerrilla warfare as was the case in Afghanistan. We will see fewer conventional "offensives" in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan," Butler explained commenting on the issue.

However, in contrast to the US' covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan, there were no US jet fighters in the region and thus far, no threat of a direct confrontation between the two global powers.

Today, there are many military "actors" in the skies of Syria and Iraq. Does it mean the Pentagon's Afghani strategy may unexpectedly transform into a direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia?

"As for the threat of direct confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria, the possibility does exist. In this case however, I believe such a confrontation is actually another contingency for Washington," the American political analyst underscored.

"While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the "West" have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage," he told Sputnik.

"Having said this, given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation," Phil Butler concluded.

[Oct 19, 2015] After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine

After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine, it looks like Syria is on the mind of Washington strategists as a suitable replacement. The problem is that ground forces are not Russian.
"... From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that? ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren, October 18, 2015 at 12:27 pm

Published on 16 Oct 2015

From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that?

CrossTalking with Philippe Assouline, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Roshan Muhammed Salih.

[Oct 18, 2015] US and Russia Should Form Coordinated Coalition in Syria – Stephen Cohen

Notable quotes:
"... The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting Assad ..."
"... [Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine, ..."
"... if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe. ..."
sputniknews.com

"My hope is that [US President] Obama and [Russian President] Putin will rise above themselves and form a substantial coalition in Iraq and in Syria. But let's be realistic… There are enormous obstacles," Professor Cohen noted in an interview with US progressive political commentator Thomas Carl "Thom" Hartmann.

The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting Assad. "That won't happen," the professor underscored.

... ... ...

"It [the Ukrainian crisis] could flare up at any moment in a way that could disrupt any fragile agreement between Putin and Obama," the professor stressed.

According to Cohen, the US-backed regime in Kiev is sweating bullets about the possibility of close cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the Middle East.

"[Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine," Cohen warned.

Meanwhile, the grim specter of World War III is prowling across Europe and the Middle East. Professor Cohen has repeatedly stressed that if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151003/1027976725/us-russia-syria-coalition-cohen.html#ixzz3oz03EHB3

[Oct 17, 2015] Assad thinks that an independent state working for the interests of people is better then the state working for the interests of the West

"... The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism, protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian hatred …" ..."
"... Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all. ..."
"... The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd be paupers in a year. ..."
"... 12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria. ..."
"... Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London. ..."
"... I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion' abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Jen, October 15, 2015 at 9:54 pm

BTW for anyone who is interested, here is a June 2015 article by Jay Tharappel on political reforms made in Syria in 2012 and the new constitution that was approved by the Syrian public via referendum in that year:
https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/tharappel-how-has-syrias-political-system-changed-over-the-course-of-the-war/#_blank

What Tharappel says:

" … The new constitution introduced a multi-party political system in the sense that the eligibility of political parties to participate isn't based on the discretionary permission of the Baath party or on reservations rather on a constitutional criteria.

As such, the new constitution forbids political parties that are based on religion, sect or ethnicity, or which are inherently discriminatory towards one's gender or race (2012: Art.8) – this means the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is still banned.

What hasn't changed is the constitutional requirement that half the People's Council be comprised of 'workers and peasants' (1973: Art.53 | 2012: Art.60), which in practice means that the ballot paper contains two lists, one with candidates who qualify as 'workers and peasants', and another one with other candidates …

… The Baath party no longer enjoys constitutional privilege. Presidential elections are contested between multiple candidates, and are no longer referendums seeking the electorate's binary (yes or no) approval for the Baath party's internally nominated candidate.

The participation of political parties is based on an objective constitutional criteria [sic], not on the arbitrary powers of the executive to permit or exclude them.

Finally, the Supreme Constitutional Court is significantly more independent."

Another interesting article on Syria, this one by Carlos Martinez in 2013:

http://www.invent-the-future.org/2013/09/decriminalising-bashar/#_blank

" … In the words of its president, Syria is "an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West." For over half a century, it has stubbornly refused to play by the rules of imperialism and neoliberalism … [In] spite of some limited market reforms of recent years, "the Ba'athist state has always exercised considerable influence over the Syrian economy, through ownership of enterprises, subsidies to privately-owned domestic firms, limits on foreign investment, and restrictions on imports. These are the necessary economic tools of a post-colonial state trying to wrest its economic life from the grips of former colonial powers and to chart a course of development free from the domination of foreign interests."

The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism, protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian hatred …"

So in other words, there is now no longer any justification for the US-led overthrow of Bashar al Assad because he is a "dictator".

marknesop , October 16, 2015 at 7:35 am
Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.

I have suggested before that Assad doomed himself when he refused Qatar's offer to run a gas pipeline across Syria and so to Turkey and Europe, for the expressed reason that he would not stab Russia in the back, and double-doomed himself when he accepted a similar offer from Iran, with whom Russia has no issues because it is not under American control.

The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd be paupers in a year.

Moscow Exile , October 16, 2015 at 4:35 am

An alleged experiment in cutting off Russia from the Internet as part of "preparations for an information blackout in the event of a domestic political crisis". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11934411/Russia-tried-to-cut-off-World-Wide-Web.html

A domestic political crisis?

In your wet dreams, arseholes!

Unbeknown to Western know-nothings about matters Russian, very many Russians are well aware of the lies spewed out by the Western mass media: the same cannot be said of Westerners and their knowledge of what Russians read in their media.

See: inoСМИ.Ru

I notice that in the British lying rags, the Ukraine has been pushed off the front page, as has the MH17 story and now Syria is being shunted to the sidelines.

Nothing to see here! Move along now!

In today's Telegraph, a German big-game hunter's shooting of a massive bull elephant overrides a Syria story on the front online page. MH17 and the Ukraine gets no mention at all.

Today's headlines:

Scenes of devastation as huge mudslide strikes California leaving thousands stranded
Hatton Garden raider 'shows police where he hid jewels'
'Half empty' private jets carry failed asylum seekers home
SNP accused of 'happy clappy smothering' of second Scottish independence referendum debate
Pc Dave Phillips murder: two women and a man charged with assisting offender

12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria.

Jeremn, October 16, 2015 at 7:57 am

Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London.

https://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E5617D97483FB3/

Moscow Exile , October 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

How the number of Ukrainians in Russia has grown:

Всего в период с 1 апреля 2014 г. на территорию Российской Федерации въехало и не убыло по состоянию на указанную дату 1 089 618 граждан юго-востока Украины.

Just in the period starting 1 April 2014, into the territory of the Russian Federation have entered and not left as of a specified date 1,089,618 citizens of South-East Ukraine.

Fern , October 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm

I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion' abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home.

[Oct 17, 2015] Russia's 'Import Substitution' Isn't Working

Mark Adomanis became a turncoat and defected to the "dark side". Some problems for Russia are given. Still it is pretty valiant attempt in view of the dominance of the USA in world economy and, especially, finance. Also this is form of economic attack of EU: some European firms lost Russian market "forever". So far American firms are fared better but Coca-cola, Pepsi, chicken producers, and McDonalds might suffer.
Oct 15, 2015 | http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/10/15/russias-import-substitution-isnt-working/

Some very intelligent people saw this coming a long way off, accurately predicting that heightened tensions with America and the European Union would empower precisely those areas of the Russian economy that the West wants to see weakened

... ... ...

From the second quarter of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, the ruble value of Russia's imports decreased by almost 30% (the ruble value of exports, meanwhile, actually increased). That's actually not terribly surprising. When a currency depreciates as much as the ruble has over the past year you would expect imports to take a significant hit.

But what has happened to domestic manufacturing? Has Russian business stepped into the space vacated by Western goods that are no longer affordable to many Russian consumers?

So far, at least, the answer is a definite no. Official Rosstat data show that through the first half of 2015, Russian manufacturing actually shrunk by about 2.8%. The only sectors of the economy to show any growth were agriculture (up 2.4%), natural resource extraction (up 2.4%), and public administration (up 0.7%). The areas of the Russian economy where private business predominates, particularly consumer retail, have been absolutely walloped, with the overall retail sector shrinking by almost 9% over the past six months.

... ... ...

Victor Lar 2 days ago

Russian Cheese Production Surges 30% After Ban on Western Imports: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-cheese-production-surges-30-after-ban-on-western-imports/521891.html

[Oct 16, 2015] ISIS on verge of defeat as Russian jets cut off arms supplies

World News Daily Express

Earlier this week Putin accused US official of having "mush for brains" after they refused hand over intelligence about ISIS targets.

He said: "We asked on the military level to give us the targets which they consider to be the terrorist ones for sure, 100 per cent. But the answer was: 'No, we are not ready to do that'.

"Then we thought and asked another question: 'Then could you tell us where we should not hit?' Again, no answer. So, what should we do?"

Washington and its allies have suggested Russia is seeking to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime rather than defeat ISIS.

But Putin hit back, saying his country wants to "contribute to the fight against terrorism" which threatens "the whole world".

West must learn to live with Putin, former MI6 head warns by Richard Norton-Taylor

Quote: "we deal with the Russia we have, not the Russia we'd like to have".

The Guardian

Sir John Sawers says provoking the Russian president risks deepening the security crisis facing Europe

Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, has warned against stepping up pressure on Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, over Ukraine and said any change in power in the Kremlin "may well be for the worse".

The west would have to learn to live with Putin, however unpalatable that may seem, Sawers told an audience of war studies students at King's College, London. Provoking him could deepen the security crisis facing Europe, he suggested.

"The Ukraine crisis is no longer just about Ukraine," he said. "It's now a much bigger, more dangerous crisis, between Russia and western countries, about values and order in Europe."

Britain's recently retired chief spymaster said Russia had a formidable nuclear arsenal and Putin wanted these ultimate weapons in his armory to project raw strength. Russia may have rejected European values but, Sawers said, "we deal with the Russia we have, not the Russia we'd like to have".

The west "could take on Moscow stepping up our response. Provide weapons to Ukraine so it can defend itself. More stringent sanctions. But how would Mr Putin respond?" Sawers asked.

He added: "As long as Mr Putin sees the issue in terms of Russia's own security he will be prepared to go further than us. So he would respond with further escalation on the ground. Perhaps cyber attacks against us. We have thousands of deaths in Ukraine. We could start to get tens of thousands. Then what?"

Sawers, who gave his lecture the title The Limits to Security, continued: "Ukrainians look to us to help them have their chance to embrace the order and values we enjoy here in modern Europe. We and they may end up with a new debilitating frozen conflict in Ukraine, well into the future. That is a wretched outcome for Ukrainians. But it may be the least bad attainable outcome."

Sawers said efforts by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to restore calm deserved the west's full support. He added: "Once we have calm – if we have calm – we'll need a new approach to co-existence with President Putin's Russia."

He then warned: "The convergence between Russia and the west which we had hoped for after the cold war won't happen while he is in charge. We now know that. Any foreseeable change of power in Russia may well be for the worse. Managing relations with Russia will be the defining problem in European security for years to come."

Sawers' remarks reflected the overwhelming view in Britain's national security establishment which, with the exception of some former generals, is urging caution over Ukraine and recognises, as Sawers put it on Monday, "in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan Britain is pulling back from international intervention, just as America pulled back after the Vietnam war".

Sawers observed: "When crisis erupted in Libya, we didn't feel it right to sit by as Gaddafi crushed decent Libyans demanding an end to dictatorship. But we didn't want to get embroiled in Libya's problems by sending in ground forces ... No one held the ring ... Result? Growing chaos, exploited by fanatics."

He added that thanks "in large part" to Edward Snowden, the US National Security Agency whistleblower, "all of us" were more at risk from terrorism and cyber attack, mainly because technology companies had scaled back "previous quiet cooperation with intelligence agencies".

He repeated his appeal to technology companies, governments, and the public, to work together. "None of us can afford for terrorists to use Facebook and other social media to plot their next attack, confident that no one can monitor them."

[Oct 15, 2015] Putin attacks U.S. electoral college system 'There is no democracy there'

The Washington Post

ravensfan20008

I can't believe I'm saying this...but Putin is right. You want to talk about a system that should cease to exist, it's this one.

And before you point to the Constitution and say "not gonna happen," there are plans out there that would render it a moot point, like states pledging to award electors to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide. And they'd easily pass constitutional muster.

jaysonrex1

Actually, Putin is right. After all these years, it is high the time a constitutional amendment changes this system for the straight voting method used in the entire world by democracies and even by dictatorships.

And while we are at it, maybe it is also high the time U.S. abandons the imperial system (it inherited from Britain - a country that already abandoned it many years ago) and finally adopts the metric system thus joining the civilized world - so to say.

And while we are at it, U.S. should get rid of the Senate. It serves no useful purpose apart from representing a unacceptable drain of public funds.

And while we are at it, .....

mvymvy

A constitutional amendment could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes-that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

[Oct 15, 2015] Putin speech at the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Does this mean that Putin feels that neoliberalism is dead? What if he is wrong ?
"The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times."
"The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests."
"In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case."
"A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals."
"Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish."
"Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries."
"You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone."
"Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society."
"We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries."
"Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy."
"There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks."
"We are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict."
"In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument."
"It is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership."
"International relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation."
"The work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency."
"Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism."
"Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected."
"Building a more stable world order is a difficult task.We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development."

... ... ...

Today's discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion's participants have already said. It's practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants' views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyse today's situation, let us not forget history's lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system's 'founding fathers' had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world's current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

Colleagues, friends,

I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

[Oct 15, 2015] Stop the pointless demonization of Putin By Stephen F. Cohen

May 7, 2012 | reuters.com
American media coverage of Vladimir Putin, who today began his third term as Russia's president and 13th year as its leader, has so demonized him that the result may be to endanger U.S. national security.

For nearly 10 years, mainstream press reporting, editorials and op-ed articles have increasingly portrayed Putin as a czar-like "autocrat," or alternatively a "KGB thug," who imposed a "rollback of democratic reforms" under way in Russia when he succeeded Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000. He installed instead a "venal regime" that has permitted "corruptionism," encouraged the assassination of a "growing number" of journalists and carried out the "killing of political opponents." Not infrequently, Putin is compared to Saddam Hussein and even Stalin.

Well-informed opinions, in the West and in Russia, differ considerably as to the pluses and minuses of Putin's leadership over the years – my own evaluation is somewhere in the middle – but there is no evidence that any of these allegations against him are true, or at least entirely true. Most seem to have originated with Putin's personal enemies, particularly Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of his policies – or, in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in prison. Nonetheless, U.S. media, with little investigation of their own, have woven the allegations into a near-consensus narrative of "Putin's Russia."

Even the epithet commonly applied to Putin is incorrect. The dictionary and political science definition of "autocrat" is a ruler with absolute power, and Putin has hardly been that. There are many examples of his need to mediate, sometimes unsuccessfully, among powerful groups in the ruling political establishment and of his policies being thwarted by Moscow and regional bureaucracies. Moreover, if Putin really were a "cold-blooded, ruthless" autocrat, tens of thousands of protesters would not have appeared in Moscow streets, not far from the Kremlin, following the December presidential election. Nor would they have been officially sanctioned – as were the thousands who gathered yesterday before a small group breached the sanctioned lines and violence ensued – or shown on state television.

But consider the largest, and historically most damning, accusation against Putin. Russian democratization began in Soviet Russia, under Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1989-91. "De-democratization," as it is often called, began not under Putin but under Yeltsin, in the period from 1993 to 1996, when the first Russian president used armed force to destroy a popularly elected parliament; enacted a super-presidential constitution; "privatized" the former Soviet state's richest assets on behalf of a small group of rapacious insiders; turned the national media over to that emerging financial oligarchy; launched a murderous war in the breakaway province of Chechnya; and rigged his own re-election. (On February 20, outgoing president Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by finally admitting that Yeltsin had not actually won that election against the Communist leader Gennadi Zyuganov.) Putin may have only moderated those fateful policies, but he certainly did not initiate them.

The catastrophic Yeltsin 1990s, which have been largely deleted from the U.S. media narrative, also put other anti-Putin allegations in a different perspective. The corruption rampant in Russia today, from seizures of major private investments to bribes demanded by officials, is a direct outgrowth of the violent and other illicit measures that accompanied "privatization" under Yeltsin. It was then that the "swindlers and thieves" denounced by today's opposition actually emerged.

The shadowy practices of that still-only-partially reformed economic system, not Kremlin politics, has led to the assassination of so many Russian journalists, most of them investigative reporters. The numbers, rarely cited by era, are indicative. According to the American Committee to Protect Journalists, 77 Russian journalists have been murdered since 1992 – 41 during Yeltsin's 8 years in power, 36 during Putin's 12 years.

The exceptionally vilifying charge that Putin has been behind the killing of political opponents focuses mainly on two victims – the investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot to death in Moscow in 2006; and a reputed KGB defector, Aleksandr Litvinenko, who died of radiation poisoning in London, also in 2006.

Not a shred of evidence or an element of logic points to Putin in either case. The editors of Politkovskaya's newspaper, the devoutly anti-Putin Novaya Gazeta, believe her killing was ordered by Chechen leaders, whose human-rights abuses were one of her special subjects. And there is no conclusive proof even as to whether Litvinenko's poisoning, despite the media frenzy and rupture in British-Russian relations it caused, was intentional or accidental. (Significantly, Scotland Yard still has not released the necessary autopsy report.)

In other circumstances, all of this ritualistic Putin-bashing would be merely a cautionary example of media malpractice, an anti-textbook for journalism schools. But it has made Putin's Russia toxic in Washington, in both political parties and especially in Congress, at a time when U.S. national security requires long-term cooperation with Moscow on vital fronts: from countries and regions such as Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and the entire Middle East to issues such as nuclear weapons reduction, stopping nuclear proliferation, and preventing terrorism.

In all of these regards, the relentless demonizing of Putin makes rational U.S. policymaking all the more difficult. Mitt Romney's recent assertions that Russia is America's "number one geopolitical foe" and that Moscow has made no "meaningful concessions" seem to reflect widespread ignorance or amnesia. Are U.S. policymakers aware of Putin's extraordinary assistance to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan after 9/11, his crucial help in supplying NATO troops now there or his support for harsher sanctions against Iran? Do they know that for these and other "pro-American" concessions he is viewed by many Russian national security officials as an "appeaser?"

Many years ago, Will Rogers quipped: "Russia is a country that no matter what you say about it, it's true." Evidently, it is still true, but it's no longer funny.

Selected comments
KyuuAL
Right Wing media looks to create a "new enemy" to focus on, as Republicans look to the Cold War glory days as an excuse to continue heavy funding of the military.
TobyONottoby
Thanks – It sometimes seems as if American media have forgotten how poorly Yeltsin performed. Perhaps that's because American media barely noticed his misdeeds, other than the chronic misdemeanor of being drunk and disorderly, in the first place. Funny that they notice nothing but in Putin's case. (I consider Gorbachev to be the best Soviet/Russian leader in my lifetime, but politicians of his ilk clearly have little chance of staying in office there. Hence, Yeltsin and Putin.)
Am-Expat
For once, a reasonable assessment of Russia since the 1991 emergence of the new Russian Federation. Putin's 2012 Russia is a model of exemplary government compared to the bad old days of the highly western adviser influenced Yeltsin years.

I am an American living now in Russia full time for over 8 years and what I know of Russia is so radically different than the "common knowledge" as pumped out by western press. It is a place of some contradictions but generally much more pleasant, safe, growth oriented and livable than any press account I have ever read in western news or opinion pieces in 20 years. I have a business and not once has a bribe been paid or asked for, street crime and violence is lower than any major city in the US, the population is very well educated and frankly a lot less depressing than the anger and division that permeates the US now. The young people, generally, are optimistic about their futures, and start out life with more going for them than kids of thee same age in the US unless they are very wealthy.

I ask westerner who claim all manner of evil deeds done by Putin where they got this inside information since very few western reporters are in Russia, fewer by far than in the Soviet period. Their reply is usually that "everyone knows it". That is probably the most succinct indications of why the US can't solve any of the pressing problems that are killing it. Pure ignorance that is reinforced at every turn. Russia and Putin are not your problem America, ignorance is.

xcanada2
Thank you for taking on the rather conventional main stream media.

It is not obvious where the Putin-demonization comes from. I always suspect those who stand to benefit the most. This means most Western businesses with interest in inveigling themselves into Russian assets: oil, timber, mineralization, market,…. They looked well on their way with Yeltsin-the-copout, until Putin showed up and started to regain his country for Russians.

OK, maybe Putin regained some Russian booty for himself and buddies, but they are mostly Russians, and the wealth is staying in the country, not joining the international booty owned by the world banks and their associates. For this, I think Russia has much to thank Putin for. Evidently they think so also.

Maybe the anti-Putin stuff starts with disaffected Russians, off-shore oligarchs, and the like, but the West gloms on to it and makes it a much worse thing.

Again, thank your very much for bringing some sanity and balance to this issue.

krimsonpage
American media is a lapdog. As for Putin, he has made himself the center of power in Russia. Whether he is a good man or bad is not as important
running
Henry Kissinger said in a letter "at no time were we trying to stop communism", Viet Nam, Korea?? who is the good guy here ? the world has not changed, just different players wearing different masks
TheSkepticon
I thought this opinion piece was meaningful and thorough. Putin once mentioned to Larry King that he thought it amusing that the American media would attack Russia as not having a democratic election process when in America, Florida courts made an unjust decision in favor of denying a voter fraud recount which then allowed Bush to win the presidency despite Gore winning the popular vote.

You also mention Yeltsin-era oligarchs who found themselves in foreign exile as a result of Yeltsin policies. The choice of foreign exile for these oligarchs were two places, England and Israel. And it might be relevant to note that the Washington Times reported that Mikhail Khodorkovsky who is in jail in Russia diverted all his oil shares (prior to being jailed) to Jacob Rothschild of the Rothschild family, one of the oldest and most influential banking families in the world. Now why would a Russian citizen give all his shares to a foreign banker, and not just any foreign banker? If Mikhail was indeed a true Russian cultured citizen he wouldn't accidently have such powerful loyalties outside of Russia.

Also one should note something important about Aleksander Litvinenko, autopsy data is key in determining what scenario fits the evidence. If this autopsy data is being withheld by the medical examiner then someone in the British high authority is behind this. It then isn't a Russian conspiracy as the media plays out. It is then by default a British conspiracy.

UauS
Unless Mr. Cohen wrote this article on some "special" request, it is really strange to read so many logical and factual inaccuracies from such a distinguished pundit.
Here's just one example:

"The corruption rampant in Russia today, from seizures of major private investments to bribes demanded by officials, is a direct outgrowth of the violent and other illicit measures that accompanied "privatization" under Yeltsin."

Well, this would be a point well made if today were a year 2002, not 2012. However, Putin has been de facto ruler of Russia for the last 12 years, which would amount to three presidency terms in the USA… Besides, in the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, don't we essentially have a case of a "seizure of major private investment" initiated by Putin himself?..

johnhhaskell
In an interview on CNBC Warren Buffett said it would be "nirvana" if per capita GDP in the United States grew by 1% per annum over the next 20 years.

Per capita GDP, in USD terms, grew 700% from 2000 to 2008 in Russia. That's why Putin runs the country.

Now some of you may object, "but if he were in the US he wouldn't be popular," and that's fine. Because he's not running for President of the US.

vshamanov
"The corruption rampant in Russia today, from seizures of major private investments to bribes demanded by officials, is a direct outgrowth of the violent and other illicit measures that accompanied "privatization" under Yeltsin" - It has been 12 years since Yeltsin resigned. To blame widespread corruption on Yeltsin is the same as arguing that Stalin's repressions in 1930s was "a direct outgrowth" of Lenin's policies.
Ocala123456789
i wish we have a president like him… if you combine Romney and Obama together they will not become one quarter of Putin… it is sad… we have more socialism then Putin's Russia…
TheSkepticon
I would love to post a more in depth comment here but I know from experience that if I mention just the name of a certain person or country in relation to this article it will not see the light of day. In this regard I just wish to say that this was a well thought out opinion worthy of debate.
GA_Chris
I find it funny how the media were up in arms about the protesters being arrested in Moscow for protesting against Putin, but when all the Occupy protesters were being arrested, pepper sprayed for expressing their democratic right to protest, it was tolerated…
Duke40
Great article! Good or bad, Putin is the only leader capable of doing the job and doing it right.
Matthew_Saroff
You neglect to mention the main reason he is despised in the western media: because, whatever Yeltsin's flaws, and they are legion, Yeltsin consciously decided to make sure that much of the larcenous proceeds of his privatization plans went to western investors.
Rossa_Irene
I'm a Russian. I'm young and politically active. Well, I can say, that the article is surprisingly thoughtful and meaningful.

It's been only 20 years after the USSR crash. Russia has been rebuilding itself. After political and economical collapse of the 90th it is hardly possible to have a blessed democracy in the 2000th. Anyway Russian Federation led by Putin is doing pretty good. We've survived the world economic crisis and the civil society is forming and developing.

I am studying and working, I have prospects. The only thing that bothers me is the anti-Putin campaign which is actually destructive. Believe me, the last thing we need now is a revolution.

All that is pretty obvious to the Russians. And that would be cool if the world accepted the new Russia just the way it is.

Thanks to the author for his impartial assessment and unbiased attitude. Since there are such journalists in America we can promote and cultivate brand new relations between our countries.

PS saw the comments about "Russian aggression against Georgia". Saakashwilly was the one who attacked the sleeping Ossetian city. He unleashed violence against civilians. At night Georgian soldiers were killing and raping. Mostly the Ossetians are Russian citizens. And it was Russia`s duty to protect them.

ChupaChups88
Thank you for the truth! Unfortunately, Western journalists often do not simply "mistaken" when they talk about Russia false things, but quite deliberately manipulating the facts, and therefore pointless to urge them not to demonize Putin … This is especially true of those who work in Russia. They are all well aware, but the level of deception is so high that they can not stop, because it would mean that everything they said before is no-true. In addition, the "editorial policy" major Western media eliminates the appearance of any "positive" (truthful) articles about Russia. Something "positive" simply will not print. If read the Western press, in Russia, everything is always bad, and something "good" just does not happen be a priori. That is, all exclusively in the "black" color and with apocalyptic intonations (in the spirit, now all bad and will be even worse). By Western standards, perhaps, in Russia there is a problem, but do not forget that never (in its thousand-year history) the people in Russia did not live so free and relatively richly, as now, so this whole western "negative" in relation to Russia is perceived by many Russians with complete incomprehension and resentment. Because of this, there is great distrust towards of the Western media and towards the West in general.
falkone
Russia takes 67th place in the Human Development Index (for comparison: United States – 4, United Kingdom – 28). It is the result of the domestic policies of Putin and Medvedev. If someone thinks Putin is ok for Russia I wish him to live in Russia on Russian old-age pension!
Peace17
President Putin forced Western companies to re-negotiate their extremely unfair business contracts in Russia. The US establishment can't forgive (and will never forgive) him this nonalignment with the US business interests.

This was the past. Now, the future tells us that without bringing Russia to its side within the next decade or so United States will enter the danger zone due to China's rapid growth. This will become the biggest threat to the US security. The country has no long term policy and acts plain stupid with regard to Russia bashing. The US old (cold war time) leadership in Congress does serious damage to the countries future. The military industrial complex pays these folk's bills and reaps the benefits. The rest of the country will face long term consequences.

Professor Cohen is right. Unfortunately.

xxx
At last a fair assessment of the situation in Russia. Irene Rossa writes that she is Russian and young, politically active and well educated, with good prospects for her future.
Well, I am from Russia, but I am rather old, and, as they say, have seen it all, including the horror of the sleepless nights when KGB was knocking at the doors, oh, so quietly…

During the years of first Putin, then Medvedev's presidency Russia finally let its collective breath out…. We held it for more than decade, seeing the cronies of Yeltsin robbing our country blind, seeing our youth dying because the wrong choices they made, because there was no hope, because nobody cared.. Our middle class was put at its collective knees by joblessness, hopelessness and abject poverty. We, women, fared better – we bought knitting machines and knitted socks, then stood at the corners and sold them, we sold our libraries (no Russian apartment ever was without a library!), and we cooked dinners of powdered milk and "Bush'es legs", as we called hated chicken legs. But our men, our husbands, our sons.. Yeltsin emasculated whole generation of Russian men. Some committed suicides by alcoholism, some – by a rope or a bullet.. Some simply gave up and died of a broken heart.

Now, today, we live well, we regained our trust in the future, and our men are looking much healthier and happier. Our incomes are so good that Russia has more international travelers than ever before, the car ownership is so common that even young people can afford them, and finding a good, well paid job is not a problem anymore.

At the same time in the United States millions of college degree holders are working as waiters, barmen, cashiers or receptionists. But America is so in love with itself that none of this is bothering its people! Recently I was present at the Graduation Ceremony at the UF, Florida. Out of the whole graduate engineering class 2012 there were just a dozen of "native Americans". The rest were Chinese (majority) and Indian students.

America is losing its edge, and nobody raises an alarm. Media is telling the Sheeple that "everything is fine, just look at that awful Putin over there, in Russia, and be grateful we have such a fine democracy!" Democracy, my foot! Paid and bought wholesale.

[Oct 14, 2015] Putin Calls US and Allies Oatmeal Heads On Syria

Oct 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge

To be sure, there are a lot of absurd things about what Washington has done and is currently doing in Syria.

There's the support for Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, who has used ISIS as an excuse to wage war on his own people. Then there are the various efforts to arm and train a hodgepodge of different anti-regime rebel groups (with more embarrassing results each and every time). And just yesterday we learned that the best idea the Pentagon can come up with now is to literally paradrop "50 tons" of ammo on pallets into the middle of the desert and hope the "right" people pick it up.

Of course when it comes to absurd outcomes in Syria, it's difficult to top the fact that at some point - and you don't have to go full-conspiracy theory to believe this anymore - either the West or else Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided some type of assistance to ISIS, which then proceeded to metamorphose into white basketball shoe-wearing, black flag-waving, sword-wielding desert bandits hell bent on establishing a medieval caliphate.

Having said all of that, things took an even more surreal turn late last month when, after Russia stormed in via Latakia and started bombing anti-regime targets, Washington was forced to claim that somehow, Moscow's efforts would be detrimental to the war on terror.

To be sure, there really wasn't much else the US could say. After all, you can't simply come out and say "well, we need to keep ISIS around actually and we'd much rather them then Putin and Assad, so no, we're not going to help the Russians fight terror." The only possible spin to avoid blowing the whole charade up was to claim that somehow, The Kremlin is helping terrorists by killing them (and not in the whole 72 virgins kind of way).

Now as we've said before, Putin is there (along with Iran) to shore up Assad. There's no question about that and Moscow hasn't been shy about saying it. But at the end of the day, when you are trying to wipe out your friend's enemies and some of those enemies are terrorists, well then, you are fighting a war on terror by default and that's not good for terrorists by definition. By denying this, the US is effectively arguing against a tautology which is never a good idea, and we're running out of ways to describe the ridiculousness of it.

Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is not running out of colorful descriptors.

Here's Bloomberg with some amusing excerpts from a speech he gave at an annual conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday:

Some of Russia's international partners have "oatmeal in their heads" because they don't understand clearly that its military campaign in Syria seeks to help the fight against terrorism, President Vladimir Putin said.

Russia notified the U.S. and the European Union in advance "out of respect" that it intended to begin airstrikes against Islamic State and other militants in Syria, Putin said at an annual conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday. This showed Russia's ready to cooperate on Syria, while nobody ever warned the authorities in Moscow about their operations, he said.

Putin's colorful phrase, normally used to describe someone as confused, to characterize relations with the U.S. and its allies on Syria comes amid deep tensions over the Russian bombing campaign and cruise-missile strikes that began Sept. 30. The EU demanded on Monday that Russia stop targeting moderate groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned that Russia's actions "will have consequences" and the bombing "will only inflame" Syria's four-year civil war.

Russia "received no answer" when it asked its international partners to provide information on terrorist targets in Syria, or to say at least where its planes shouldn't bomb, Putin said. "It's not a joke, I'm not making any of this up," he said.

And while the US insists on says things like this (out just hours ago):

EARNEST: SOME RUSSIAN STRIKES IN SYRIA ARE HELPING ISLAMIC STATE

Put makes a more logical argument. Namely that when one drops 50 tons of ammo from the sky into the most dangerous place on earth, there's absolutely no way to know for sure where it will ultimately end up:

U.S. air drops of weapons and ammunition intended for the Syrian Free Army, which is fighting Assad's regime, could end up in the hands of Islamic State instead, Putin said.

Yes, they might "end up in the hands of Islamic State" which we're sure wasn't what Washington had in mind. Oh ... wait...

Silky Johnson

That's kind of shit that happens when you lie to everyone and pretend to be all chivalrous an shit, but you're really a cuntface that arms monsters.

CClarity

In Ruski it means "mush for brains?

NoDebt

Yeah, I'm guessing it makes more sense in Russian. Where's Boris when we need him for translation?

KungFuMaster

I am not Boris, but the second best thing. This is what Putin said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8CGyFM2Q4

So this an idiom which should be translated: They have mess/chaos in their head. Oatmeal is typical Russian food, but in this case the main characteristic is that oatmeal looks all the same and this implies that subject cannot differentiate and separate concepts, has a fuzzy filling in his head when he does not know what he is talking about.

tc06rtw

… I think we must realize politics influenced Mr. Putin's statements; He must be forgiven for his overly charitable description of the US and its allies.

BALANDAS

Here is my reliable information --- Putin fears that US arms terrorists in Syria.

10/13/2015 14:12:30

Moscow. October 13. Interfax-AVN - Moscow fear that the weapons and uniforms, which the United States supplied "Free Syrian Army" could fall into the hands of terrorists, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Who said that the aircraft" Free Syrian Army "deliver ammunition and ammunition. Where is the" Free Syrian Army "? Do not fall if it all again as it was in the training of personnel in the hands LIH? Where is the guarantee?" - Putin said at an investment forum "Russia Calling".

"It is only that all this was done, only that it happened just in the United States recognized that action failed, and now just somewhere to throw ammunition and ammunition. This? This is not a rhetorical question," - concluded the president.


Paveway IV

The U.S. oatmeal head's psychopathic plan is, was, and always will be to overthrow Assad.

  • Failure #1: To convince enough Syrians to die for the replacement U.S.- and Israeli-puppet Syria. Solution: outsource.
  • Failure #2: Rebrand unemployed al Qaeda head-choppers under the al Nusra banner from Iraq. Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided the funding, and Turkey and Jordan the training and staging points. Expect obedience.
  • Failure #3: Expecting said head-choppers to share your vision of a free, democratic U.S./Israeli puppet Syria. The head-choppers didn't give a damn about the U.S. plans because they were just going to keep Syria for themselves. But, hey - if the nut-jobs in the U.S. wanted to set them up with training and weapons, why not? Uh... 'moderate' rebels? Yeeaaaahh... that's right. We're 'moderate'. Free, democratic Syria? ...yeah, whatever.
  • Failure #4: Give the FSA TOW-2As for their unwinnable war. Al Nusra reaction: how about some TOW-2As for US? No? OK... I guess we'll just convince the FSA that have them that they really need to be in our 'joint opeations room' with the rest of our alliance (or lose their fucking heads). So, yeah... just keep giving TOWs to THEM.
  • Failure #5: Expecting the demoralized, crumbling, corrupt FSA left-overs (now effectively Shanghai'd by al Nusra and various other takfiri head-choppers) to make military progress with their criminal amphetamine-crazed, civilian-looting head-chopper buddies. At the same time, even more fanatical head-choppers ISIS evolves and secures a lot of the previous al Nusra funding and arms, pissing off THEM.
  • Failure #6: Coming up with the clownishly-stupid plan of USING ISIS to fight Assad since the FSA and al Nusra plan fell to shit. You would simple bomb ISIS if they attacked a non-approved target (al Nusra or the FSA) and steer them to desirec targets (Assad and Syrian infrastructure and oil wells) with ammo, equipment drops and intel. It actually worked for a few months, but ISIS knew what was going on all along. They've grown tired of the game and have plenty of weapons and ammo now (between U.S. airdrops and all the shit they seized whenever they roll over another Syrian army position).
  • Failure #7: Keeping ISIS financially strong enough to serve as your third army against Assad: Bomb the shit out of Assad's forces guarding oil and gas installations, then airdrop arms, ammo and equipment to ISIS so they can take them over and sustain their operations through black-market means. At least not as blatant as Iraq, where you transfer several hundred tons of gold to your new central bank in Mosul - days before ISIS simply walks in and takes it without a shot (almost like it was a planned gold transfer to ISIS).
  • Failure #8: Failing to anticipate that Putin would do the same thing for now: steer ISIS towards your FSA/head-chopper forces to kill them FOR you. He's done this north of Aleppo and decimated Jabha Shamiya, who is now scurrying back to more al Nusra-safe turf. Putin and Solemani have no plans to enable ISIS long term - just use them for a little short-term al Nusra meat-grinding until they, themselves are annihilated by Syria and allies.
  • Failure #9: Failing to understand how quickly the supply lines to Aleppo could be interdicted by a Russian air campaign. It turns out the resolve of both the Aleppo FSA (for a U.S. democratized and freedomized Syria) and the Aleppo head-choppers (for their caliphate) are directly dependent on a continuous supply of amphetamines, USD, weapons and ammo. Interferene with that opposition Wal*Mart drug and explosives logistics network has created quite a bit of consternation in Aleppo. The second in command of the opposition coalition there just quit, head-choppers are leaving for paying jobs and the few FSA left there are heading for Turkey. Aleppo might fall in a matter of weeks, maybe days - without much opposition at all.

More to come. Waaayyy more to come.

ZerOhead

That's a lot of failures even for a completely inept Obama Administration. Too many failures perhaps?

Paveway IV

Not NEARLY enough. The next step of the Oded-Yinon (or whatever the clownfuckery is called) plan calls for a civil war in Turkey (Turks vs. Kurds), partitioning it and splitting off of a corrupt and psychopathic U.S./Israeli-puppet-led unified Kurdish nation. ZATO has hijacked Kurdish nationalism to force an artificial Kurdistan well before it's time.

The purpose isn't to unify Kurds, it's to create a weak and corrupt Kurdish corridor from the Mediterranean to Iran. Guess why? Hint: Israel's U.S.-staffed war with Iran, discount stolen Iraqi oil from Kurdish Iraq for Israel, and the alternative northern route for Qatari gas lines (avoiding Syria altogether).

See how that all works out? Russian soldiers die in Syria to clean up the U.S./Israeli mess they created there. At the same time, the Kurds will lose their long sought-after Kurdish nation to a Ukraine-like Jewish oligarch controlled, chaotic and eternally-squabbling hell-hole of a country (probably eternally at war with the Turkish partition next to them) kept barely alive by stolen Iraqi oil (who will also be trying to kill them).

Psychopathy 101: Manufactured death and destruction is like a welcome mat to come in and fuck over the victims even more.

Poundsand

The hypocrisy is staggering and the entire world knows it. Assad has to go because of what? They say bombing his own people. Yet across the border Erdogan is actually bombing his own people and no one says boo. But I guess duly elected minority representation in a democratic country doesn't really count if you're Kurdish.

The US is losing it's standing in the world and has become a corrupt sheriff in town and don't think that everyone except those here in America don't know it. As our military and moral authority wane, it will be picked up by someone else. It always is because there is nothing new under the sun.

Son of Loki

Neither the Law nor Morality stand in the way of The POTUS!

SofaPapa

Increasingly, even those here in America know it. The US government has minimal popular support for their actions of the past 15 years in the international stage. They are playing with fire both at home and abroad.

McMolotov

The establishment wants Hitlery but is quickly realizing she is likely unelectable. Bernie is a wildcard and uncontrollable, so they need to swing the electorate over to the GOP. Piling on Obama will accomplish just that. After they find a way to torpedo Trump, look for someone like Rubio to become the front-runner.

Elections are nothing more than selections by the power elite at this point, but there still has to be a thin veneer of plausibility to the whole charade.

Squid-puppets a-go-go

lol very good mcmolotov - i think now it is a fulsome measure of the decay and corruption of the american republic that they need such monumental lengths to provide that thin veneer of plausibility to any of the available candidates.

Raging Debate

Obama is a disposable puppet. He reminds me of Ensign Benson, that black extra in Star Trek they send down to that scary, uknown planet. Kirk and Spock go down there afterward.

WillyGroper

PCR's take is O has come to his senses on neoCON fail from that interview.

REALLY? Eye don't think so.

bunnyswanson

USA/Israel having been bombing Syria for years. Why continue now when Russia is on it? Especially since ISIS is Israel stealing land again, gas more specfically. Like O said, why bankrupt your nation for one ally.

Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

By "oatmeal" he (Putin) probably meant Russian "kasha", which when used figuratively means something like "unordered mess", when things are so intermixed as to be indistinguishable from each other. It also can be used to describe a messy, unclear, volatile situation. I believe that correct translation would be "muddleheaded", someone who is unable to think with clarity or act intelligently.

gregga777

For more than two decades the politicians and bureaucrats, holding elected and appointed offices, in Washington have uniformly despised military service and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a real uniform in the U. S. Armed Forces. [They had "better" things to do for their lives than serving in the military, to quote one former V. P.]. They uniformly lack the personal military experience, to create the necessary context needed for understanding, to judge the desirability of diplomacy where the use of military force is the last resort, not the first resort.

kaboomnomic

Don't trust bloomberg words? Use this YT video.

https://youtu.be/OWBbyZ_sjHo

Putin speech in 2011 about ASSMEEREEEKKAAAA intention. And what Russian would do.

https://youtu.be/932K6tZ5Ea4

Putin laugh when idiot german's reporter saying assmeerrreeekkaaa ABM missiles placed in EU are for intercepting Iran's missiles.

https://youtu.be/Lewkw6-d-Wc

Haha.. Hahaha.. Hahahahahahaha...

spyware-free

For those that doubt Qatari gas is not a component (if not the primary reason) for removing Assad we have this from Erdogan...
"Assad, refusing the transit of Qatari gas and becoming a potential competitor in the European market, would have to be be eliminated."

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/erdogan-sheds-light-on-syria-blue-f...

That doesn't dismiss Isreal's goals of weakening a regional enemy and grabbing more land as a catalyst as well.

The Indelicate -> spyware-free

Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.

You don't build a pipeline through a war zone. You certainly don't spend billions in lieu of working around [look at a map]. And the US and Israel are not helping fucking Qatar send gas to Europe. That's Israel's job.

spyware-free -> The Indelicate

Each regional player has their own motivations behind attacking Assad. Turkey & KSA could care less about Isreal's intentions but the removal of Assad serves all their needs.

The Indelicate ...

"The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up." This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight against ISIL. And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites are not happy about it.

You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another generation.

How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements issued over the last several decades.

The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.

In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the "Iron Wall" that the only way to deal with "the Arabs" in and around Israel was through unrelenting force and the inducement of cultural fragmentation) was consolidating its hold on the foreign policy establishment of Israel, a journalist named Oded Yinon, who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published an article in which he outlined the strategic approach his country needed to take in the coming years.

What follows are some excerpts from Israel Shahak's English translation of that text:

"Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon…."

{continues}

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/10/us-russia-syria-problem-fak...


IndianaJohn

Indelicate, -- that's really quite a load of indelicate deceit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

justdues

Indelicate, look at his youtube , no need for sarc you,re on the same page

jtg

"Oatmeal in their heads", an apt description of the 'indispensable and exceptional' lunatics in the West. Why is it that to find a clear thinking leader I have to listen to Putin? Why is it that the West is now the axis of evil?

The Indelicate ...

he didn't literally say oatmeal - he basically said 'mush for brains'. Of course, he's calling them stupid, but he knows they are deliberately evil. But it is easier to fool people about America the white knight than it is to convince them they've been fooled. No matter how much evidence there is that this war was planned long ago.

css1971

Actually you often find that evil people are also stupid. Psychopaths are not generally noted for their intelligence. They're often charming, manipulative and great liars with enormous egos, but intelligent is not a requirement. Which is a problem where you have an electoral and corporate governance systems which consistently puts people who are narcissists and socialized psychopaths into positions of power. They don't have the real intellectual horsepower to do the job, though of course they think they do, and often their sycophants do also.

The Indelicate ...

'Psychopaths are not generally noted for their intelligence.'

But serial killers are.

http://allnewspipeline.com/Putin_Rips_Obama_NATO_West.php

[Oct 13, 2015] The headline is a bit over the top but relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate

Warren , October 11, 2015 at 10:59 am

RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria

As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488

Moscow Exile , October 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm

"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."

The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?

The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified source is quoted as saying.

That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was being threatened by the passenger aircraft.

Patient Observer , October 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm

Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able to hit back hard?

marknesop , October 11, 2015 at 9:53 pm

Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity. So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around his position.

[Oct 13, 2015] EU tells Russia to 'cease' strikes on Syria rebels

et Al, October 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm
EU Observer: EU tells Russia to 'cease' strikes on Syria rebels
https://euobserver.com/foreign/130641

Blah blah blah blah
####

Quite the hand wringing. Russia must do this and that and is urged but it is also hoped that Russia will join… Sanctions on Russia if it does not do what the do nothings say?? It would be nice if the EU intel agencies openly published which terrorist organizations in Syria sufficiently 'moderate' not to be bombed by Russia.

Here's the link to the actual communique:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/10/12-fac-conclusions-syria/

1. The conflict in Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people is showing no sign of abating. The scale of the tragedy, having killed 250,000 men, women and children, displaced 7.6 million inside the country and sent over 4 million fleeing into neighbouring and other countries, is now the world's largest humanitarian disaster, with no parallel in recent history. The EU, as the largest donor, has demonstrated its willingness and commitment to do what it can to alleviate the humanitarian consequences. As the crisis intensifies there is an increasingly urgent need to find a lasting solution that will end this conflict. Only a Syrian-led political process leading to a peaceful and inclusive transition, based on the principles of the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012, will bring back stability to Syria, enable peace and reconciliation and create the necessary environment for efficient counter terrorism efforts and maintain the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian State. There cannot be a lasting peace in Syria under the present leadership and until the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all components of the Syrian society are addressed.

2. The EU's objective is to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live in peace in their own country. The international community has to unite around two complementary and interlinked tracks – a political one that aims to bring an end to the civil war by addressing all the root causes of the conflict and establish an inclusive political transition process that will restore peace to the country – and a security one to focus on the fight against the regional and global threat of Da'esh.

3. The EU reiterates its full support to the UN-led efforts and the work of UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to build this political track. The EU emphasizes the need to accelerate the work of the entire international community on the political track in the framework of the UN-led process. The EU is already actively contributing to the UN initiatives and will increase its diplomatic work in support of the UN-led efforts, including the UN Special Envoy's proposal for intra-Syrian working groups.

4. We call on all Syrian parties to show a clear and concrete commitment to the UN-led process and to participate actively in the working groups. The EU underlines the urgency for the moderate political opposition and associated armed groups to unite behind a common approach in order to present an alternative to the Syrian people. These efforts must be inclusive involving women and civil society. The EU will sustain its support to the moderate opposition, including the SOC, and recalls that it is a vital element in fighting extremism and has a key role to play in the political transition.

5. The EU will continue to put all of its political weight, actively and effectively, behind UN-led international efforts to find a political solution to the conflict, and calls on regional and international partners to do likewise. We urge all those with influence on the parties, including on the Syrian regime, to use this influence to encourage a constructive role in the process leading to a political transition and to end the cycle of violence. The EU will pro-actively engage with key regional actors such as , Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and international partners within the UN framework to build the conditions for a, peaceful and inclusive transition. In this context, the Council recalls its decision to task the HRVP to explore ways in which the EU could actively promote more constructive regional cooperation.

6. The protection of civilians in Syria must be a priority for the international community. The EU condemns the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks that the Syrian regime continues to commit against its own people. The Assad regime bears the greatest responsibility for the 250.000 deaths of the conflict and the millions of displaced people. The EU recalls that international humanitarian law applies to all parties, and human rights need to be fully respected. We call on all parties to stop all forms of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment against civilian areas and structures such as hospitals and schools and, in particular, on the Syrian regime to cease all aerial bombardments, including the use of barrel bombs in line with UNSC Resolution 2139 and the use of chemical weapons in line with UNSCR 2209. The systematic targeting of civilians by the regime has led to mass displacements and encouraged recruitment to and the flourishing of terrorist groups in Syria. This calls for urgent attention and action.

The EU will reinforce its efforts to scale up the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions 2139, 2165 and 2191 to deliver cross-border and cross line assistance in order to help those Syrians most desperately in need.

7. The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate attacks, atrocities, killings, conflict-related sexual violence, abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law which are perpetrated by Da'esh and other terrorist groups, against all civilians, including against Christians and other religious and ethnic groups. The EU supports international efforts and initiatives to address these issues. The EU condemns Da'esh's deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq, which amount to a war crime under international law.

8. Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria must be held accountable. The EU expresses its deepest concern about the findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. The allegations of torture and executions based on the evidence presented by the Caesar report are also of great concern. The EU reiterates its call to the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.

9. The EU supports the efforts of the Global Coalition to counter Da'esh in Syria and Iraq. As a consequence of its policies and actions, the Assad regime cannot be a partner in the fight against Dae'sh. Action against Da'esh needs to be closely coordinated among all partners, and needs clearly to target Da'esh, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the other UN-designated terrorist groups.

10. The recent Russian military attacks that go beyond Dae'sh and other UN-designated terrorist groups, as well as on the moderate opposition, are of deep concern, and must cease immediately. So too must the Russian violations of the sovereign airspace of neighbouring countries.

This military escalation risks prolonging the conflict, undermining a political process, aggravating the humanitarian situation and increasing radicalization. Our aim should be to de-escalate the conflict. The EU calls on Russia to focus its efforts on the common objective of achieving a political solution to the conflict. In this context it urges Russia to push for a reduction of violence and implementation of confidence-building measures by the Syrian Regime along the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2139.

11. The EU will intensify humanitarian diplomacy and seek ways to improve access and protection as well as to promote humanitarian principles and local consensus on guidelines for the delivery of aid.

12. The EU has substantially increased its financial efforts to support those who have fled the conflict, within and outside Syria, with new commitments to humanitarian aid and to longer-term work supporting the resilience of refugees in the neighbourhood. The EU and its Member states have already provided €4 billion for relief and recovery assistance to those affected by the conflict inside Syria and refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries. The EU and its Member States will continue to provide humanitarian assistance through the UN, ICRC and international NGOs. At the same time, the EU will increase its longer-term development and stabilization assistance, to these and other partners, including through the EU Regional Trust Fund recently established in response to the Syrian Crisis (the "Madad Fund") which has now been equipped with over €500 million in EU funding to be matched by efforts from EU Member States and other countries. The EU calls on other countries to sustain and increase their own contributions in response to the Syria crisis. The Council agreed specifically on the need to increase the level of cooperation and partnership with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to ensure equal access to shelter, education, health and livelihoods for refugees and their host communities with the support of additional EU assistance.
####

It must be better to stick to EU & US failure. What could possibly go wrong by having your Gulf allies send large quantities of weapons to jihadists?

euractiv: Mogherini says Russian intervention in Syria neither positive nor negative
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/mogherini-says-russian-intervention-syria-neither-positive-nor-negative

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini took a cautious position on Russian intervention in Syria, compared to the critical tone of a communiqué of the Union's foreign ministers adopted today (12 October).

…For her part, Mogherini refrained from qualifying the Russian intervention as bad or good. Speaking about the hot issue ahead of the ministerial meeting, she said:

"I guess it is much more complicated than just saying "positive" or "negative". It is for sure a game changer."

But she added that "interventions against Daesh have to be clearly against Daesh and other terrorist groups, as defined by the UN"…
####

Good crock of s/t vs. bad crock of s/t? Don't take the communique too seriously Russia? They make noise because they are doing nothing and can't even agree to do anything apart from put some words together on the page.

marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 12:58 pm
All of it is a malodorous crock of shit. The EU evidenced no particular interest in the plight of civilians in Syria up to this point, began to get interested and then almost wholly in a not-particularly-sympathetic way when floods of refugees were released from Turkey to stream into Europe recently, and have been in crisis mode only for the last two weeks since Russia has taken a hand at the request of the Syrian government. There was lackluster interest in a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors until then, because the west judged it was just a matter of a few more weeks and Assad would fall, without the west doing much of anything at all. Then it would remain only to swoop in, divest the rebel militias of their prize and pick a new western-friendly government of diaspora exiles.

The western press is playing its usual game of simply alluding to facts until they become facts without any actual substantiation ever having been offered. Russia is deliberately bombing civilians and civilian-only infrastructure such as hospitals and schools because the western press says so. Almost a fifth of Russian cruise missiles fell irresponsibly on the territory of another country they passed over, because the western press says so based on information they were given by unnamed western officials, although Russia claims to have positive battle-damage assessments for every missile fired and Iran says the western allegation is untrue. But the west always gets the benefit of the doubt, just as if it had never been caught in a lie before.

Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Here, I can't help but (mis)quote Uncle Joe's famous: "FSA? And how many divisions did they have?"

Like – no seriously? Who is braind dead enough to call the them, the complete losers, a <em.legitiate opposition ?

Cortes. October 12, 2015 at 1:56 pm
What is this Global Coalition of which they make mention?
Patient Observer. October 12, 2015 at 2:44 pm
"Good crock/Bad crock" – that sums up Western political debate.
Patient Observer, October 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm
Per a commentator on a Yahoo story on Syrian gains against the rebels:

"They [KSA, UAE states] fund and supplies ISIS and Al Qaeda even drop supplies from the air to terrorists through their clandestine ops which our government [USA] knows well and does nothing."

Made me wonder if the reason for SU-30s is to shoot these planes down – a no-fly zone aimed at shutting down these supply drops. The Saker pounds away at the point that Russian air assets in Syria are insufficient to enforce a no-fly zone against NATO. However, as just alluded, the purpose of the SU-30s may simply be to stop use of air drops to supply the terrorists.

Given the missile and radars on the SU-30s, a hand full should be enough to clear the skies of transport planes over Syria. Russian naval ships can provide the radar coverage to identify such aircraft and vector the Su-30s as required and the rest should be history.

[Oct 11, 2015] Russia's Move In Syria Threatens Energy Deals With Turkey

In 2014, Gazprom delivered 27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines. Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since 2010, and Turkey – now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand in Turkey is expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.

... ... ...

With European demand projected to grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas on demand.

It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly damage Russia-Turkey relations.

Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now top out at 32 bcm, if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have agreed to draft the text of an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's general election. And that's it.

[Oct 10, 2015] Obama Launches A Proxy War On Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Russia bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
"... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
"... Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org
But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent in Syria. Obama had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration, the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.

The official Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries. But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting and training part and will arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":

The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal to Assad and his allies.
...
Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that training outside Syria, officials said.

Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.

We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it, on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.

Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."

That would be these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda demands a "toll" of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.

The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.

The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

Russia bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:

Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
...
Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified. U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged that his discussions centered on Syria.

...
The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.

U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target civilian aircraft.

The person who told the Saudis to deliver 500 TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks on the Russian base.

So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.

The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S. throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around it.

Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara. Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy. The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation.

Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.

Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.

[Oct 10, 2015] Three main reasons for which NATO is not attacking Russia right now

Notable quotes:
"... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
"... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
"... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
"... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
"... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
"... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
"... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
"... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
"... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
"... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
"... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
"... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
"... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
"... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
"... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

by system failure

The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment, is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.

Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which prevents NATO to confront them openly.

The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom.

The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.

Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.

Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France, is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.

The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East. A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.

However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.

shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 1:05:32 PM | 9

Beware bloggers:

Cold War II to McCarthyism II, June 8, 2015

Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.

snip

Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.

What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.

BIG SNIP

USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls have retired.

Lysander | Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14

Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."

james | Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18

what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..

actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..

i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better with isis?

Virgile | Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19

This is where Iran comes in...

It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.

In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon

MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21

@17 shadylady
Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos, arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.

Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:00:19 PM | 22

nmb @2, Thanks for the link. One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. I agree and evidently some faction in the US with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same. The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria and its govt specifically.

shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 2:04:53 PM | 23

@ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar

NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria

Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way, what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.

From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.

snip
The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU funding will be. Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.

Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey. (Alas, they are not agreeable.)
snip

A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.

MORE: http://atimes.com/2015/10/nato-all-dressed-up-nowhere-to-go-in-syria/

Always love Escobar, waiting for his next article:
http://atimes.com/category/empire-of-chaos/

Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:16:15 PM | 25

Shady Lady @3, "Do we have a rogue CIA now?"

Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're running free.

It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.

He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be an awfully dangerous move.

Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?

gemini33 | Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30

@11 Penelope

It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.

It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have become a Propaganda Wonderland.

MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33

@25 Penelope

McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles" can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.

People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of the same team, only with different roles.

Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 2:49:58 PM | 35

Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.

On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.

Welcome to the, now official, Cold War 2.0!

MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 3:11:58 PM | 39

@27 Penelope

Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War.

So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.

As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything has its own time and its own place.

ToivoS | Oct 10, 2015 3:34:37 PM | 42

The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra" and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow this seems unlikely.

I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.

Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 3:36:53 PM | 43

BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.

Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.

In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent departure, day before Rusian missiles.

This was potentially important; thanks for posting it. The links are boring. Don't bother; I only posted them for completeness.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-u.s.-aircraft-carrier-gap-in-the-gulfTh Oct 5, announcing imminent departure
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/carrier-gap-in-gulf-is-a-symptom-not-a-crisis/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/

GoraDiva | Oct 10, 2015 3:51:04 PM | 46

A good update on the Syrian ops - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/john-helmer-us-strategy-in-the-middle-east-is-dying-along-with-its-authors-carter-and-brzezinski-putin-al-assad-get-to-dance-on-their-graves-david-ben-gurion-too.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

alaric | Oct 10, 2015 4:04:07 PM | 50

The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin can do, many are mentioned above.

The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.

I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.

Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.

zedz | Oct 10, 2015 4:06:51 PM | 51

IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway

I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in the end.

Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other. The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.

Vintage Red | Oct 10, 2015 4:12:00 PM | 53

gemini33 @30:

"We have become a Propaganda Wonderland."

The US has become Humpty-Dumpty, claiming "words mean what I want them to mean." We all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty...

tom | Oct 10, 2015 5:30:31 PM | 59

Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.

Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth.

Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.

The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.

And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the Great Satan.

Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on there too.

Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.

MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 5:50:11 PM | 62

@57 Penelope

In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are meaningless.

All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare. People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News. Moscow understands that.

My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.

harry law | Oct 10, 2015 6:06:25 PM | 66

"On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and equipment."

Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern directions," Konashenkov explained.

Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the Damascus countryside and Aleppo." http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/ Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.

Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed it.

Wayoutwest | Oct 10, 2015 7:33:26 PM | 73

HL@66

The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall.

The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

ben | Oct 10, 2015 7:56:14 PM | 77

LoneWolf @35 said: " The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."

Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.

nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep state will let any chance for Sanders."

Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!

Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 11:21:16 PM | 83

@Wayoutwest@73

The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.

I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).

Islamic State loses 132 members, 70 villages and farmlands in the northeast of Syria

Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy, the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers, etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does not engage in attrition tactics.

The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes, and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.

crone | Oct 10, 2015 11:47:30 PM | 86

excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan

comment section informative also

[Oct 09, 2015] Russias Syria gambit could be a game changer – but only if it hastens transition

Everything that has happened recently is down to this geopolitical struggle the Arab Spring, Crimea, Sochi, MH17, OPEC glut, insane monetary policy... It's all a battle between the New York-London Bretton Woods world order and Putin's vision of a Eurasian Economic Union controlled by a Beijing-Moscow axis. ..."
Oct 05, 2015 | The Guardian

aLLaguz 1 Oct 2015 20:27

It is not that Russia will or wont persuade Assad to step down... western nations don't want to negotiate ... they want Assad out... anything else is NO.
Russia will persuade not Assad.... but western nations to sit and negotiate...

The moment is the best ever for Russia and Assad. The flood of refugees put presure in EU and US to stop the war.... which means that now, the negotiation table is in balance....

ISIS will be wipe out.

Rebels will acquire an important status and drop down weapons with anmesty... maybe a political party ... who knows

Assad will be in power after the war...

New elections will be made ... in time ... democratically, and new rules for minorities...

Russia will maintain its base and its political influence will be greater...

Money for reconstruction will be from China and Russia... Iran also ... which leads to a new Syria allied more tightly to them ... the block will be stronger than ever ..
what else? who knows ....

GoloManner -> makz 1 Oct 2015 17:55

And you know this how, exactly? I mean, do you see no reason why anyone other than an Islamist would oppose Assad?

Initially certainly

But any secular or democratic opposition forces have been annihilated or swallowed up by Islamists as this conflict has descended into sectarian civil war. I wish it weren't the case., I wish the opposition was made up of plucky liberal democrats too but that's just wishful thinking

It is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of experts such as Patrick Cockburn who answered the question of who the moderate rebels were, thus

Well, they aren't is the answer to that. They scarcely exist on the ground. That's one of the extraordinary things about the plan that was announced this week to combat ISIS, the Islamic State, is that in Syria the main opponent of the Islamic State is to be the Syrian armed moderates. But nobody can find them on the map.

The main military force in Syria is the Syrian army, the Syrian government. The main opposition force is ISIS. Then there are a series of other jihadi groups. Like, there's one called Jabhat al-Nusra. It's pretty powerful. It's also the Syrian affiliate of bin Laden's al-Qaeda. So the jihadis dominate that.

So it's kind of saying that everything will depend on these moderates who are to be vetted and trained in Saudi Arabia, and then these poor guys are going to fight not only ISIS, the most ferocious guerrilla group in the world, but the Syrian army. So this is really not a policy. It's kind of make-believe.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12373

makz -> threehunglow 1 Oct 2015 15:35

Whilst I am well aware that the Assad government is fascistic in nature, and am familiar with events such as the Hama massacre, I must say that when I was working in Syria, not even a year before all the trouble kicked off, it certainly did not feel like such a dreadful place. I spent a lot of time in Damascus, Hama and Masyaf, and they were all pretty lively places full of people who certainly seemed happy enough. I can't imagine that many people would not happily return to those days, given the reality of the present.

Lillianne -> robertthebruce2014 1 Oct 2015 13:55

Because America wants a new cold war to rebuild its stockpile. America is terrified of world peace - its economy would simply collapse. It doesn't support AlQaeda as such but it's insistent on prodding the Russian bear.

robertthebruce2014 1 Oct 2015 13:29

Why is the West supporting Al Qaida? I thought Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11!?!

Peter Cini 1 Oct 2015 13:21

Hear this and hear this now: The Putin Doctrine has put an end to Anglo-American Regime Change rampages, especially in the Middle East. The days of Washington and London deciding which government will be allowed to survive are over. Farewell to Pox Americana.

Patriotic Americans and Brits will welcome the emergence of Putin the Peacemaker. So will Western Europe unless they want to see the whole region empty out on their doorsteps.

Maybe this is what Obama wants too...

Sergei Konyushenko 1 Oct 2015 12:49

Islamic Holocaust: Western wars have killed AT LEAST 4 million Muslims since 1990

http://www.sott.net/article/303020-Islamic-Holocaust-Western-wars-have-killed-AT-LEAST-4-million-Muslims-since-1990

Vermithrax -> chuckding 1 Oct 2015 12:17

The media that have been using ISIS as the bogeyman to justify western boots on the ground. Lot of effort being made there if it doesn't matter. Obama clearly wanted to bomb Assad so the pipeline through Syria came from Saudi not Iran. Now if he wants to do the Suadi's dirty work for them he'll have to start WW3.

Vermithrax rooster29 1 Oct 2015 12:13

Because they can't attack Assad directly and because their deliberately rubbish campaign against ISIS will be exposed for what it is. I said that in my original post. Pay attention.

Indianrook 1 Oct 2015 11:53

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/russia-launches-fresh-airstrikes-on-syria-targets The title of the above news is
"US-backed Syrian rebels say they have been hit by Russian airstrikes." Can The Guardian would explain whom we could call rebels and whom we could call terrorist? By the way The Guardian has not opened the comment option for the above news.

Dean Griffiths 1 Oct 2015 11:20

Though it pains me to say it perhaps the best thing is for the West to back away from Syria and leave it to Putin to sort out. It's been a brave fight by the FSA but the conflict has been raging now for over 4 and a half years with no sign of a decisive military victory. since the war began 1 out of every 100 Syrians has died and 1 in 3 have been displaced and 1 in 4 have fled the country. Now Putin has flexed his Military muscle you would think that it will only be a matter of time until the FSA are defeated, as the West will only back them so far.

I have absolutely no liking for Assad and his regime but it appears to me that it is the only one that may be able to bring some stability to the country and I believe a majority of Syrians do still support him. The west instigated regime change in Iraq & Lybia to get rid of similar dictators and just created instability and a power vacuum which has lead has lead to the grow of ISIS.

If Assad did move aside there is no suggest that Syria would fair any better than Iraq or Lybia. The opposition in the West of the country is fragmented and the Jihadists (who would be left in control of much of the eastern part of the country) would exploit this and there are the Kurds in the north who would be demanding independence. If Assad was to defeat the opposition forces in the West it would only be a matter of time before he turned on the Jihadists in the East. That would in theory at least, allow the West to do more about getting rid of ISIS in Iraq.

lesterburnham15 -> TarquinFintimlin 1 Oct 2015 11:09

Afghanistan does not fall into the middle east geo-political arena lies to the east of Iran, my notion of the middle east encompasses turkey to iran down to yemen. like the Caucasus is southern russia, armenia, azerbaijan and georgia. The great game involve russia v britain control of India, Afghanistan, more central asia.

but what you go on about is lies like your a classic head banger.

TarquinFintimlin -> lesterburnham15 1 Oct 2015 11:00

Really? I seem to remember a certain conflict called Afghanistan. That wasn't that long ago. Russia has also a long history of military bases in Syria. And let's not even start on the Great Game, Russia's involvement in the Caucasus Mountains and the long rivalry between Turkey and Russia in the region. All of that still has a MASSIVE impact on the modern Middle East. And that was LONG before the US was ever involved.

AlexisWolf -> JethrowToumme 1 Oct 2015 10:34

Yeah right. If you think you have to be a Kremlin stooge to see the folly of Western warmongering then you are unable to learn why Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan etc have been such a disastrous criminal failure that risks the safety of us all.

AlexisWolf -> Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 10:28

Apx 70% of the Syrian armed forces are Sunni. How does that fit into your ignorant rant?

AlexisWolf -> Roguing 1 Oct 2015 10:25

They're in Syria but they're not Syrian, they come from dozens of countries, that makes them all armed invaders. What would any other country do if it was them being invaded??

Exodus20 1 Oct 2015 10:19

It is all a big game of deception and lie from Iraq, to Libya, to Syria. US is bombing the factions of ISIS which it doesn't control to help the faction which were started by funding from "our friends and allies (ref General Wesley Clark)" and may still control. Russia is bombing the factions which are oppose to Assad which include the factions the West and Saudi are still supporting.

diddoit -> ubipromaya 1 Oct 2015 10:18

The approach seems to have been 'the enemy of my enemy...' to date. Strange how IS seemed to have got stronger and immune to bombing. The Saudis are now furious Russia is bombing , why do you think that is?

Massimo D'Ulisse -> CordTrousers 1 Oct 2015 10:12

Obama is an inept dreamer, and he's preventing an effective solution by demanding Assad removed before anything else on ground of his atrocities. Now, in the worst case, Assad might have killed hundreds, maybe thousands of opposers - but that's 1/100 of the victims of this horrible civil war. So Obama prefers to see this war going on, and an entire populace displaced and moving to Europe, instead of accepting reality - an unhappy one, but still reality.

We must remember that under Mr Saddam Hussein, the number of people dying in Iraq every year was much, much less than the victims of the after-war period.

Sheeba Sunil -> Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 10:10

I would say over 70% of Syrian people - including Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Druze & Shias - support Assad. They all support not for their love towards Assad, instead for their hate towards western funded opposition rebels. Syrian people are largely liberal and moderate. They don't want their country to be ruled by Sharia loving blood thirsty jihadis.

Quite unsurprisingly, western/arab intervention in Syrian war made Assad more popular than ever.

JohnSouttar Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 09:52

Assad was swept to power again in elections because of what he represented to the whole country. Peace and prosperity. Christians, Shiites, Sunnis and other ethnicities getting on with each other. Women allowed to vote and stand in elections. A secular state. Most people and families want that but in neighbouring countries would be imprisoned for expressing that view openly. Goodness me most of our best political leaders were from some sort of minority - perhaps even aristocracy. That is the true definition for an inclusive government. Now why did some Arab countries not like that? Do you really think the Syrians want a Chechen emir running their town? Or the Saudis to dictate that they have Sharia law? A world like that we are selling Afghanis out to now run by the Taliban after so many collaborated with us, women who dared to get education and will soon die for it. Given the choice most Muslims are not at all fanatical and that is why so many have come to countries like Britain and Germany.

irgun777 1 Oct 2015 09:51

" Russian aircraft had launched 30 fresh airstrikes against Jaysh al-Fateh, a powerful rebel coalition that includes Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra Front. "

Guardian today. It looks like the Russian are doing a good job !

hugodegauche 1 Oct 2015 09:50

Imposing failing western systems on Syria will not work. It has not worked in Iraq nor Libya nor anywhere else in the Arab world. Assad is not great but clearly better than those who oppose him (I say better in the purely Hobbesian sense of providing a minimum of governance)

The sensible possible is for Assad to be supported with some tinkering on internal reforms to save everyone's face. Israel needs to remain strong and alert whoever is in power in Damascus or in fact Syria implodes entirely.

stuart255 1 Oct 2015 09:39

This is now beyond ridiculous where the Western media protests Russia bombing "moderate rebels" such as the AL QAEDA affiliated Al Nusra.

Pray tell, who are all of our drones bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan??
Isn't it Al Qaeda affiliated groups?

Putin has trapped us on the wrong side of history, Russia is acting within international law under permission of the sovereign government of Syria and the West is now the deer-in-the-headlights as Russia takes on the role of Global Policeman.

This is a foreign policy disaster. Putin is going to be the power that gets to redraw the Sykes-Picot line and Europe is going to be beholden to Russian gas for the next half century.

In 2012 Putin was elected with the promise of bringing a Eurasian Economic Union to reality and Hillary Clinton whilst Secretary of State publically said that the US sees this as Soviet Union 2.0 and will do everything to stop or slow the progress of Putin's Eurasian Union which would by default be that largest economic zone on the planet by some margin. Thus driving a horse and cart over the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Everything that has happened recently is down to this geopolitical struggle the Arab Spring, Crimea, Sochi, MH17, OPEC glut, insane monetary policy... It's all a battle between the New York-London Bretton Woods world order and Putin's vision of a Eurasian Economic Union controlled by a Beijing-Moscow axis.

This is the greater context of our time.

JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 09:30

You can imagine how humiliating and embarrassing it is to appear on TV complaining about Russia bombing Al Qaida, blaming Assad for the rebel sarin gas attack and 'butchering' his own people and suggesting that the moderate opposition are the answer when in fact they are mostly Libyan and Chechen mercenary killers. One can also see the military advisors tearing their hair out at the political pressure put on them to carry on this charade especially now Russian planes are there. Also how poorly paid the script writers must be. It is not for the benefit of the population, just to pretend to the donors and Congressional lobbies that they are trying. Not very hard I would think.

tiagoTIMAO 1 Oct 2015 09:28

"they make no distinction between different armed groups, Islamist, jihadi or democratic"
kkkkkkkkkkk, show me this democratic groups. The democratic IS, or democratic FSA, or Al-Nursa. You're kidding

Zagradotryad 1 Oct 2015 09:21

The simple fact is there is no 'moderate' Syrian opposition. They all want to wade knee deep in the blood of Alawite children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Alawites

rooster29 -> Danny885500 1 Oct 2015 09:19

The reason the free market neo-con Tories are attacking the BBC is a matter of ideology. Apart from the distaste of any organisation being run by the state (apart from when it's necessary) they know that any privately owned media such as Sky and ITV will be biased towards and support right-wing governments anyway, making the tax-paid BBC an anachronism. The Tory's plan for the BBC is most definitely eventual privatisation. Demonization by the government and right-wing media is always a first step to the real objective.

rooster29 -> GenoDutch 1 Oct 2015 09:13

BBC the best journalism? You're having a laugh aren't you?

How about this from Sarah Montague, one of their top R4 stars - when she was interviewing Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya'alon she might just as well have given him a soapbox and let him get on with it. After a flood of complaints, BBC head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, wrote: "Mr Ya'alon was allowed to make several controversial statements on those matters (conflict with Palestinians) without any meaningful challenge and the programme makers have accepted that the interviewer ought to have interrupted him and questioned him on his assertions."

This is a clear-cut case of deliberate bias on Montague's part (it can hardly be explained by inexperience) I know the vast majority of politicians in the UK are scared stiff to make any Kind of criticism of Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but it's depressing to see one of the top BBC interviewers being cowed into submission as well.

snickid 1 Oct 2015 09:12

Russia's Syria gambit could be a game changer – but only if it hastens transition

The Guardian continues to live in fantasy land over Syria. The grotesque and awful truth is that there are only two sides in the Syrian civil war: Assad and the extreme Islamic fundamentalists:

1. Putin supports Assad.

2. Obama in practice supports the extreme Islamic fundamentalists (apart from ISIS), such as Jaish El-Fateh, who are the only credible armed opposition to Assad.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Putin is bad, for actively supporting a brutal and corrupt regime in Syria. But Obama is mad as well as bad (worse, in fact, than Putin) for supporting the same fundamentalists whom the US has supposedly been fighting since 2001 in its 'war on terror', and who will commit genocide against all non-Sunnis (and quite a lot of the Sunnis as well), if they ever succeed in defeating Assad.

nearfieldpro -> rooster29 1 Oct 2015 09:11
The BBC is to the British state what Pravda was to the soviet Union

So true, so very true.

Fuel -> erica999 1 Oct 2015 09:08

They're taking out groups that would be pro-Turkish in their interests. Turkey wants a natural gas pipeline to run through Syria and over its land. Russia would then have competition for its natural gas supplies to Europe and the Russian's don't want that.

The pipelines would run from Saudi and Qatar which support ISIS. However, the lure of cheaper gas and breaking the Russian monopoly means Saudi and Qatar have grudging support from the US and Europe, although Europe/US supports the Syrian rebels, i.e. the al Nusra groups because the FSA is wishful thinking. Hence Turkey being happy about ISIS hurting pro-Assad forces and Kurds, while simultaneously providing support to the al Nusra/rebel groups that would be favourable to their regime. ISIS wouldn't, it wants to rule Turkey too.

As Turkey supports al Nusra/Syrian rebels, etc. Russia will take out those groups first and reduce and/or negate European and US interests (cos we won't want ISIS there) and Turkey's influence, which explains the initial bombing patterns. After the al Nusra/rebels/etc. are defeated, Russia will go after ISIS. Russia will have the backing of China and Iran to do this as ISIS has already produced maps that lay claim to territory in Western China and all of Iran.

Basically it's a three-sided stand-off with lots of business and geo-political vested interests at stake. Russia knows Western countries won't risk an escalation by entering and not when lots of people in the West are happy that at least one country is taking on ISIS/al Nusra/etc.

Is this how you do conspiracy theories and troll?

MichelleSegato 1 Oct 2015 09:00

What is the Guardian's definition of moderate opposition? A group is moderate opposition because de US is funding them? Or, because it doesn't perform any beheadings?

What would Obama call a group of Americans armed to their teeth, roaming the US and killing American soldiers? What would Obozo do? What if those Americans were armed by Russia? Would they be moderate for that reason?

GoloManner -> GoloManner 1 Oct 2015 08:58

Oh and in case that's not enough. The group openly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2013

The al-Nusra Front's pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda has ended speculation over the suspected ties between the Syrian jihadist group and the Islamist militant network. The announcement came just days after al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called on jihadis to do everything possible to bring about an Islamic state in Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033

rooster29 -> demdike 1 Oct 2015 08:38

"If Iran and Hizbollah involved, it's time for Israel to attack Hizb., in Lebanon."

Maybe you were on holiday dike, but fyi the last time Israel tried to take on Hezbolla they were soundly thrashed, as they were the time before.
If it wasn't for Hezbolla, there would most certainly be hundreds of Israeli settlements scattered all around southern Lebanon by now, in exactly the same way they dominate the Palestinian West Bank, and the Syrian Golan heights. In the absence of an effective Lebanese army to defend southern Lebanon Hezbolla have no choice but to do it themselves. Hezbolla didn't exist before the Israeli invasion of 1982, just like the French Resistance didn't exist before the Germans invaded their country.

Chris East -> MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 08:38

These rebels were put there and paid to create trouble. How do you know that it was Assad's people who attacked them. It was more likely CIA snipers.

lids 1 Oct 2015 08:35

Absolute must listen interviews on today's R4 World at One with MArtha Carney.

1. Patrick Cockburn acknowledged expert stating clearly that there are no moderates in Nort West Syria, Homs etc

2. Chair of Defence Committee stating clearly that any vote in UK Parliament leading to UK bombing Syria would only be a military "gesture"
Any idea that moderates were about to come to the centre stage and lead Syria was childish politics to the extreme.

3 (And Bestof all) Woeful absolutely woeful interview with US Ambassador to UK who, when asked who was representing the moderate view in SYria and could sit round and negotiate Syria's future was unable to name a single person.

Surprised Marta is still in a job after all that. Brilliant journalism from BBC.

GoloManner 1 Oct 2015 08:33

Air strikes against anti-Assad forces – not just Isis

Who cares. They are all Islamists anyway

Let's put this myth to bed once and for all. THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY MODERATE FORCES IN SYRIA. They have long since been destroyed or coopted by Islamist groups.

Moderate forces is a myth that exists only in the head's of US and UK policy makers.

The US recently trained a group of "moderate rebels" and sent them into Syria where they immediately defected to Al Nusra with their weapons. Al Nusra, armed by Saudi Arabia are the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.

So if Russia wants to bomb them, good. We should sit back and watch the show. I hope they blow them to hell.

irishinrussia -> erica999 1 Oct 2015 08:31

Yes and no. They can not operate without a secure base - Russia lacks the power projection tools (primarily aircraft carriers, bases in friendly neighbouring countries, allied airspace) to operate without that Tartus zone. So their first objective is securing that zone. Furthermore I would be very surprised if they care more for Assad than their own national interests.

However, to help Assad, they must first have a secure base. Furthermore, ignored by the Western media, Assad's forces can not fight IS if their supply and communications lines are not secure and there are other rebels in the way. They also can't leave areas exposed to rebel attack because forces have been diverted to attack IS. Assad's forces must consolidate their hold on a secure rear before they can attack IS strongholds. This is not complicated strategic thinking.

rooster29 -> Vermithrax 1 Oct 2015 08:27

"Once again Putin outplays Obama. "

No he hasn't. Putin has been trying to organise co-ordination with the US towards a solution in Syria for at least three years. The Americans don't want to have anything to do with the Russians, and they certainly don't want a solution in Syria. They want to keep the Middle East and Afghanistan in a perpetual state of destabilisation, and they are succeeding, which isn't difficult considering their military is bigger than the rest of the world combined.

Rudeboy1 astoirin 1 Oct 2015 08:15

The best the Russian airforce can deliver is some form of close air support to the SAA. Unfortunately, for them, the SAA has not shown the inclination or ability to press home attacks regardless of support. The recent actions in Idlib and the Ghab plain being cases in point. After 5 years the SAA are still hopeless and just never seem to learn.

easterbeilbs 1 Oct 2015 08:13

In another article U.S. Defence Chief Carter is quoted as saying "Russia risks escalating the civil the war".

How much worse can it get? It's been going on for 4 1/2 years, up to 250,000 have been killed and millions displaced. What is he talking about?

The answer is. He doesn't know.

This article suggests the west supports the Syrian Opposition Forces. But it does not.

The west is playing a very light hand because the Syrian Opposition Forces, established during the Arab Spring quickly became a fighting branch of the 'Muslim Brotherhood in Syria' who seek to set up an Islamic State.

The other forces, as indicated being bombed by the Russians, include the al-Qeada affiliated al-Nusra.

So the Russians, perhaps rightly, are not limiting themselves to ISIS targets, rather those who are at the front line against Assad.

The west needs to end its oil drip fed obsession with the Saudi led gulf nations as it's the 'Islamic Revival' from these regions that have spawned al-Qeada, the Taliban, ISIS, and a whole heap of other extremist groups.

BalanceIt MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 08:06

If you compare Independent coverage on the Middle East to coverage from the mainstream you'll start to see a significant divergence.

An independent examination of the financial motivations behind why the US (and UK) behaves as they do would be a start but you'll never see that from Fleet Street. Secondly a contrast between the attempted Syrian overthrow and past overthrows like Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Fleet Street insist on assuming it will be alright if the UK would just start bombing the country. It's wilful blindness because there is an agenda to take over any country which hasn't yielded its financial infrastructure to the US financial hegemony.

It's a reason to watch China and Russia building up their competing financial infrastructure. That's the real conflict between Russia and the US. Again not covered by Fleet Street because they have, in essence, been told not to.

It's certainly subtler than being told not to run a story. It would be indicated to them what areas need coverage and what must be avoided. Russia must be evil. The US must be sincere although can be considered naive or partially foolish but not too much. As the BRICS bank comes online and as they actively compete with US domination watch more stories come up about how China is so evil.

The US has no right to attempt to overthrow a Government of another land.

rooster29 1 Oct 2015 08:00

After the UK media being long-time silent on indiscriminate civilian deaths (used to be called 'collateral', but they don't call it anything now) resulting from US-led bombing of Syria, they are now going bananas over civilian deaths (allegedly) after just one sortie by Russia, which the Daily Hatemail calls 'carpet bombing'.

At this rate Russia will surely be accused of genocide before the week is out. It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that people actually believe this shit, as well as all the other lies, like Russia only giving the Americans 'one-hour's notice'. What do they think Putin was doing at the recent summit at the UN for God's sake? Israel and Russia agreed eleven days ago in Moscow to coordinate military actions over Syria in order to avoid accidentally trading fire, and the US didn't know about this??? Of course they did.

The Guardian doesn't come out of this well, being as they joined the rest of the pack, leading with this 'one-hour notice' bullshit. Have they got no one paying attention? Or do they just copy what others are making up? makes me wonder, I tell you.

JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 07:59

If I use a shotgun on a gang of armed men breaking into my house I will go to prison. They will sue me. If the police shoot an unarmed man not much happens at all. Gadaffi and Assad shoot armed protestors and they must get killed, replaced and go to court. Ukraine protestors throw petrol bombs, fire at police and deserve our support. Protestors and police shot with same gun means that elected government must go. We do something illegal like invade Iraq - all ok. Russia do something legal like support the Syrian government at their request then dare to bomb an Al Qaida outfit ………. Does Putinbot mean someone who has opened their eyes and noticed the elite are scantily clad today?

paulcrawfish 1 Oct 2015 07:50

Russia's goals are discussed by BBC journalist, Jonathan Marcus, on their online site today and I couldn't agree more with the sense behind their objectives.

"It wants to see the so-called Islamic State defeated and some order restored in Syria, where it has long maintained a strategic interest. It believes Western policy in the region has been self-serving and wildly naive. Existing regimes have been toppled leaving little more than chaos in their wake."

We need to join forces with Russia and stop the ridiculous pro-Gulf position of replacing Assad with Al Nusra and its affiliates. Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest evil in the world currently. This is whether the fundamentalist agrees with violent means or just propagates their tribalist religion to others who then are so inspired that they adopt violent means.

raykaram01 1 Oct 2015 07:43

"game change" about time.

Four and a half years left to the USA and the West and what have we seen? More misery for the Syrian people. Even those in Turkey had enough. Why? Nobody cared for them to have a descent life or have any hope of return.

Otherwise, the article tells us that they rely on reports from the region. Unless I see it personally with my own naked eyes, I do NOT believe any one.

Russia might force the West and Turkey to stop playing politics and start doing the right thing by the Syrian people. Otherwise, all of the glory may go to the Russians.
But, most of all, where is true journalism? Has Al Jazeera converted all of them.

Rob Rob 1 Oct 2015 07:35

Assad has been looking tired in recent months, which is hardly a surprise really. I first really began to notice him from his January 2013 Damascus speech, which made obvious to me his high intellect and absolute loyalty to his people. Assad is in realty no dictator, and to be dealt the hand the West has played over and over again has prolonged and deepened the agony of his people.No matter how fast he clears the invaders they are rapidly reinforced with Western Arms and money. Why so? He has been forced to clear and smash to rubble every area over and over again. Cameron did a great job of pretending to look thoughtful when presented with Washington's intelligence ,upset as they were to have not been informed of the plan.

But who in their right mind would trust the Administration of 2015? It's a great shame to have this unspoken trust so vexed and bend out of shape to the point of total dismay!

America is not the Angel it once was,they seem to have gotten rid of all the good ones and replaced them all with total madmen....The insanity is in Washington and coming to your very own street all too soon. Thanks for nothing, Yanks! GO home! Everything to touch turns to crap right now..:( What you all need to do is worry about Fukushima and the endless unfolding of death it is bringing to your people and this Planet.

paulcrawfish 1 Oct 2015 07:21

Regime change is a mad policy. The West's policy is bizarre and will just end up with Al Nusra and its affiliates in power. They are promoted by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and to keep them happy we've ridiculously decided that they are the realpolitik choice because better than Islamic State. However, clearly Assad is actually a better choice than Al Nusra if you're a minority, so I support Russia taking out all Islamic groups. Keep Syria secular!

retsdon JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 07:15

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-sense-of-despair-is-sweeping-through-iraq-this-email-from-my-driver-in-baghdad-proves-it-10509799.html

Good piece in case you missed it.

brokedog 1 Oct 2015 07:12

I love how the US likes to blame Russia for things America is doing. There is fuck all anti Assad forces besides Isis affiliated ones. America is still basically arming Isis against Assad

ustas6873 1 Oct 2015 07:10

Even if a bombs exploded in an empty desert the US would still have accused Russia of all sins. The United States has no purpose to fight with the ISIS, it is necessary to destroy the al-Assad. And they will achieve this by any means, including the support of supposedly moderate opposition and generally ISIS.

Massimo D'Ulisse 1 Oct 2015 07:07

The US have no credibility.

Whatever they say about Mr. Putin, it will be easy for him to dismiss it saying "who provided that information? the same intelligence that reported that Iraq had mass destruction weapons to justify the second Gulf Ware?"

And if the Russians make more mess, Mr Putin will have an easy game saying "you did mess up the whole region, so what do you want to teach us?"
Reality is that the US really cocked up everything in Middle East, and now if we really want to get rid of ISIS, realistically we have to side with Mr Putin and the despicable Mr Assad.

Realworldview
Direct Russian military action in the Middle east is certainly a new development, in this case Syria, but given many other nations including the UK have been engaged in military action in this area for decades, so why should anyone be surprised Russia has finally decided to have a go at supporting its own geopolitical interests.

The virtually immediate mainstream media reaction to the first Russian airstrikes typified by headlines like "US accuses Russia of 'throwing gasoline on fire' of Syrian civil war" in the Guardian and similar headlines in many other media sources, demonstrates just how one sided the "information" or better "propaganda" war is. To provide some balance, these two article published on Zero Hedge are worth reading - Propaganda War Begins: Russia's Syria Strikes Targeted US-Backed "Moderate" Rebels and This Is How Russia Handles Terrorists: Moscow Releases Video Of Syria Strikes that ends with this this statement, which should give one food for thought, but probably won't, and certainly not by US, UK and European political and military elites:

The bottom line going forward is that the US and its regional and European allies are going to have to decide whether they want to be on the right side of history here or not, and as we've been careful to explain, no one is arguing that Bashar al-Assad is the most benevolent leader in the history of statecraft but it has now gotten to the point where Western media outlets are describing al-Qaeda as "moderate" in a last ditch effort to explain away Washington's unwillingness to join Russia in stabilizing Syria.

This is a foreign policy mistake of epic proportions on the part of the US and the sooner the West concedes that and moves to correct it by admitting that none of the groups the CIA, the Pentagon, and Washington's Mid-East allies have trained and supported represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime, the sooner Syria will cease to be the chessboard du jour for a global proxy war that's left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

undersinged 1 Oct 2015 07:01

Editorials like this dismay me. "Transition"? Why? Assad may represent a minority, but that's a good thing. Because the Alawites are a minority, they tolerate the religious and ethnic diversity that exists in the country. If he were to go, whoever replaced him, whether Shia or Sunni, would probably try to impose an absolutism on the country, suppressing all other sects, with possible outcomes including multiple decades of war and/or tyranny, possibly including genocide.

The West's attempt to encourage democratic revolutions in that part of the world was catastrophically misguided. A stable, reasonably competent government is best left alone, even if you don't think it's as democratic as it should be, or if you don't agree with some of its ideology. Destabilizing states tends to open Pandora's box.

MahalaM -> Samuelepicurus 1 Oct 2015 06:59

Your missing the bit where the US had been working with the Syrian 'opposition' prior to 2011 and used legitimate protest as cover to send in their extremists. Assad has operated an amnesty for combatants prepared to come back and fight for the Syrian army. You think he set loose ISIS?

Al Nusra came from Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS are a branch of that. Assad has lost 60% of his territory to ISIS - he took care of the "FSA" back in 2012 - it makes no sense that he would be supporting the US armed Jihadis just on the offchance the West were going to come in and take them out for him. I'm sure he saw the videos of how Western intervention worked out for Gaddafi and Hussein

inequitable -> B5610661066 1 Oct 2015 06:37

Indeed. Over 100 killed at a recent wedding. Saudi Arabia is indiscriminately devastating one of the poorest Countries in the ME with US support using banned cluster bombs supplied by the US firm Textron and funded by HSBC and other leading banks.

rentierDEATHcult 1 Oct 2015 06:24

In 2012, Defence Sec Leon Panetta said this: "I think it's impor­tant when Assad leaves - and he will leave - to try to pre­serve sta­bil­ity in that coun­try. And the best way to pre­serve that kind of sta­bil­ity is to main­tain as much of the mil­i­tary, the police, as you can, along with the secu­rity forces, and hope that they will tran­si­tion to a demo­c­ra­tic form of gov­ern­ment. That's a key"
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/panetta-says-when-not-if-al-assad-falls-syrian-military-should-remain-intact/

So the priority for Washington (& other EU NATO members) is to preserve the current regime - the military apparatus, police state, and the secular architecture of Syria - but dispose of the House of Assad as part of a political agreement.

Russia, despite its loyalty to the current regime (which goes back decades), will sacrifice Bashar al Assad if it can continue benefitting from the lucrative arms trade and maintain its naval and military installations in the country.

Trouble is, this cosy international arrangement has overlooked something, quite, important. The vast majority of the Syrian people!

Has somebody stopped to consider that they may want to take full advantage of this (historic) opportunity to opt for some (real) change - instead of window dressing?!

And America's record of supporting/promoting real change is a dubious one, to say the least.

I'm sure a lot of Egyptians are, still, seething at the moral gymnastics performed by Washington during the Arab Spring before seeing Pax Americana repose back into its (default) setting of supporting the military junta in Cairo.

Any 'change' overseen by the international powers is guaranteed to be NO CHANGE AT ALL. Sure, the Assad family will, probably, go into exile but the regime will continue - blessed by the very same forces that have sponsored the bloodletting of the current regime in Damascus.

WalterCronkiteBot 1 Oct 2015 06:05

We keep hearing about this transition process involving the credible opposition. The credible opposition are the SNC and FSA apparently.

How the SNC are (or at least were) really a group of non Syrians including Bilderberg attendees and people from Kissinger backed think tanks. Supported by Human Rights reports from a man working from his home in Coventry.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

Two UN reports detailing FSA war crimes, and explaining that they enforce Sharia law. Of course Assad's crimes are covered too.
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/19/69&Lang=E
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/19/69&Lang=E

These are the moderates that represent Syrian people... who are funded by the US, aren't Syrian, and have their military wing running Sharia courts. They are about as credible as Peter Andre. I dare say he would do a better job.


LeftOrRightSameShite -> LordDespencer 1 Oct 2015 06:03

given that it is Assad's "governmentalism" that led to the chaos on Syria.

Certainly contributed to it. There is also evidence that the US as of 2006 was looking to seize upon an opportunity to oust Assad. Events in 2011 provided just that.
This US cable released by Wikileaks provides more details.

There is also evidence the US had mercenaries operating in Syria (and Libya) in 2011/12. Against Assad of course.

Tony Blair in a 2006 speech to the World Affairs Council in LA proclaimed:

"we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted"

Bit rich isn't it? What did he mean by "confronted" do you think? What's the agenda then? Again, Tony provides enlightenment:

"For me, a victory for the moderates means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation"

hmm
I've got a whole archive of links such as the above. If they prove one thing, it's that this whole episode is rotten and we are being fed stories that often distract from real intention.

seamuspadraig -> LafayetteInFrance 1 Oct 2015 05:29

The Saudis know full well that only a ground force can finally eradicate ISIS.

ISIS is Saudi Arabia's ground force in Syria.

kimorris 1 Oct 2015 05:26

In the 1980's film Threads the similarity with the unfolding Syria story is chilling. In the film Iran is the country of conflict, after an exchange of conventional weaponry the USA detonate a single battlefield nuke. Escalation ensues until all out global thermonuclear war continues to it's conclusion, destruction of most of the planet. It should be remembered the USA is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war.

AXWE08 1 Oct 2015 05:19

The narrative from Washington is more and more divorced from reality. The hope was that ISIS and/or Al Nusra would ultimately deplete Syria's limited military resources and remove Assad and the Baathist government that had held Syria together for decades - regardless of the resulting consequences to the Christian, Jewish and Alawite population in that part of Syria. The Neoconservative strategy has now been frustrated by Russia and the bluster from Washington is that the Russian targets were not 'legitimate' - as if one type of terrorist is officially approved by Washington and others not. It has been a commonplace that the US/Saudis are behind ISIS and Al Nusra and this response gives the game away. What is this grip the NeoCons have on American thinking? Putin has his shortcomings, but he towers above Obama and his horrid crew of western leaders.

ThomasPaine2 1 Oct 2015 04:56

The Americans don't really make good foreign policy decisions. I'm struggling to think of any single foreign adventure they haven't fucked up totally.

Why they think they are good at it beats me.

Assad, like him or loathe him, is a relatively stable, sane, locally popular and established leader. I suspect that the reason for all of this chaos in the ME is to keep Israel's enemies divided. The death and destruction it causes, matters not.

For America to accuse Russia of pouring fuel on the fire is like David Cameron calling for the humane treatment of pigs.

BalanceIt -> MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 04:42

The US has forced violent regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. How are those countries doing? Terribly is the answer. In Syria the US, through its proxies Suadi Qatar Turkey, have been attempting a violent overthrow of ANOTHER regime leading to yet another humanitarian catastrophe. None of these moves by the US and Russia are about democracy, to claim they are is lunacy.

And no The Guardian is not independent, everyone in the industry knows big newspapers run these types of stories past the security state before publishing.

SHA2014 1 Oct 2015 04:39

Sometimes it is worth reading the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

SHA2014 -> huffingtonboy 1 Oct 2015 04:10

Fixation on barrel bombs seems to be the code word for delegitimization. Let us start talking of daisy cutters, phosphorus bombs cluster bombs and the like, used by US and allies in recent attacks on civilian areas.

[Oct 09, 2015] A proxy cold war in Syria

Oct 07, 2015 | Peak Prosperity
President Obama recently assured that we're not engaging in a proxy war in Syria. Well this latest news doesn't help sell his story. Boy, the players are getting me nervous. Let's hope things don't escalate and false flags are raised even higher.

Russian Airstrikes In Syria Hit CIA-Trained Rebel Weapons Depot

"Russian airstrikes late Tuesday have destroyed the central weapons depot of a U.S.-trained rebel group, according to its commander. The Liwa Suqour al-Jabalpur rebel group, which opposes Syria President Bashar Assad's authoritarian regime, was trained by the CIA at training camps in Saudi Arabia and Qatar."

sand_puppy

NATO Threatens to send ground troups to Syria

NATO Threatens To Send In Troops After Russia Stations Ground "Battalion" In Syria

Thanks to the fact that the West selected Islamic militants (ISIS) as its anti-Assad weapon of choice, Putin gets to pitch his efforts to defend Assad as a "war on terror."

ZH predicted:

..."the Pentagon will use the gambit of a Russian ground campaign, credible or not, to get permission from Congress to send a 'small', at first, then bigger ground force of US troops in Syria to, you guessed it, 'fight ISIS'....

A commenter after the ZH article notes:

A recently released classified document obtained by WikiLeaks establishes that active US planning for regime-change predated the outbreak of the Syrian civil war by at least five years.

From another article:

The question today is merely one of timing. .... How long before Israeli planes come into contact with Russian or Iranian fighters? How long before U.S. troops come into contact with Russian troops? How long before Israel or Saudi Arabia strike Iran? And if the U.S. backs out completely, how long before the entire dynamic of the Middle East is flipped and America loses petro-status for the dollar? With the speed of events forming a fiscal-political riptide, it is hard to imagine we will be waiting very long to find out.

[Oct 07, 2015] Russia Claims ISIS Now On The Ropes As Fighters Desert After 60 Airstrikes In 72 Hours

The rebels in Syria are mixture of Islamic fundamentalists and Sunni liberation movement. So preserving Assad in power while better then chaos like in Libya, still does not solve the country problems, problems which probably are connected with population growth while resources are dwindling and growth of sectarian divisions within the country. The same mechanism as in Ukraine... Poverty breeds nationalists and religious fundamentalists. As both the USA and Israel are trying to use those grievances for forming fifth column and toppling of the government, meddling in the country affairs will not go away. And Russians took a huge risk here. Religious fundamentalists are good, highly motivated fighters. Afghans in mountain terrain manages to hold their against Russian air force for years (with substantial military support from the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). USA supplied Stringer missiles that destroyed many Russians attach helicopters. Not it is more difficult to do as ISIS is the force the USA would be embarrassed openly to cooperate with, but covert channels remain.
Oct 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge
One question that's been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon's stated goal of "degrading and defeating" ISIS despite the fact that the "battle" pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.

Those of a skeptical persuasion have been inclined to suggest that perhaps the US isn't fully committed to the fight. Explanations for that suggestion range from the mainstream (the White House is loathe to get the US into another Mid-East war) to the "conspiratorial" (the CIA created ISIS and thus doesn't want to destroy the group due to its value as a strategic asset).

The implication in all of this is that a modern army that was truly determined to destroy the group could likely do so in a matter of months if not weeks and so once Russia began flying sorties from Latakia, the world was anxious to see just how long the various rebel groups operating in Syria could hold up under bombardment by the Russian air force.

The answer, apparently, is "less than a week."

On Saturday, the Russian Ministry of Defense said it has conducted 60 bombing runs in 72 hours, hitting more than 50 ISIS targets.

According to the ministry (Facebook page is here), Islamic State fighters are in a state of "panic" and more than 600 have deserted.

... ... ...

... ... ...

the phantom

I guess this means no more 2 mile long ISIS, toyota truck convoys flying black flags? Still a ways to go... need to see the Syrian/Iranian ground troops start moping up, then it's for real. Once that happens, the panic will really hit ISIS and the rest of the terrorists. That's when those dogs go back to their masters, the Saudi's, and ask some real tough questions. I would not want to be a member of the royal family when that happens.

[Oct 07, 2015] Syria SITREP October 07th 2015 by John Rambo

Nice antidote to Guardian propaganda ;-). this is actually a huge risk for Russia as ISIS is serious, tenacious opponet that has some resources in Russian part of Caucasus.
"... Islamists are now being struck by US jets in Iraq but by Russian jets in Syria, leaving only Jordan and Turkey as the only safe havens left. ..."
"... For Russia this is a gamble. Many hawkish individuals are screaming that this will be a second Afghanistan. Undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists within the Caucuses are fuming at the Russian involvement in the Middle East, and unlike the United States, Russia is within reach of these domestic jihadists. It's safe to assume Russia probably stepped up domestic surveillance and security in potential hotspot areas within its territory. [Source] After all it wasn't that long ago when Prince Bandar was talking about how he can "turn-on and turn-off" the Chechen Jihadists. Who knows how much truth that holds… if any… but better to play it safe. [Source] ..."
"... ISIL is not a stupid player in this conflict. The Islamic State has been able to fool the US into providing weapons and training for the jihad for quite some time. ISIL has also endured a year of strikes from the US and its Arab partners, sometimes averaging to a dozen strikes a day. There have been more bombs dropped on ISIL in the past year than the 5 years in Afghanistan. [SOURCE] But now there is a sense of despair in the air. The difference is the effectiveness of the Russian strikes. Thanks to the human intelligence assets infiltrated inside opposition groups by Syrian intelligence the Russians have been able to get very accurate information on rallying points, command posts, storage areas, and even locations of leadership personnel of these terrorists. Human intelligence provides more accurate data than drones, flybys, signal interception, or game theory analysis. Human intelligence is right there, right now. ..."
"... Also the hysteria will run deeper now if any special forcers advisors were in those IS command bunkers… ..."
October 07, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker

It's been a week since the Russian airstrikes began in Syria.

From the Syrian military standpoint this was perfect timing. Morale has been an all-time low amongst the Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah forces deployed in Syria. Heavy intermixed regular and irregular fighting for a better part of four and a half years is draining to any military, let alone a small country such as Syria. [Source]

Syria is a destroyed country. It is nothing but a husk of its former self. Ancient historical sites that once drew in the tourists have been pillaged and demolished by the Islamic State. Infrastructure such as roads, power lines, and water systems has been set back forty years. Major segments of its population are refugees displaced internally and abroad. Syria truly will never be the same again. [Source]

So one can safely say the Russian air strikes (and potential increased involvement) has been a blessing to the Pro-Assad forces on the ground. Syria has been restricted to fighting one military front at a time due to manpower shortages, giving opponents the ability to take advantage of lightly reinforced government-held areas and outskirt outposts. These Russian air strikes will not only strengthen SAA ground offensives but also support defending forces at the fringes of government control. For the Syrian draft dodgers the Russian air strikes are taken as a form of hope; finally there are other countries besides Iran that want to see a stabilized Syria. Islamists are now being struck by US jets in Iraq but by Russian jets in Syria, leaving only Jordan and Turkey as the only safe havens left.

As for Russia, it has decided to step up and do what the Americans can't (or won't) do and that is to try to put the Islamic extremism genie back in the lamp, in Syria anyway. For Russia this is a gamble. Many hawkish individuals are screaming that this will be a second Afghanistan. Undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists within the Caucuses are fuming at the Russian involvement in the Middle East, and unlike the United States, Russia is within reach of these domestic jihadists. It's safe to assume Russia probably stepped up domestic surveillance and security in potential hotspot areas within its territory. [Source] After all it wasn't that long ago when Prince Bandar was talking about how he can "turn-on and turn-off" the Chechen Jihadists. Who knows how much truth that holds… if any… but better to play it safe. [Source]

For Russia has a lot to lose in this intervention. A downed and captured pilot may be a domestic political nightmare. Even though the Russian airbase is heavily guarded and patrolled 24 hours of the day, the potential for material loss of fighter jets in a surprise suicide attack is still there. Let's not forget how resourceful Islamists can be. It seems over the years even the most blockheaded of mujahids can surprise you in today's 21st century of warfare. Take a look at the Taliban's successful attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan in 2012 where they successfully destroyed six harrier jets (and severely damaging two more), a C-130 plane, and killed 2 marines while trying to gun for Prince Harry himself (who was stationed at the base as part of his military service). [Source]

The government of Syria formally requested aid from Russia and Russia replied in the form of airstrikes. Why Russia chose now to help Assad and not earlier is still a puzzle. Of course Russian gains a few things from this expedition. For one, it's better to these Wahhabis, especially the Chechens who were imported to the area thanks to Saudi Arabia, in Syria than to have to fight them in Russia.

Secondly this is a perfect chance to test out some military hardware. Not only is this an opportunity to see how well these aerial weapon systems work in conjunction with coordinated ground operations in real life combat scenarios (with a ground force comprised of ex-Soviet and Russian equipment) but also test out the electronic warfare systems against the regional players. Turkey, Israel and Jordan all have electronic warfare units. Air warfare and electronic warfare go hand-in-hand. There is no such thing as a modern air operation without electronic warfare being involved.

And finally to keep Assad afloat, an ally and for some reason one that has had a long history of support from Russia (and once USSR). In the past providing advanced weaponry of all forms, from anti-tank missiles to anti-air weapon systems, tanks to fighter jets, etc. etc. Of course in keeping the Assad government alive so too are the Russian naval base in Syria.

Still one must wonder. Russia must gain something more than that. Especially with the risk it is undertaking.

ISIL is not a stupid player in this conflict. The Islamic State has been able to fool the US into providing weapons and training for the jihad for quite some time. ISIL has also endured a year of strikes from the US and its Arab partners, sometimes averaging to a dozen strikes a day. There have been more bombs dropped on ISIL in the past year than the 5 years in Afghanistan. [SOURCE] But now there is a sense of despair in the air. The difference is the effectiveness of the Russian strikes. Thanks to the human intelligence assets infiltrated inside opposition groups by Syrian intelligence the Russians have been able to get very accurate information on rallying points, command posts, storage areas, and even locations of leadership personnel of these terrorists. Human intelligence provides more accurate data than drones, flybys, signal interception, or game theory analysis. Human intelligence is right there, right now.

So let's take a look at the actions, potential actions, and events of each actor in this theater of war:

Russia:

• Expanded an airbase and reinforced it with ground security forces which include round-the-clock helicopter gunship patrols.
• Advanced electronic warfare platforms spotted at Latakia [Source]
• Has created a Joint Information Center (co-ordination) with the organizations that have units on the ground such as Syria, Iran and Iraq. [Source]
• Plans to cull the number of renegade Chechens in Syria instead of waiting for them to come home and cause trouble in Russia
• The opportunity to test out the latest variants or upgrade kits on fighter jets in combat situations for realistic performance data (Su-24M, Su-25SM, and Su-30SM are upgraded variants of their original make design for a modern electronic warfare-laden battlefield).
• Consistently attacking ALL opposition positions, starting with those threatening the Syrian regime first and moving up to ISIL; perhaps in tangent with an Iraqi ground op.
• Mulling expanding its mission into Iraq if requested by the Iraqi military.
• Big international prestige and PR campaign…. If successful.
• The Russian deployment is somewhat an assurance against Israeli air strikes on IRGC and Hezbollah forces.
• Russia has the option to punish Turkey for its support in allowing ISIL to use its borders by discretely (or overtly) aiding the Kurds; as the Kurds have been a US ally since the Iraq invasion in 2003 the US can't overtly denounce the aid.
• This entire air operation might be a way to bridge the gap between the US and Assad. The US is unwilling to work with Assad and Iranian forces on the ground, but Russia has no scruples in doing so. The US, with its considerably larger air force in the region, can strike while Iran and Syria provide the intel alongside Russia. The US can save face, Russia can save an ally, and Syria and Iraq are literally just saved. (Wishful thinking).

Syria:

• Syria right now is taking cover to recoup and to play some propaganda cards to try to get as many people on the regimes side as possible.
• Draft dodgers may be incentivized to commit to their conscription due to the positive foreign intervention from a superpower (finally, a nation with high-tech equipment actually bombing the terrorists for once).
• Syrian military morale, which was low due to the never ending flow of foreign fighters, has slightly increased because of the Russian air strikes.
• The Syrian military has been restructured twice times throughout the conflict. First from its old Soviet-modelled format to a hybrid military incorporating conventional and irregular forces to a garrison-style force adjusting for a protracted conflict. [Source]
• Syrian Air Force is freed up to provide direct air support to Syrian Arab Army units while Russian Air Force maintains pressure on the "rear" of the opposition with surgical strikes on command centers, training sites, and storage areas.
• There are some heavy urban battles to come for the Syrian Arab Army which is projecting a lot of causalities (some even suggesting the Russians will provide the SAA infantry-based thermobaric weaponry to help clear our urban city centers).

Iran, Hezbollah:

• News everywhere of amassing ground forces. It seems that Iran and Hezbollah are going to commit larger forces in ground offensives orchestrated along Russian air strikes.
• Iran, under the cover of Russian air strikes, has managed to transfer mores weapons that were too hard to do with the threat of Israeli air strikes. This includes advanced anti-air missiles and converted SCUDs for anti-ship roles. [Source]
• Iran might be committing IRGC battalions in Syria and may be mulling the deployment of greater assets.
• Hezbollah counter-intelligence (or Syrian secret police) units may attempt to assassinate opposition rebel leadership being harbored in Jordan or Turkey. In the past an FSA commander was found murdered, Jordanian government claimed it was criminal and not politically motivated. Others claim it was an assassination. [Source]

Iraq:

• The US currently has a significant number of advisers in Iraq and specifically Baghdad. This includes AH-64 Apache gunships which turned back ISIL when it was about to descend on the capital. [Source]
• Iraq has consistently provided fuel and diesel to Syria as part of its struggle against ISIL. Both Iraq and Syria are plagued by ISIL and other dissident factions.
• Iraq may petition Russia to envelop Iraq in its air operation should events in Syria turn for the better. [Source]
• US support for Iraq is extend

Islamic State:

• Right now ISIL is reinforcing towns and cities under its control by constructing tunnels, reinforced foxholes, and other bunkers to ride out the Russian air strikes; much like the tactics used by Hezbollah in the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah. This is to preserve the manpower for any ground assaults. Expect multi-month sieges.
• Probably planning for some type of attack inside Russia proper as retaliation like those seen in Europe. Perhaps targeted on ambassadors or other dignitaries.
• Some forces have retreated to Turkey and Jordan until the situation dissipates.
• Might commit to a PR stunt such as bombing internationally protected civilian facilities like schools or hospitals and blame it on Russian air strikes. Remember the Chlorine gas attack which was immediately pinned on the Assad government, but both the UN and Russia proved was committed by the rebels in hopes of drawing foreign intervention. [Source]
• Convince Turkey to provide high-tech anti-air weaponry (Turkey has been proven to have direct talks to the leadership of ISIL) [Source]
• Human shields can possibly be used in some PR stunt.
• It seems that ISIL has been taken by surprise by the Russian air strikes. This means that the US has been purposely leaving them alone in certain areas.
• The current interim operating procedure for ISIL is to spot when Russian fighters take off from their base and begin warning units. So far it may involve "moving munitions 15 meters underground", "moving tanks, cars, and cannons daily never leaving them in one spot", "keeping your engines on at all times", "be prepared to move at a moment's notice", "destroy sim cards of all 'senior' commanders", "stay away from villages" [Source]

GCC-Supported Opposition ARMY OF CONQUEST (FSA & remnants of Al-Qaeda in Syria; Al-Nusra Front):

• These groups are seen as terrorists in the eyes of Russia and have been struck.
• A number of FSA fighters have already surrendered to the government and a larger number has already fled to Jordan thanks to the psychological impact of the Russian strikes.
• Fresh reinforcements, most likely thanks to Saudi Arabia and Qatari money, has arrived from the North Caucasus including Ukrainian specialists and experts (suggesting some new type of weapon system may be soon given to the opposition forces or targeted against the Russian forces in Syria). [Source]
• Right now the Army of Conquest is a conglomeration of forces which include various Islamist factions including Al-Nusra Front, and mercenary forces hired, trained, or supplied by the CIA, Turkey, GCC, or other Western-affiliated actors. They "fight alongside" the FSA. It fights against the Islamic State, Hezbollah, and the Syrian government. [Source]
• The FSA is rumored to be gone, just a media myth. The majority defecting to ISIL. There are only Islamists of varying shades. [Source]
• The Army of Conquest is being coordinated by commanders stationed in operation rooms sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and hosted in Jordan and Turkey, safe from Russian air strikes (for now….) [Source]

Arab Nations (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan):

• Saudi Arabia right now is being bogged down with its operations in Yemen. Iran may have tipped the scales by offering some sort of material support to the Shia-Houthis now engaged in fighting the Yemen government and its Saudi backers.
• Saudi Arabia is also trying to confront Iran in other proxy wars, including Iraq, Lebanon and potentially Bahrain.
• If the US doesn't act in time Saudi Arabia will take it upon itself to finance some sort of attack on Russia either in Syria or somewhere. If this doesn't materialize then Saudi Arabian capabilities are beyond incompetence.
• Qatar will be fronting the majority of the financing for the opposition forces. Qatar has always been the hotbed of international terrorist financing [Source]
• Jordan has been playing both sides. It assisted the US in training a proxy force which would cross from Jordan into Syria, but has also tipped off Syrian intelligence of these forces so they may be arrested or destroyed before doing harm. It has been trying to shift back to neutral. [Source]

Israel:

• Israel has been informed of the Russian air operation.
• Israel will not risk an air confrontation with Russia. After the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, secretary-general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah was giving a speech in Beirut right after the ceasefire as a show of solidarity with the people. Israel was denied the ability to launch an air strike assassination against this very important target due to the deployment of French Air Force fighter jets during his speech [Source]
• Israel has committed mock air attacks on UNIFIL before to trigger a response. It may commit the same action against Russian or Assad forces in a hope to draw out a reaction. [Source]
• A weakened Syrian state, now without large stockpiles of chemical weapons, may be forced to accept the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights.
• Israel will continue to provide medical aid to rebel and Islamist fighters in the Golan Height [Source]
• Israel claims it can overcome the S-300 and deal a marketing blow to Russia if it needs to strike targets inside Syria, such as weapon shipments to Hezbollah. [Source]

Turkey:

• Probably the biggest loser of the entire debacle. Not only is Assad going to remain standing but it looks like the Kurds will be in a better position to resist Turkey thanks to their quasi-state-like Kurdistan that intersects through Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
• Wants a NATO or US-sponsored no-fly zone on its border with Syria to allow operations against the Kurds to remain unimpeded.
• Turkey, being denied further escalation against Syria, has used the Syrian refugee crisis as means to attack the EU by letting them pass through into EU proper.
• Turkey has had to deal with jihadis seeping over the border, with car bombs and other terrorist acts occurring throughout the country. If jihadis flee back into Turkey this could be more trouble.
• A ground invasion of Northern Syria to create a buffer zone for the opposition seems unlikely.
• Russia has accidentally strayed into Turkish air space for a few seconds, creating some chest-thumping by NATO [Source]
• US Patriot missiles mandate expires on October. Are they still in Turkey? [Source]
• The EU is currently working on a crisis plan with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees. [Source]

United States of America:

• The US currently has limited options to the Russian air strikes.
• The US still has a significantly larger air fleet in the region and has committed a ludicrous amount of airstrikes, drone strikes, missile strikes, and other strikes.
• It will suffer an international PR fiasco if Russia can restore some order in Syria within a few months. [Source]
• US along with its allies (perhaps Turkey and/or France) may attempt a ground operation in the North-East part of the country; perhaps to divide the country in some spring 1945 Berlin situation.
• The US can actively arm opposition forces with heavier weapons, risking their proliferation, to deny any Russian gains.
• The Ukrainian operation may be ramped up again.
• The US may be looking to accept any face-saving measure to get out of the Syrian mess seeing the red line the Russians have drawn in regards to Assad. Avoiding major conflicts with Russia as more important than pleasing the Saudis and their secret war against Iran.
• Currently the US and Russia are just starting to work on an agreement to coordinate air operations in Syria. [Source]
• Air strikes are still being commenced in Iraq against ISIL and Afghanistan against the Taliban.

• Chances are both the US and Russia are monitoring each other's electronic emissions.


on October 07, 2015 · at 3:07 pm UTC

article from Counterpunch on humanitarian hypocrisy:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/07/the-double-speak-of-american-civilian-humanitarianism/

Penelope on October 07, 2015 · at 3:12 pm UTC

Four Russian Navy warships have fired a total of 26 missiles at the position of the terrorist group Islamic State in Syria, Russia's Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu announced. The missiles were fired from the Caspian Sea.
"Four missile ships launched 26 cruise missiles at 11 targets. According to objective control data, all the targets were destroyed. No civilian objects sustained damage," Shoigu said.

The missiles flew some 1,500 km before reaching their targets, probing their efficiency.

The missile attacks came from Russia's fleet in the Caspian Sea, which borders Russia, Iran and three other littoral countries. The precision weapons hit all intended targets.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 3:47 pm UTC

One of the unintended consequences of Russia's military action is exposing how stupid Kiev was claiming every five minutes they were fighting the Russian army and airforce. Also exposing the absurd attempts of msm journalists. I think many will see what has happened and grasp the fact that that if the Russians had entered it would have been over and out very quickly for the kiev junta. The west and nato is seething at this flexing of military muscle knowing that they have lost the plot/narrative big time here. Cruise missiles flying through iran and Iraq and hitting their terrorist targets, conveniently passing turkey, poetry in motion!

Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:02 pm UTC

Yes, been the buzz for a few hours (everywhere except here in sleepy Sakerland) - basically a 26-missile birthday salute for Putin using equipment only 'lawful' if not launched on land from the only sea/lake that the US/Nato cannot have a boat in. Brilliant!

A couple more weeks then on into Iraq (by invitation) and Obama's pivot out of the Middle east will be all but completed - with Putin's boot-prints embossed on his backside to boot.

The degenerate Saudi regime are squealing all the way to market and it's not hard to see why. Egypt's SiSi and military are on side with the Russians, Yemen is a war-crimes mess and UN Human Rights a joke - and cracks in the US/Nato un-affordable facade are occurring with high ranking suggestions that the Obama Administration are funding ISIS.

"Do you realise, now, what you have done, Mr Obama?"

Game, set, match, dip-shit!

mmiriww on October 07, 2015 · at 4:11 pm UTC

What is not mentioned here is they took out some IS command bunkers with their advisors without any warning. The US just admitted that they have special forces observing IS.. So does the SAS of UK and Australia, all dressed up as IS.. Russia already gave warning so they could leave and I bet a lot of them have seeing the hysteria and the terrorists running for the hills after their commanders left for safer zones..

But I bet no one expected to get hit with millions dollar cruise missiles deep in IS held territory. Also the hysteria will run deeper now if any special forcers advisors were in those IS command bunkers…

Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:31 pm UTC

Article is a good reason why when it comes to geopol news/events, I can barely stomach reading ZH for its time-wasting infotainment content, delivered smarmy smug style.
I see the root story of many of his articles on other websites between 2 & 10 days before it appears there.

Notice his inexcusable disgraceful slam against the SAA, as if they don't exist & haven't for eons?
In all that time, while they've been worked over from the air by the murderous 'coalition', almost a
quarter million dead & up to 1/3 of Syria's civilians living as refugees.

Sickening.

Solon on October 07, 2015 · at 3:16 pm UTC

Important article on Matt Drudge, the media, politics, social control and the corporate takeover of American culture and the citizens' minds.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/07/matt-drudge-blisters-corporate-media-hillary-clinton-and-sick-americans-in-rare-interview/

He knows. He understands.

This is the key analysis in a nutshell. Understand what he is saying you understand America and why it is a danger to itself and the world.


teranam13 on October 07, 2015 · at 3:27 pm UTC

Keep your eye on Erdogan: He has royally p-ssed off the Kurds within Turkey and now the jihadis will flee back over into Turkey to cause mayhem there. He is up for power renewal Nov 1st so he may try to play the US like the Saudis do in which case things will get very nasty .

The "we have good relationship with Russia" is a diplomatic deception like Hitler had good relationship with Stalin: he is playing a very dangerous double game but he thinks he is up to it because he is blinded by his arrogance. Hubris follows arrogance like winter follows Fall.

Martin from Soviet East-Berlin on October 07, 2015 · at 3:57 pm UTC

Thank you John for this excellent work!

From me for now only some links that some may find interesting:

Russian Warships Launch Missile Attack On Syrian Targets, Clearing Way For Iran Ground Invasion
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

And here is a nice and live video from the Russian Ministry of Defence of this missiles leaving Caspian Sea for the "any target within Saudi Arabia and Qatar" range
Массированный удар высокоточным оружием по объектам ИГИЛ в Сирии из акватории Каспийского моря
(Massive attack of precision weapons targetting ISIS in Syria, shot from the Caspian Sea some 1500 kilometers away)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMasnaAf_H4

Russia Sends The USA A HUGE Message From The Caspian Sea
http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/10/russian-missiles-hit-is-in-syria-from-caspian/

Putin: Who created ISIS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI&app=desktop

Here some readers' comment found on above ZH link:

A)
"""""Eisenhorn
Eisenhorn's picture

This situation just highlights the stupidity of the western game plan.

This has always been about natural gas lines through Syria into the southern EU.

The west needed to distract Russia with the debacle in the Ukraine to prevent her from being able to respond in Syria adequately.

That effort failed abysmally.

Syria is a Russian vassal state. From the beginning of this effort the endgame was ALWAYS you must be prepared to fight the Russians in Syria to achieve your goal. If you are not prepared for that eventuality, then your plan was doomed from the start.

Russian CANNOT allow Middle East natural gas to flow into the EU. The only thing keeping the Russians relevant geo-politically are their a) Nukes and b) EU reliance on Russian natural gas.

So since the Ukraine "force Russia to fight on two fronts" plan just crashed and burned, you now have to either fight them directly in Syria or tuck your tail and go home leaving the Middle East to the Russians.

We obviously will not abandon our gulf allies in the region, so at this point it is only a matter of time before we start shooting Russians and Iranians.

Grab your popcorn, it's about to get very ugly.

The psychopaths are truly running the asylum."""""

B/C/D …)

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:01 | 6639068 agent default
agent default's picture

The US will cut and run but there is one thing that I have no answer for. If Russia settles in the ME, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will have to play nice since it will become obvious that the US cannot and will not help them. So two things happen. Either they drop the dollar, or regime change and then they drop the dollar. Either way the petrodollar is finished. What does the US intend to do about this and how far are they willing to go? I honestly don't have any sort of answer for this situation.

Login or register to post comments

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:29 | 6639200 flapdoodle
flapdoodle's picture

The *really* big problem with the US Deep State is the following:

1) The US Dollar as World Reserve Currency is based on, well, the fact that it is the WRC. The "faith" the rest of the world invests in the Dollar is only backed by momentum – and the perceived preeminence of the US armed forces.

2) Just as the first Iraqi war was seminal in the fall of the Soviet Union IMHO when the world (and particularly the Soviet military analysts) were able to see the overwhelming technical superiority of the US smart weapons and the ease with with the US disposed of Saddam's huge standing army (breaking the illusion that the Soviet Union was a superpower on the par with the US), the move into Syria by Russia by the invitation of the legal government of Syria is in my opinion just as historic and seminal, the bell weather for a major sea-change in the the power structure of the world.

3) Russia in Syria has, at least in its first appearances, greatly neutralized ISIS, which was touted as a huge almost invincible juggernaut, putting on a clinic of technical prowess and coordination almost comparable to the US effort in Iraq 1.

4) The paradigm of the all powerful US military has taken a big hit, if not by its lack of technical superiority (the F35 fiasco does not inspire confidence in US technical capability), but by its intentions, will, and compentence. the MSF hospital in Kunduz fiasco in juxaposition with the well planned Russian strikes against ISIS (which the US supposedly has been attacking for 13 months), raises the question: if you needed someone to protect you, do you trust the Russian military or the US military?

5) The above question is a fatal doubt intruding into the all powerful US paradigm – if the Saudis and other important players (Germany!) start to question US power and cozy up to the Russians, the US petrodollar is done for, and with it US dollar as WRC – the US as a nation will start an inevitable slide into third world status if that occurs. Imagine what happens for example if the US has to pay its military budget from actual assets or savings rather than just print dollars it needs to buy the hugely expensive F35 or send billions to Israel…

6) What gives pause are what the US might do about what has just happened in Syria. The most rabid neocons may push the US into a poorly thought out confrontation, and get us all killed in the worst case.

7) Whatever response the US tries will not change the death of the US Dollar as WRC. The only question is how soon it will be cast aside (and my gut tells me it will be relatively soon, regardless of how "oversubscribed" dollar denominated debt is to the actual number of dollars in circulation)

Login or register to post comments

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:30 | 6639250 agent default
agent default's picture

The dollar is the reserve currency because that's what OPEC demands in exchange for oil. The moment this changes, the only momentum behind the dollar will be the containers full of dollars flung back to the US.

Login or register to post comments

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:50 | 6639379 conscious being
conscious being's picture

Right snd OPEC demands $'s because they don't want to get bombed, etc. It's military force, or death controls as Radical would say, enforcing dollar acceptance. When the threat is no longer believable, countries will be free to dump the dollar and stop paying the imperial tax.

Login or register to post comments

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:31 | 6639568 Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

No. The dollar is the WRC and maintains that status because BANKERS structure and denominate financial markets around USD hegemony and complementary (arbitrageable) currencies. If the 6 largest oil traders in Geneva changed the preferred denomination of their PAPER oil contracts to EUR, CNY, or basket tomorrow, the impact on WRC would be orders of magnitude larger than ANYTHING that OPEC ministers could ever do.

Login or register to post comments

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:05 | 6639457 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

you give no value to Iran in your analysis –

the Russian weapons and tactics coupled in a few weeks with Iran on the ground with Soleimani leading will tell SA – its over – from Iran to Libya will potentially be at peace – if the SA fuck around they will be taken out – The Princes want Mansions in London / Paris / LA with binders full of women and Ferrari's – they are lovers not warriors

we will have Iraq firmly under Iran control with the Kurds with their own land driving Erdogan crazy and the USA Fucking the world somewhere else

Login or register to post comments

Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:17 | 6639513 BarkingCat
BarkingCat's picture

We don't want to see Russia become dominant and US collapse.
What we want is at least one more equal power to keep the children in check.
That is exactly what those psychopaths in government are – children. They sure behave like it."""""

Carmel by the Sea on October 07, 2015 · at 4:12 pm UTC

Russian Navy Fires 26 Cruise Missiles into Central Syria: ISIS Positions Targeted
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-navy-fires-26-cruise-missiles-into-central-syria-isis-positions-targeted/

Russia would Consider Extending Air Strikes to Iraq if Requested
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-would-consider-extending-air-strikes-to-iraq-if-requested/

ISIS Suffers Heavy Losses After Another Failed Offensive in Deir Ezzor: Terrorists Blame Russia
http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-heavy-losses-after-another-failed-offensive-in-deir-ezzor-terrorists-blame-russia/

Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:47 pm UTC

Hmmmm….maybe this is why Nutty was in such a tizzy these past 2 weeks.

Maybe when Putin told him he'd clean up Syria in record time, he meant or inferred the Golan, too?

I always figured Nutty would be the prima donna candidate to accelerate this crisis further & faster along to its appointed conclusion ca NOV 30, so watch out for another Wile E. Coyote moment from him sooon.

http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-and-popular-committees-launch-counter-attack-in-the-golan-heights/

The Syrian Arab Army's 90th Brigade – in coordination with Fouj Al-Joulan (Golan Regiment) and Liwaa Suqour Al-Quneitra (Al-Quneitra Hawks Brigade) of the National Defense Forces (NDF) – have launched a counter-attack in the Golan Heights after the Islamist rebels of Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) took control of the strategic hilltop of Tal Al-Ahmar.

Daniel on October 07, 2015 · at 4:56 pm UTC

The Syrian oxymoron "explained"

Let me se if I can get this right? We have country A which officially claims that it is "fighting" a war against terrorists (which by the way it has created it self in the first place) but doesn't want to bomb because of the following logic "yes they are bad but Assad is worse" and then we have country B which states it will fight terrorism and is actually doing what it says ,on the very invitation of the host country (whit in the boundaries of international law) which is plagued by the same terrorists threat, that country A is both supporting and "fighting" against simultaneously!? (now how this is possible I really don't know?)

Country A is opposed to the idea that country B is willing to help in the fight against the terrorists in a mutually beneficial joint venture. Country A is against this very same joint effort whit country B, because country B wants to fight even the terrorists that country A considers to be the "good terrorists" depending on whom they are fighting against? Now if you didn't understand a word of what I just said, that is perfectly all right, because I didn't understand it my self either? But this is about the closest that I could interpret Washington's policy stance on Syria these days.

TooLegit2Quit on October 07, 2015 · at 4:57 pm UTC

Some Russian humor here for you guys. The drawing is pure, unadulterated genius (does anybody know the cartoonist?) Oh, and the best punch line ever; these are leaflets dropped on ISIS =)

Article here [propaganda puke alert]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3261603/Don-t-make-worse-Helicopters-drop-leaflets-ISIS-rebel-fighters-warning-ahead-huge-Russian-backed-ground-offensive.html

You can skip to the picture here: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/06/08/2D218BDB00000578-0-image-a-1_1444118222619.jpg

PS; if you do click on the article and scroll down to the comments you will see that public opinion overwhelmingly supports Russia, this is happening in most news papers comment sections that I monitored so far, even the Guardian.

-TL2Q

[Oct 06, 2015] Turkey cannot endure Russian violation of airspace, president says

That's how guardian handlers want turkey to react... Those US and GB dances about Kosher islamists vs. non-Kosher islamists are disgusting.
"... Presumably the first step is to force coalition members to work with the government on airstrikes, rather than intruding daily into Syrian airspace. The tactics chosen seem to have the goal of harassing away the Turkish air force from Syrian airspace. ..."
"... OH!!! The sky is falling! Turkey, that violates (using armed fighter jets) Greece's airspace over the Aegean DAILY, condemns the violation of its airspace. After having continuously violated the Syrian and Iraqi airspace (and bombed) for months. Oh the hypocrisy....! ..."
"... they have exposed the West and NATO's complicity in keeping the Syrian war going, with the aim of removing Assad. It's quite brilliant geo-politicking. ..."
"... Well, after only ONE DAY of military intervention Russia scared the s*** out of ISIS in their very capital. One has to wonder what exactly have the coalition of hypocrites been striking for more than a year!!! - because it surely does not seem like they were actually attacking ISIS. ..."
"... We have had a nuclear deal with Iran and although most westerners consider Iranians, Turks and Kurds to be Arabs they are not. The alliances and interests are far more complex that just a Sunni/Shia divide. This is on the border of Europe, Israel and NATO. ..."
"... Are you misinformed due to blatant western propaganda, or are you a misinforming propagandist? Minsk I and Minsk II were both initiated by Russia with EU states Germany and France; the US and UK were intentionally bypassed and left out (probably because we both supported Ukraine's war against the east). ..."
"... Russia conducted Moscow I and Moscow II negotiations with internal Syrian rebel groups. The "rebel" groups that refused to participate were the likes of jabhat al Nusra and Army of Conquest and other extremist groups (most of which are manned by foreign jihadists); of which the truth has been revealed in the past week or so that such groups are proxy armies funded and armed by the US, GCC states and Turkey, among others. ..."
Oct 06, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

brews12 6 Oct 2015 19:29

The west is not sure what to do now there plot to topple Assad has failed. The West thought Assad would fall easily but no. Then they tried arming the jihadis (sorry moderate forces) that didn't work. Then they set up Islamic state isil or whatever it's called now (funny how the name changes) they must be seen as the worst terrorists ever so the west has an excuse to fly aircraft over Iraq and then syria supposedly to destroy Islamic state but in reality to aid toppling the Assad regime (my apologies the butcher Assad regime)
I always find it unusual that the west was getting much more friendly towards Libya and syria just before the Arab spring more than likely so blame would not fall there way when supposed civil war started.

Arab spring conviently starts just as troops start pulling out or Iraq and Afghanistan.

Some other questions we must now ask.

  1. 9/11 conspiracy theories now more plausible.
  2. Obama as president was this done as a smokescreen.
  3. Cameron elected UK pm way behind in polls and if not elected unlikely to get permission to bomb in syria heavily supported by sun newspaper.
  4. Turkey in nato why or perhaps we can see why now.

TomFullery -> Richard Alan 6 Oct 2015 19:29

You obviously don't know how bad things are now. USD 3'000 is just a pipedream these days and Ukraine is bankrupt (but the West doesn't like to admit it).

I hear clowns on CIF daily talking about how the Ruble is in freefall but look at the Hryvnia. Every time I visit Kiev I get more UAH for my Euros, I get better service in restaurants both because the staff are desperate not to lose their jobs and also because as likely as not I, along with the ubiquitous loudmouthed, fatarsed Yanks, am the only customer.

Ironic that I have profited from US aggression and empire building.

TomFullery -> Marcedward 6 Oct 2015 19:24

An apt description of the US as it thrashes around snapping and biting everywhere these days trying to remain world hegemon. But Russia has finally become assertive (Georgia and Ukraine tweeked the bear's tail one too often).

China is playing the chess game which may last just a few decades or may last as long as the US has existed.


kconroy869 6 Oct 2015 19:04

In a strange way, the more I see and hear about Putin, the more I admire his principles. That is not to say that I think he is right with some actions, but there is a strong logic to his views and responses. He is undoubtedly a leader. Obama, Cameron and many others are more interested in sound bites and media control than actually doing the right thing.


Shad O 6 Oct 2015 18:52

The "bad Turkey", "bad Russia" post miss the point. The question is: why? Going through the facts:

1. With with only 4 dedicated air-air fighters in Syria, Russia cannot be intentionally risking their their aircraft or challenging Turkey in their own airspace.

2. The actions of of Syrian MiGs seems too timely to be coincidental.

3. All incidents seem to involve Turkey. No other state, including those bombing Syria seems to be targeted.

4. While the Russians were somewhat apologetic, another incident happened on the following day.

Now, if we remember, the timing of the Russian operation coincided with the start of the calls for "safe zones", effectively pre-empting any further action in this direction. "Safe zones" were one of creeping escalation plans, which would eventually lead to strikes on government forces directly. Russia's plan is the opposite: they want to restore the government's control all over the country. For that they need to have the "anti-IS" coalition deal with the Syrian government.

Presumably the first step is to force coalition members to work with the government on airstrikes, rather than intruding daily into Syrian airspace. The tactics chosen seem to have the goal of harassing away the Turkish air force from Syrian airspace. Turkey is the logical first target: with their muddy record of bombing kurds and armed incursions into Iraq (again, after Kurds), they know full well their position is very shaky, and that they are protected by NATO agreements only if the state comes under attack, not if their aircraft in Syrian airspace gets shot down.

Russia's apparent apologetic response, followed by more incidents is unsurprising. Their current modus operandi is big on the "speak softly" approach. It allows them to follow up with whatever they want and seem consistent with their earlier statements. While at the same time, they can keep doing what they plan to do if negotiations do not give the desired outcome.


Vocalista Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 18:50

RT is just as useful in weighing up what is really happening in the World as any other media outlet.

Let the reader decide eh...?


log1c4l 6 Oct 2015 18:40

Poor old Recep. He was about to get his safe zone for Nusra and then Putin deployed Su-30s, Su-34s and the Moskva with its S300s.

Now he's crying into his beer with Breedlove and the rest of the Islamist/Ziocons.

Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 18:40

If I understand correctly, it is Turkey today the main sponsor of the ISIS and that is Turkey on the verge of revolution. And it is in this country population is largely adheres of radical views where the United States held nuclear weapons. And it is this country is supported by NATO. Am I right?

Cydonian1 6 Oct 2015 18:34

OH!!! The sky is falling! Turkey, that violates (using armed fighter jets) Greece's airspace over the Aegean DAILY, condemns the violation of its airspace. After having continuously violated the Syrian and Iraqi airspace (and bombed) for months. Oh the hypocrisy....!

vampire76 6 Oct 2015 18:31

People where prepared to turn a blind eye to NATO's illegal invasion of Syria if it meant getting rid of these terrorists, now that the Russians came along and highlighted how it should be done and not by arming the guys your supposed to be attacking, NATO should just get out of the way and let Russia do the job properly.


Budovski -> Ximples 6 Oct 2015 18:27

Turkey can endure spending 5 years of state support for terror networks and ensuring Jihadis can cross across its borders, and retreat back to recoup, but it can't endure an accidental 10 sec airspace incursion? Turkey has violated Syria's borders, bombing Kurds, violates Syria's airspace and also violates Greece and Iraq's airspace. When is this rogue state getting kicked out of NATO?


Vocalista foolisholdman 6 Oct 2015 18:23

All wars are bankers wars:

LINK


objectivereporting 6 Oct 2015 18:19

NATO is laughable at best. Please shut the hell up and let the Russkies get rid of the evil named ISIS. You (NATO) had one full year and the Islamic State actually expanded under your air strikes. Few days and ISIS is already running away with families to Iraq and Jordan from Russian sorties. Only thing we need now is for Iraq to make a request for Russian assistance so we can finally "degrade and destroy" ISIS along with ground ops from the Syrian army. OK Obama? All legal according to international law as opposed to the bullying the US-led coalition used to interfere with Syria's sovereignty.


Amying 6 Oct 2015 18:16

NATO have no jurisdiction over Syria and the interfering in the country by Turkey, US, etc is illegal.

Russia's presence was requested by the legitimate government. Only Russia has the authority to bomb targets in Syria.

Turkey is not going to be backed by other NATO members if they taker action against Russian jets.


Vocalista HouseholdCarvery 6 Oct 2015 18:12

"The people/govts etc do have agency for their own actions y'know."

Rubbish - the American people and the British people have no control of their governments as witnessed by Blair and Bush attacking Iraq after millions of people marched in both countries in protest.

A recent vote for Syrian action was undermined in the British Parliament so the bombing is done by the back door without media coverage and also using drones...

DavidEG 6 Oct 2015 18:06

They, their masters and their NATO stooges Will endure a complete demise of CIA-trained "moderate al-qaeda" in a matter of week. Jihadis, moderate and hardline, are fleeing Syria in droves

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609680/Islamic-State-ISIS-Russian-bombing-terror-Syria-Caliphate-defeat

sutjeska -> Chiselbeard 6 Oct 2015 18:01

The ones in Ukraine don't want to hack people's heads off for being not quite Muslim enough. They don't sell children as sex slaves, or dynamite cultural heritage sites. Also, they don't get training and weapons from the Americans.

Kholrabi 6 Oct 2015 18:01

Come on Cameron, you worm, repeat after me with all your fusty, clueless Tory parasite mates, soon to go the dodo way: Get Hague and the one with the snout to stand in line too.

"Erdogan must go, we can't have peace in Syria and the Middle East unless Erdogan goes"

"The Saudi Pillock must go, the whole gang of those murdering backwards must go, for peace in the Middle East."

Send a pot belly to your best mate and equally useless worm, Obama.

Say something decent while you still have the time; you will not make it to twenty twenty, or anywhere near that date.


TomFullery -> Chiselbeard 6 Oct 2015 18:00

You missed the US-instigated Nazi putsch there Dude. Things were ticking over quite nicely for years in Ukraine until the US tried a takeover.

Russia checkmated and got a huge chunk of real estate in addition.


Mmirra -> Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 17:47

What do you think, would ISIS gentleman who wrap children in bombs and send them to suicide missions ever use civilians as shileds or would they try to protect them? There will be innocent people dying until the war is over.


fotorabia23 -> TomFullery 6 Oct 2015 17:44

Its ok..all the fascists are coming out in force...they can squeal Putin this that and the other..but we know what their true agenda is.Their group masturbation of Western -Israeli-Saudi imperial hegemony is coming to an end..and they cant handle it.


Sarah7 -> johhnybgood 6 Oct 2015 17:42

Don't forget Operation Ajax -- because the Iranians certainly haven't forgotten.

Mohammad Mosaddegh was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a covert coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence Service.

Prime Minister Mosaddegh's most notable policy was the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC).

The 1953 coup was followed by the installation of the brutal and autocratic Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, aka the Shah of Iran -- whose vicious secret police, the Savak, remain the stuff of legend -- and the Iranian oil industry was immediately re-privatised and returned to British Petroleum (BP). Mission accomplished!

Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, and then put under house arrest until his death in 1967.

The direct causal relationship between Mosaddegh's decision to nationalise Iran's oil sector and the covert U.S. and British orchestrated coup resulting in his ouster could not be more obvious.

Many Iranians continue to regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history.

Alas, one can only imagine what Iranian society might be like today had Prime Minister Mosaddegh's popular brand of secular, tolerant, democratic socialism been allowed to develop and flourish.

The phenomenon of regime change orchestrated and driven by outside influences produces terrible results -- in Iran those results produced the repressive Shah, who was followed in turn by the even more repressive Ayatollah Khomeini and the strict, reactionary, Islamic republic that still governs Iran today.

See the 'Arab Spring' -- in particular, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen -- for further evidence of U.S. orchestrated regime change gone horribly wrong.


fotorabia23 Don9000 6 Oct 2015 17:23

Bollox..'most Western nations'..the pious..the proud..the elite..the righteous..they started the war by arming proxy terrorists...creating a third entity in this filthy war..

so 'the boots on the ground' are not English -French speaking and doesn't look like an embarrassing invasion...unless it its CIA-Mi6 trainers ..who hid in Jordan..providing training and logistics. Fact. Stop being such a shill.


gossy Roguing 6 Oct 2015 17:22

The Afghan Mujahideen were never just the peasants they were presented as - now were they? They had Stinger missiles and anti tank weapons supplied by the CIA The CIA's current crop of Islamic Jihadis in Syria have the same but what they don't have is any real support among the populations they terrorize. The Russians are seen as liberators.


Simpleguest Roguing 6 Oct 2015 17:21

I'd like to remind you that US, together with NATO, also failed to defeat the Afgans under far more favorable (for US/NATO) conditions (lack of outside powers supporting and supplying the Afgans), which makes them (US/NATO) all the more silly.


murnau 6 Oct 2015 17:20

Turkey 'cannot endure' Russian violation of airspace, president says

Is this the same Turkey that ranges over parts of Syria and Iraq with its aircraft bombing the PKK who are fighting ISIS who are allies of Erdogan. Turkey shot down a Syrian plane which was fighting ISIS 18 months ago saying it had strayed into Turkish airspace but the plane came down in Syria. Didn't Erdogan ban youtube for a while when they had evidence of a false flag operation he was concocting to be used as an excuse to attack Syria. When the Kurds were fighting ISIS in Kobani Erdogan stood by and watched.

As for the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg isn't Nato violating Syrian airspace with its half hearted attacks on the Islamic State over the last year. The US state department laughingly report that cement mixers and excavators have been hit on the bombing runs along with Toyota pickup trucks that the US sent over.

ISIS terrorists were leading cavalry charges across Iraq and Syria mounted on Toyota Hilux trucks provided to them by the U.S.

http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/10/non-lethal-aid-toyota-hilux-trucks-isis.html

Turkish war planes continued their airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels group in northern Iraq and Syria - See more at:

http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/8/3/turkish-warplanes-attack-kurdistan-pkk-rebels#sthash.65CYhO5R.dpuf


TomFullery Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 17:12

Which innocents?

How many?

Which is your source?

How do you feel about the 500'000 innocent Iraqi kids who starved to death as a result of US sanctions and which Madeleine Albright described as "a price worth paying"

How do you feel about the US war against Vietnam which resulted in 3 million Vietnamese deaths?


kenalexruss -> TarquinFintimlin 6 Oct 2015 16:47

I don't know if you're an idiot savant or not, but you sure act like you can read my mind. How dare you suggest that because I question Obama policy, that I must therefore be in support of Russia? Only pathetic morons can come up with such illogical drivel. If you are indeed a realist, you must accept the fact that the US is in support of extreme terrorism and that's fcuked up, much like your moronic mentality. Pathetic.

A realist sees things as they are and calls them accordingly.


Abiesalba -> Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 16:42

Make no mistake, the destruction of ISIS is not Putin's primary objective.

Oh, is that so?

With respect to Syria / ISIS, Russia has direct interests in defeating ISIS because ISIS is already operating (!!!) inside the Russian Federation - in the North Caucasus region.
-
-
See for example:

ISIS Declares Governorate in Russia's North Caucasus Region (June 2015)

Note that southern Russia is also on the map released by ISIS in 2014 depicting the regions that ISIS aim to rule over within the next five years:

map of ISIS (original in Arabic) and map of ISIS (showing current borders with state names in German).

So Putin not only has the request from Syria's government (Assad) for military help which the 'coalition' striking Syria lacks. Putin / Russia also has direct interests in defeating ISIS. Apart from ISIS spreading to Russia via the Caucasus, Russia is also worried about ISIS spreading its influence into the Central Asian (Muslim) countries hence bringing ISIS to Russia's borders there too. In addition, Russia has a military base in Syria which is strategically very important to Russia (the only Russian base in the Mediterranean / warm seas).

Russia is also VERY close to Syria and Iraq.

So it seems to me that Russia has much more legitimate reasons for strikes in Syria than the 'coalition' and Russia also knows what it wants to achieve.

And of course Russia has tried to get allies for intervention in Syria some years ago, when the situation was less complex and ISIS has no risen to power yet. It seems to me that Putin judged the situation correctly yet again.


BG Davis Karl Gerhardt Hohenstauffen 6 Oct 2015 16:38

What's odd is the number of up votes for this verbal and conceptual tossed salad.
Turkey bombs Kurds because they are Kurds. Nasty, but not odd.
Saudi Arabia bombs Houthis because they are Shiite. Nasty, but not odd.
US weapons end up in ISIS hands because they were captured. Not odd.
ISIS sells oil. Good business, not odd.
It's awfully hard to build a conspiracy theory from unrelated obvious facts.

The solution is Putin bringing Assad to the negotiating table.

Now please explain what justifies CIA / the US training and arming 'rebels' in Syria? What the hell are the US and CIA doing there anyway?


Abiesalba -> Vatslav Rente 6 Oct 2015 16:35

It may be better to create an efficient army to throw out from the continent all American bases and to maintain neutrality in the dispute United States-Russia.

Agree.

Yesterday there was a comment here in Slovenia under an article about NATO condemning Russia over Turkey's airspace: Time for us [Slovenia] to exit NATO asap. It had already been too late yesterday. --- 91 thumbs up, 15 thumbs down

Note that Slovenia was in Yugoslavia during the Cold War. And Yugoslavia was a leading member of the Non-Aligned movement which was in effect a buffer between the two blocs. So we were friends with both the west and the east and the third world. The Non-Aligned movement also gave shelter and support to all those colonies emerging in that period from the devastating colonial rule by the glorious west.

Tito's funeral in 1980 was the greatest state funeral in history by the number of high delegations from countries around the world (larger than Mandela's). It was during the freezing Cold War, but representatives of both the Nato and the Warsaw states (including the UK), as well as China and many Non-Aligned former colonies attended.

At that time, the democrat Jimmy Carter was the US president, and he was attacked in the US press and by the republican (!) George Bush because he did not attend the funeral personally, but rather 'only' sent the US vice-president. I think that this (a republican slamming the US president for not attending a 'commie' funeral) illustrates quite nicely what Yugoslavia's position was in the world.
-
But I think that in the present situation the EU should get closer to Russia. This really is in strategic and economic interests of both sides. Russia is also historically and culturally a part of Europe. It would be stupid to chase Russia away and make it get closer to China.

The escalation of the Ukraine crisis was a bad mistake of the EU which then so stupidly followed the US/UK hysteria and imposed economic sanctions on Russia which are hurting both sides (but not the cheerleaders US/UK).

And this constant vilification of Russia with respect to Syria by NATO and US/UK is revolting too.

And anyway it is now clear that the EU has to consolidate its foreign policy and also establish some joint police/defence forces/border guards.

And the UK will soon vote itself out of the EU too, which will make things in the EU much simpler. Because the UK as an US poodle is the one who endangered the people of all other EU members and made us all targets of terrorists. Remember how strongly Germany and France opposed the Iraq war.

So it is now a good time for the EU members to get out of NATO, let the UK float off into oblivion and to consolidate our foreign and defence policy and seek actively to get close to Russia again (I do not think this would be difficult to do once the glorious US/UK duo is out of the picture). This would also make the situation of Ukraine much easier to sort out. And Russia would be pleased to be the 'big power' in this alliance.

I would be really good for Europe to unite now (including Russia) rather than put another Iron Curtain between us and Russia (which would happen if the EU claimed 'neutrality').


BG Davis 6 Oct 2015 16:31

"Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian government was not involved in efforts by volunteers to travel to Syria to aid the Assad regime"
Exactly what they said and continue to say about Ukraine.


John Kayoss -> PrinceEdward 6 Oct 2015 16:31

Not only does Russia have no law against Homosexuality, but it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for sexual orientation or gender identity for employment purposes, thus it has better protections than the majority of US states.


MangawhaiJo 6 Oct 2015 16:24

In response to a question covering 1) The Bombing of the Afghanistan Hospital by US Forces and 2) The incursion into Turkey Airspace by Russian Aircraft, Nato's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg response was (in summary):

1) The Hospital bombing will be subject to a full investigation before comment should be made

and

2) The Russians should be condemned for a clear violation and serious breach of sovereign airspace.

In terms of seriousness - these acts are hardly comparable ('War Crime' v airspace incursion), the lopsided answer by the NATO secretary general does nothing for their credibility.

RobertLlDavies -> Manolo Torres 6 Oct 2015 16:21

If you keep on diverting us with facts, it's only a matter of time before you're exposed as a "Putinbot". The only true sign of an independent mind is that you parrot US and NATO foreign policy.

PrinceEdward -> impartial12 6 Oct 2015 16:21

Religious Freedom exists in Russia, and there is no law against Homosexuality. Besides, the West's attitude about Homosexuality was the same 5 minutes ago. What do the "Moderate Jihadis" (not to be confused with Moderate Serial Killers, or Moderate SS Troops) believe about Homosexuality? When does the US/UK start the sanctions against Saudi Arabia?

vr13vr -> SwissArmy1984 6 Oct 2015 16:17

In other words, move the Syrians out of their own country and let ISIS have it. Which is exactly what ISIS wants.

vr13vr -> Trumbledon 6 Oct 2015 16:16

You are jumping to conclusions. First, it is the US government that declared them all civilians, which might not be accurate at all and is subject to how good the US intelligence is, which is questionable, judging the number of US errors. Secondly, it is also a matter of definition. By default, all the terrorists are civilians. So if it is opposition that the US supports, it will be "civilians" and "opposition." If it is opposition that someone else supports, it is called "terrorists." You also start with the assumption that somehow Russia cares less about civilians than any other country and I'm not sure where that assumption came from. The "weather forecast bit" was not a response to any official report. it was a weathergirl bit that very briefly mentioned the basic weather averages in the region as a curious bit of information.

But before any discussion could be made, remember that the attack on the civilians has not been proven. It came from the Pentagon as some sort of assumption and in the age of propaganda war it is hardly a reliable information.


coughined MeandYou 6 Oct 2015 15:51

The Russians have outsmarted the West in Ukraine, where the West sponsored regime change, and now they have exposed the West and NATO's complicity in keeping the Syrian war going, with the aim of removing Assad. It's quite brilliant geo-politicking.

Unfortunately, I think the yanks are going to get pretty pissed off; especially when the House of Saud is on the blower demanding they do something about Russian involvement.


coughined -> PixieFrouFrou 6 Oct 2015 15:47

They've been wasting millions of dollars of ordnance on a few soft targets. Why do you think 'all 41' anti-Assad 'insurgent' groups (they some how cease to be terrorists now the Russians are involved) have apparently united to fight the Russians? probably because the Russians are hitting real targets.

You can imagine the terrorists/insurgents:

"Fuck me, these bastards are actually trying to kill us!"
"Yeah, nobody mentioned this when we picked up our dollars last week."
"I'm off home to Saudi/Jordan/Pakistan/Portsmouth. This isn't fun any more."


Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 15:47

The initial strategy of the Turkish war against Syria was invented by former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe (Alain Juppé) in 2011. Later, France withdrew from the cases.

Juppe inclined oscillating Erdogan to support the attack on the traditional ally of Turkey - Syria - in exchange for the French support Turkey's accession with EU.

Today, Turkey is a key sponsor of ISIS. It has betrayed its ally and plundered Syria. Turkey deserve better fate. Famous foreign policy Ahmet Davutoglu "There are no problems with neighbors" has turned out into a huge problems with all its neighbors, thanks to the foolish ambition of Erdogan and his gang.


Abiesalba -> gimmeshoes 6 Oct 2015 15:45

At the moment Russia is bombing everybody but Daesh.

Re Russia allegedly not attacking ISIS - see for example here:
-
-
Syria conflict: Russia air strikes stepped up

BBC, 2 October 2015
-
The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Russian air strikes had hit a training camp and a camouflaged command post near the IS "capital" of Raqqa, and that 12 IS fighters were killed in the attack.

Activists and residents of the city said IS had cancelled Friday prayers and emptied mosques, amid fears of further Russian air strikes.
-
-
Well, after only ONE DAY of military intervention Russia scared the s*** out of ISIS in their very capital. One has to wonder what exactly have the coalition of hypocrites been striking for more than a year!!! - because it surely does not seem like they were actually attacking ISIS.

Go Russia!


gossy 6 Oct 2015 15:31

Turkey should be more worried that the Russians are looking for ISIS training camps and supply bases in Turkey that the Turks provide on their behalf. These supply lines will need cutting and of course if any Turkish hospitals get bombed in the process, well, they can hardly object now can they? as this has become the approved method of dealing with hospitals.


Bosula 6 Oct 2015 15:30

Turkey, US, Australia and NATO backed France violate Syrian airspace everyday they undertake another bombing and drone attack. These countries are all in breach of international law. NATO should comment on this.

Only Russia has Syrian approval to fly in their airspace.


Manolo Torres xpeters 6 Oct 2015 15:29

Much more people goes to Russia than to the UK.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053


Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 15:27

According to the French political analyst Thierry Meyssan, it is exactly Erdogan "organized looting of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, taken out equipment." Similarly, he organized the theft of archaeological treasures and created an international market.


Vatslav Rente -> Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 15:21

Thank You, very interesting opinion.

It is quite natural that Russia and the USA defends its interests. But I don't understand the desire completely economically independent of Europe, to make ourselves a nuclear target. Why? To obtain from USA questionable security guarantees against the "Russian threat" or to participate in its military adventures of the U.S. state Department around the world?

It may be better to create an efficient army to throw out from the continent all American bases and to maintain neutrality in the dispute United States-Russia. I am sure it will bring the world more stability in the short-term... (but in the future Europe will participate in the redistribution of markets and resources on an equal footing, with the addition of China will bring more imbalance and is likely to lead the world to a new World War).


SHA2014 -> truthbetold13 6 Oct 2015 15:09

The Shia Sunni modern political divide unfortunately has been artificially created in a typical divide and rule fashion by the neo-imperialists. Most muslim countries or at least most individuals in muslim countries did not give a damn about this sort of thing. However certain powers that be thought that this is a useful way of causing trouble and maybe this has worked to a certain extend. It certainly fits the roles of the different regional powers Iran vs KSA and Turkey. I think the man in the street is really not bothered about this. Certainly if you want to believe that this is the root of the problem you also have to concede that the west's role in this is to support and use the sunni extremist in causing upheaval in the region under the guidance of KSA.


RobertLlDavies Roguing 6 Oct 2015 15:03

They had been fighting the pro-Communist (PDPA) government of Afghanistan for years before the Soviet intervention in 1979, planting bombs in cinemas and civilian airplanes, assassinating schoolteachers etc., backed by the USA and Pakistan. These were the wonderful "freedom fighters" we were supporting ...


elder berry TarquinFintimlin 6 Oct 2015 15:01

United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran

from Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war


Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 14:58

In October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that Erdogan's regime supported ISIS by "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons. There are rumors that the main source of funds to support ISIS today is the sale of Iraqi oil from the oil fields in the region of Mosul, where they are carefully protected. Apparently, Erdogan's son is the one who provides the export of oil controlled ISIS. Bilal Erdogan (Bilal Erdoğan) owns several shipping companies. According to unconfirmed information, he signed a contract with the European mining companies to transport the stolen oil to Asian markets. Apart from the fact that his son Bilal leads illegal trade brings big profit to ISIS, Syumeye Erdogan (Sümeyye Erdoğan), the daughter of the president of Turkey, has the secret hospital, located in Turkey, near the Syrian border. Every day the Turkish army trucks to bring dozens of wounded jihadists where they receive medical treatment and sent back to conduct a bloody jihad in Syria. Moreover, it is persistently Erdogan kills Kurds - the most efficient army to defeat the ISIS.


johhnybgood 6 Oct 2015 14:51

The West has instigated regime change to any sovereign nation that refuses to follow its demands. These are normally - accept Central Bank loans, accept the dollar for trade, and ensure that leaders do as they are told. They have got away with this since 1945.

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, and a host of African and South American countries have been exploited and worse since then. Since 911, the US went into overdrive with the War on Terror, and has been responsible for millions of deaths during several interventions. Now with Syria going the same way, Russia, together with other countries who are not prepared to see the world destroyed by crazy western imperialism, have intervened to put a stop to it. More power to them. The head of the snake must be cut off, and I do not mean ISIS, before the world can return to sanity.


Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:47

"this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg was quoted as saying by Reuters.

Two? Really? What a total scandal.

Thinking about it, the US has been serially involved for a very long time in all sorts of wars, military coups and 'interventions' in other countries which involved "non-accidental" breaching of sovereignty of other states – including serial breaching of Syria's airspace for more than a year now. Some comment about that, Mr Stoltenberg?

To refresh your memory, see this list of the US military interventions:
-
FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO SYRIA: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

by Dr. Zoltan Grossman


lids 6 Oct 2015 14:36

Wait a minute: The nation that inherits the chair for human-rights at the UN (Saudi Arabia), is calling for Jihad against another sovereign member of the same council?

Did they draft a fitting resolution for the committee to make it sound?


Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:36

Breaking news:

The US has its nuclear weapons illegally positioned all over Europe and in Turkey!
-
Well, decades old news, but very true.

The US have their at best semi-legal (in reality illegal) nuclear weapons positioned in five European NATO members: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Germany (the powerful Merkel's government!!!) has been trying to get rid of the US nukes for years - to no avail. In fact, the US is now (under the orders of the Nobel laureate Obama) upgrading its illegal nukes in Europe.

I am from Slovenia, and a few years ago we found out that the US has nukes in Italy quite close to our border. Well, the US nukes have been on two sites in northern Italy for decades (one site in the metropolitan area of Milano), but the Italians did NOT know about them.

Ironically in the meantime, during the last decades, Italians have repeatedly convincingly rejected use of nuclear power in Italy in several referenda - even if this means higher electricity bills for them. Only to find out that they have been sitting on nuclear weapons all along. Surely Italians have protested - eh, the US is upgrading these nukes now.

Oh, and how about the best friend of the US ever, Israel. It is NOT a nuclear power according to international treaties. But the Israel nukes - finally Pentagon admitted a few months ago:
-
It's Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too

March 2015
-
After five decades of pretending otherwise, the Pentagon has reluctantly confirmed that Israel does indeed possess nuclear bombs, as well as awesome weapons technology similar to America's.
-
-
The US is really a totally dangerous country. Lying, killing, serially illegally overthrowing governments in other countries, serially waging illegal wars, serially committing massive crimes against humanity, serially training and arming all sorts of dangerous militant groups, serially breaching all sorts of international conventions that they did sign while refusing to even sign some other ones etc. etc. etc.

Time to say NO to the US. Indeed, the cards of world power have quite substantially reshuffled recently - but the Americans have not noticed this yet.

Now let us go back to vilifying Russia…


Wareenan Kongsai 6 Oct 2015 14:30

Isis are a nasty bunch why would anyone support them? I thought at least Elton John woul have said something about their erosion of gay rights.The church seems quite quiet over the genocidal destruction of Christian communities too. All of this seems a long way from the teachings of Jesus Christ, time to check the moral compass and find our way.


Sarah7 Bosula 6 Oct 2015 14:25

Indeed, it looks like Stoltenberg must have stumbled upon bellicose pipsqueak Anders Fogh Rasmussen's old Viagra supply and decided to double down.

I couldn't imagine how anyone could be worse than 'Fog of War' Rasmussen, but Stoltenberg has exceeded my worst expectations and then some.

Of course, NATO is a wholly-owned and operated subsidiary of the U.S., and it is the U.S. president, the Pentagon, and the CIA who set the tone for the outdated warmongers who participate in this international criminal enterprise.

The time to pull the plug on NATO is long past due.

Vatslav Rente 6 Oct 2015 14:25

Clowns... ha ha ha:)
Broke the space Turkey? What? This is normal when inexperienced pilots bombing Syria or departing from the Crimea (new Russia) violate the country's airspace with the interests of which could not have been deemed. What's next? The Turks will refuse the Russian gas, or 20-25 % of Russian tourists? The vassal of the USA shouts about sovereignty? WOW:) IN reality, no one here brandishing weapons, the capabilities of air force and air defense of Turkey are well known Russia. NATO understands this, every year American planes violate air borders of alliance countries and countries of the third world without warning. And that? - NOTHING.

Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:24

Can somebody please explain what the US strategy is here?

It seems to be this:

While Assad's forces and CIA 'moderate rebels' fight each other (because this is democratic), they will at the same time fight together to wipe out together ISIS and those 41 or so 'insurgent' groups.

Or is it that the the CIA boys will defeat everyone and rule Syria happily ever after as long as Russia keeps out.

Back in the real world, Putin is the only one with a plan and he is right too: Assad is a part of the solution.

When this devastating war ends, the only chance that Syria has is to have some rather 'firm fist' rule it for some time (and it can be Assad with some elements of opposition if they actually seriously exist as Syrians and not CIA boys). Then when the wounds heal a little, the regime can be gradually relaxed.

It is not possible to go from massacring each other to loving democracy in one step. Building democracy is a process. Democracy / a fair society Middle-Eastern-style whatever it is cannot materialise just like that via a decree.

Bosula -> Roguing 6 Oct 2015 14:23

At least Russia is bombing so called moderate Al Quaida factions which the US and Turkey support. What sort of democratic regime would US backed Al Quaida lead to in Syria?

Worth asking yourself this question and then you might support Russia bombing Al Quaida as well.


Anette Mor 6 Oct 2015 14:19

Western type of mess up. In war - no clarity who is your enemy, who is your friend and why. In peace - strong solidarity in whom to bully by not inviting to a dinner or placing in the corner talking over them Low life cheap approach. All gone down hill since they started eating on streets (and over own keyboards) and drinking from these horrendous paper cups.


Bosula -> Reia Hriso 6 Oct 2015 14:18

Turkey, Australia, US, NATO and their Saudi mates are supporting the Al Qaeda in Syria which is seen in some Orwellian way as moderate. The US and the Saudis are supplying Al Quaida with arms.

Russia just sees Al Qaeda as another terrorist group and is bombing the shit out of them.


truthbetold13 -> MahsaKaerra 6 Oct 2015 14:18

But that is not true is it? There are more than that on the list i have helpfully attached below - and that is not counting covert operations:Guatemala (1920), Turkey (1922), China (1922-1927, Mexico (1923), Honduras (1924-25), Panama (1925), El Salvador (1932), Iran (1946), Uruguay (1947), Greece (1947-1949), Philippines (1948-54), Puerto Rico (1950), Korea (1951-1953), Iran (1953), Vietnam ( 1954), Guatemala (1954), Egypt (1956), Lebanon (1958), Vietnam (1960 - 1975), Cuba (1961), Laos (1962), Iraq (1963), Panama (1964), Indonesia (1965), Guatemala (166-67), Cambodia (1969-75), Oman (1970), Laos (1971-73), Chile (1973), Libya (1981), El Salvador ( 1981-1992), Nicaragua (1981-1990), Lebanon (1982-84), Grenada (1983-84), Libya (1986), Iraq (1990-91), Somalia (1992-94), Yugoslavia (1992-1994), Liberia (1997), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011)

Sources: "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive, "180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982)"


Zaurora 6 Oct 2015 14:15

Under normal circumstances, this could be the routine*. A NATO-ally country and bordering Russian presence. However, Erdogan and minions are determined to make Turkey the battle field for WW3.

What I wonder is, how come NATO is still capable of trusting Erdogan's government after all that happened since the Syrian war started? Does anyone not remember who tried to go on a full scale war on Syria with NATO's backing up? It was always known that most of the groups in Syria which Turkey supported were terrorists, not? At a point, some western governments supported them through Turkey too, not? And lately, reports of this fatal mistake started pouring down, not? Wasn't it 3 weeks ago when nearly all of the NATO members but Turkey decided on moving on with Assad for at least a while longer?

Say, conflict of interest with Russia is understandable. Abandoning principles, not.

*http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/military-aircraft-interventions-have-surged-top-gun-but-for-real


Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:12

Here is something about those great allies of the coalition of hypocrites whom Putin is NOT 'allowed' to bomb:
-
-
Turkey and Saudi Arabia alarm the West by backing Islamist extremists the Americans had bombed in Syria

Independent, May 2015
-
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad's regime that includes al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, in a move that has alarmed Western governments.

The two countries are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest, a command structure for jihadist groups in Syria that includes Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist rival to Isis which shares many of its aspirations for a fundamentalist caliphate.

The decision by the two leading allies of the West to back a group in which al-Nusra plays a leading role has alarmed Western governments and is at odds with the US, which is firmly opposed to arming and funding jihadist extremists in Syria's long-running civil war.


dadykool1979 -> deSales 6 Oct 2015 14:12

Turkey is intrinsically unstable. Atatürk's post-Ottoman modern 'secular' Turkey was built on excessive suppression of ethnic and religious groups. Around 25% of Turkish citizens are long-violated ethnic Kurds speaking a Persian-related language, many of whom dream of uniting with neighbouring Kurds in Iraq, Iran and Syria, to form a geographically-contiguous Kurdistan. Another roughly 25% of Turks in the country's middle, follow the Alevi sect of Islam, a Shia-Sufi tradition very different from the dominant Sunnis; Alevis have been persecuted for centuries.

And the remaining half of Turkey is divided along a spectrum from the secular Kemalist followers of Atatürk with their support in the military, to somewhat or highly religious Sunnis ... the Sunnis now fragmented in this huge CIA-funded standoff, with some Sunnis going with Prime Minister Erdogan, while others are under Erdogan's new biggest enemy, that CIA-funded 'spiritual leader' Gülen. Turkey in 3 or more fragments may be the result of all this.


PaulWal -> Stretch23khan 6 Oct 2015 14:05

Good question. It's all corporate. The media organisations have huge interests in the states. The U.S. Govt is a very vindictive, spiteful lot. One wrong report, and the fcc will come calling.

It's quite funny that piddly little rt has been compared to these media behemoths that have had free rein for decades, with no censure and disaster ensuing.


MisterPastry 6 Oct 2015 14:04

Why do we 'endure' Turkey's support for ISIS? Why are we constantly being lied to about the nature of this Western-inspired series of regime changes in the Middle East? Since when has any violent terrorist group been 'moderate'? Why has the UN not condemned US, UK, Israeli and French airstrikes on Syria? (The Syrian government - the one recognised by the UN, regards them as war crimes.) Our leaders never answer these questions; worse still, our MSM never asks them!


stevekeenan1 6 Oct 2015 14:03

It is good news to have the Russian Government backing the Assad regime, otherwise the situation would be alot worse. The long time Syrian ally Russia has being flying sorties against ISIS and Al NUSRA(AL QAEDA in Syria), and they won't be as soft on those human heart eaters as their NATO counterparts have been. If ISIS had attacked NATO in Afghanistan, the US would have decimated their ranks within 24 hours. It is unbelievable that they cannot stop them while they use the 2500 Humvees the Yanks handed over to them.


JohnSouttar 6 Oct 2015 14:03

If any remember the complicated Iran-Contra affair in 1985 it involved handing over missiles to "moderate elements" in Iran in exchange for help with the release of US hostages in Lebanon. There was more to it but no one really knows who in the administrations knew what. That may well be true now. We have had a nuclear deal with Iran and although most westerners consider Iranians, Turks and Kurds to be Arabs they are not. The alliances and interests are far more complex that just a Sunni/Shia divide. This is on the border of Europe, Israel and NATO. Most of it smacks of a charade. Turkey looks out across the deep Black Sea at Russia.


MonotonousLanguor Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 14:01

According to GWB it was Mission Accomplished. Thankfully, we have a vibrant, prosperous Iraq in place now. Ever since GWB convinced the Saudi Royal Family to hold elections, we have witnessed a real flowering of Democracy in Saudi Arabia. Those elections Saudi Arabia could be real close. The Woman's Freedom Party in Saudi Arabia (WFPSA) could hold the key. Hillary has been a long time supporter of them and recently spoke to them in Mecca.


jmNZ Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 14:00

The chemical warfare blamed on Assad was perpetrated by one of the rebel groups funded by Arabia - and trained by the West.


kenalexruss 6 Oct 2015 13:59

Not a fan of Russia at all, but I am ashamed of my government for bombing a hospital in Afghanistan and denying it and especially about lying to the world about ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Those atrocities and lies don't serve me. They don't serve the American people! They are an injustice to all! These people would bomb America itself if it furthered their interests!

Saudi Arabia et.al. created ISIS and the US stands behind and supports Saudi Arabia. The ties between the US and Al Qaeda just got a bit closer. All those wacky conspiracy theories just made a little more sense regarding 9-11...


duncandunnit 6 Oct 2015 13:57

turkey is been very childish, it is russia that is cleaning up all the shit that both the usa and the uk cause while creating and arming isis. Over the last few months the usa has proved yet again it can cause big issues that both it cannot sort out and that costs the eu a fortune.


Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 13:50

We have Stoltenberg in the news here in Slovenia too. So here are some posts from the comments section of SLOVENIA's national broadcaster in relation to Russia breaching Turkish airspace (my rough translation from Slovene to English):

The Turks are bombing the Kurds who are fighting against ISIS and are among the few in Syria who are doing the West a favour (nobody wants extremists in Europe).

And the Turks have been bombing the Kurds for several months now, hence supporting Islamic expansionism.

Considering these circumstances, I support Russians shooting down every Turkish plane entering Syria's airspace.

I suspect that the Americans sold the Turks some junk planes at a high price anyway, so the Russians should not have many problems with them.

--- 195 thumbs up, 19 thumbs down

[Note that people have to be registered posters to be able to recommend comments. And recommends over 100 are a huge number for this website - we are only 2 million people speaking the Slovene language.]
-
-
What? Is this [Russia breaching Turkish airspace] supposed to be newsworthy? Well, if the media reported every time that the Americans breach the airspace of other sovereign countries, they could just as well start sending out tweets – every second.

--- 81 up, 8 down
-
-
In the news: "The general secretary of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has already declared Russia's breaching of Turkish airspace to be unacceptable. He also summoned an emergency session of the NATO ambassadors where this topic will be discussed."

Well, I expected an emergency NATO meeting to condemn the terrorist attack of their own forces on a hospital, murdering doctors and patients.


--- 59 up, 1 down
-
-
It seems this is the end of the line for NATO's bombarding of the Kurds. Wait for NATO to go totally bezerk when the oil smuggling route from ISIS to Turkey is cut off.

--- 48 up, 7 down
-
-
Oh, so the Russians have disturbed the coalition's routine and plans. Expect for news about many more such "incidents" to come in the near future. However I think that the Russians have thick enough skin not to be too upset about such propaganda sound bites.

--- 71 up, 8 down
-
-
Well, we can declare this breaching of airspace to be 'collateral damage' of the war on terror too. Now can the NATO members (including my own country) explain which 'collateral damage' is worse – flying into someone else's airspace where nothing happens or murdering 20 doctors and patients. Frankly, they should go and stick their drivel about airspace somewhere.

--- 112 up, 9 down
-
-
ATL: "NATO condemned the incursion into airspace of the NATO member Turkey and called on Russia to stop attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians and that it should align its fight against ISIS with the international community."

Ha ha ha. The "international community" has been ASLEEP for two years, and now the Russians poked them a little. It seems that Russia is keeping the international community awake at night. GO GO RUSSIA.

--- 128 up, 13down
-
-
The Russians breach airspace for a few seconds. The Americans bomb a hospital. And the Russians are supposed to be the 'bad guys' here?

--- 81 up, 8 down
-
-
How are incursions into Yemen's airspace by the Saudi criminals going these days?

--- 69 up, 8 down


TomFullery -> EightEyedSpy 6 Oct 2015 13:45

Which planes were they taking out?

B52s, F5s, F105s, F111s, Hughies, Jolly Green Giants - basically every model the US military had deployed (around 4'000 in total).

Anyway, General John W. Vogt, commander, Seventh Air Force (PACAF) can explain it better than me:

"By July 1972, in the middle of the Linebacker operations, for the first time in the history of the United States Air Force, the loss-to-victory ratio swung in favor of the enemy. We were losing more airplanes than we were shooting down. This had never happened before anywhere in the world. Our losses were due, as I said, to our going blind into a heavily netted threat radar environment, confronting the best MiGs that the Soviets had available for export, flown by highly trained North Vietnamese pilots"


SHA2014 -> Botswana61 6 Oct 2015 13:44

THis is different now. Talking about learning from mistakes, the West certainly hasn't from the catalogue of disasters: Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria. Libya, Ukraine. Oh I forgot Vietnam. Not a comprehensive list by the way.


Anette Mor -> SayNoToEvil 6 Oct 2015 13:36

Russia count all nationalities in census. 180 last time I checked. About hundred of local origin with own land. All, even smallest got own autonomy in one of several forms available. All speak own language, tv, schools, court, official papers. State parliament low chamber got one nation-one voice representation so 80m Russians got as much power as some 100k nation. What independence you think they want? Freedom to hate and kill each other? Anybody wanting that (on American money) would face half of own nation who are not into hating neibours. You already brought your own vision to Libya Iraq and Syria - hate and violence. That is not independence. Independence is ability to chose for yourself.


Johnnyw1 6 Oct 2015 13:32

NATO is a relic of the Cold War. It lost its entire reason for being when peace finally broke out between USSR and the West, and it should have been laid quietly to rest. But that would never do, would it... the industrial/military/political complex keeps itself fat and rich by keeping us afraid, inventing enemies by the dozen, quietly looting our taxes the while. https://youtu.be/Jib1B2cyWpE


Anette Mor -> DrDrug 6 Oct 2015 13:29

There was a fight on Holand hight reported in Russian press between apparently former rebels who took Assad side and ISIS. The leader of these former rebels said he swapped sides after rebels group leaders were all invited to Israel for training. He thought it got too far and refused to go with the lot. They then attacked him and he took Assad side.

TomFullery -> MTavernier 6 Oct 2015 13:28

Russia didn't want a Nazi putsch in Kiev engineered in Washington.

Russia didn't like the way the putschists were immediately talking about reneging on the Sevastopol lease when they seized power

Russia didn't like the way the putschists started talking about banning the Russian language.

Russia didn't like the attacks in eastern Ukraine by the Ukraine military.

You reap what you sow.

truthbetold13 -> jezzam 6 Oct 2015 13:27

Odd comment when it was the US that deliberately caused the whole civil war, Assad has governed his country well for decades, and Putin has only just intervened at the request of the Syrian government. Think i know who the genocidal lunatics are here - but then i, unlike you, have a functioning brain.

NewsCorpse 6 Oct 2015 13:20
A year ago Putin was telling it like it was and still is. Russia has been incredibly patient and steady.

<24 Oct 2014 Putin at Valdai (Extract Q&A)
"I never said that I view the US as a threat to our national security." - "President Obama views Russia as threat, but I don't feel the same way about the US." - "The politics of those in the circle of power in the US is erroneous." - "I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics." - "It is not grounded on facts, in the real world." - "Can they not think a step ahead?" - "We don't stand for this kind of politics of the US. We consider it to be wrong." - "Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your Ambassador murdered." - "Was it us that did this? Who's fault is it? It is your fault." - "You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions and politics."
https://youtu.be/Ykb5sxTl1Rw (7 mins)

World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules (FULL VIDEO)
Its been called the most important speech Vladimir Putin has EVER delivered. Putin targets American exceptionalism, revolution building and asks if it is the US that has abandoned the global rule book? Putin was addressing a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Sochi, Oct 2014, a forum for leading intl analysts focused on Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo

Compare Putin's clear headed commnets in 2014 with that of Karl Rove when GW Bush was President: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."


snickid Reia Hriso 6 Oct 2015 13:19

If a NATO was to fly a military over Russia airspace it would be shot down, without warning.

Nonsense.

US spy planes, for example, regularly overfly Russia with impunity, e.g:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-us-warplanes-the-planet-13364


Anette Mor Middlengland 6 Oct 2015 13:17

Voting matters very little. British arms supplied to "rebels" are already in Syria to kill Russians and British instructors are already in Ukraine to train Ukranians to kill ethnic Russians in Donbass. You do not know Britain is at war wirh Russia, but Russians do, as they are at receiving end. They know since Chechen terrorists, wanted by peaceful Chechen people for crimes against humanity, were given asym in the UK just as Russian oligarch stolen tons of money from the state and stake holders. 20 years on Britain is at war with Russia and you worry some vottibg going to maje it worse or may be hope some Corbyn coming to power may change it. Too little too late. Russians lost all patients and blown off, you still fail to notice how much you hurt them.


StevenJ19 6 Oct 2015 13:13

Turkey has a shameful record of double-dealing in this Syrian crisis, so its complaints should be treated with the contempt they deserve.


adognow -> Jack Seaton 6 Oct 2015 13:05

A war between NATO and Russia is certain to result in nuclear annihilation of most of the planet.

Which is why Erdrogan is going to be tiptoeing around this issue carefully before he arms any Islamic crazy left and right. But that of course, assumes that Erdrogan is a rational player and is arming Islamists because of some neo-Ottoman delusions rather than the fact that he believes in the end times, apocalyptic bullshit that ISIS, al-Nursa and the other Islamist terrorists believe in.

But nonetheless, the idea of NATO and Russia going to blows over Turkey is ridiculous and is political suicide for any NATO leader to suggest, especially if because Turkey started an incident by arming terrorists. I don't know about you, but I sure as fuck object to having myself irradiated over Erdrogan.

Matt G

Haider al-Abadi - "Council of Ministers considers Turkish airstrikes on Iraqi territory a dangerous escalation and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty"

Apparently a few seconds violation of Turkish airspace is of top concern however the repeated violation and bombing of Northern Iraq by the Turkish air-force is apparently expectable. However, these violation go back a long time all the way to 2012.

"The Iraqi government condemns these violations to Iraq's airspace and sovereignty, warns Turkey against any violations of Iraq's airspace and territory," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement following a cabinet meeting.

"Our country is exposed to external interventions. Every day we hear of aircraft from neighboring countries violating our airspace. The national sovereignty of Iraq is being violated deliberately or non-deliberately. We do not approve of that, and we cannot remain silent in the face of it. Others should question themselves on Iraq's sovereignty, security, airspace and territorial waters," said Maliki.

On top of their Iraqi incursions they've also been bombing the PKK inside of Syria http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/turkeys-bombing-campaign-in-syria-and-iraq-is-the-last-thing-we-need-in-the-fight-against-isis-10422167.html

and shelling Syrian Kurdish villages http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/turkey-denies-targeting-kurdish-forces-syria-150727133342474.html

and http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/01/us-kurds-turkey-idUSKCN0Q632X20150801.

However, that's only the half of it when you take into account Turkey has been buying and actively involved in the smuggling of Syrian and Iraqi oil from ISIS controlled areas and Turkey intelligence has been accused of involvement in arms smuggling http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/isis-detainee-turkish-intelligence-forces-helped-smuggle-weapons-to-jihadists-in-syria/. It seems somewhat hypocritical that NATO has overlooked this for several years.

On the other hand:

"I will not speculate on the motives … but this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg was quoted as saying by Reuters.

As far as I'm aware there has only been one airspace violation. This second incident the accusation seems to be that the Russian Mig had locked it's radar onto the jet's.

Separately, the armed forces said a Mig fighter plane had harassed a Turkish squadron of F-16s patrolling the border with Syria, locking its radar on the Turkish warplanes.

However, nothing has been mentioned what side of the border the jets were flying Turkish or Syrian. However, considering the Russian Mig locked it's radar on to the Jets and the vagueness of the report, it's a good assumption that those F16's were flying in Syrian airspace and it was a warning.

BMWAlbert , 6 Oct 2015 12:59

Well, at least the Russians are popular with the kyrgyzstan Turks (boo-hoo):

http://atimes.com/2015/10/kyrgyzstan-set-for-closer-ties-with-russia-after-polls/

Looks like Kyrgyzstan didn't get enough cookies.

haphazardly ,6 Oct 2015 12:59

The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging "strategic boldness," with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake.

How stupid can Americans get... they still do not realize that the great and powerful US only attacks underdeveloped defenseless countries and not countries that are able to fight back. Russia can fight back and they're allied with China, so threats against Russia is unthinkable. Are they looking for WWIII or what? :/


Krishnamoorthi 6 Oct 2015 12:52

All the bastards who condemn the Russian flights straying for a few seconds or minutes in to Turkey have to remember that these are the same people who invaded Iraq and still continue to enter the Syrian airspace without permission from the Syrian government or a mandate from the UN!


RetiredMD -> centerline 6 Oct 2015 12:51

The US is sowing as many bad seeds in your mind about Russia as it can. At some time in the future they will need to make an excuse for hitting Russia either with ordinance or with more sanctions. The US is trying to slowly brainwash the rest of us in the world so we'll be quite happy when they make their despicable moves in the future. Not on my watch!

butitisnotthisday 6 Oct 2015 12:51

I presume the 5 mile exclusion zone "imposed" by Turkey is there to make sure ISIS and their friends, including the good terrorists are protected...apparently Russia does not give a shit about what the Turks say or want.


peterpierce24 -> Mr_HanMan 6 Oct 2015 12:50

I would not overestimate significance of polite gestures in politics. About two years ago Putin once remarked that 'Turkey yet has to decide where it is in Syrian conflict'
in spite on the fact that Turkey wanted Assad to go. I think Putin just keeps his options vacant in relations with neighbours and blurring mutual disagreements.


Lyigushka -> AboycalledBeaye 6 Oct 2015 12:47

'Three army groups, including more than three million German soldiers, supported by 650,000 troops from Germany's allies (Finland and Romania), and later augmented by units from Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary, attacked the Soviet Union across a broad front, from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south. SS units from the Baltic states were involved in rounding up Jews and Communists'
Hint
It's called Google...


Middlengland 6 Oct 2015 12:45

It is quite correct that Russia cannot violate Turkish airspace as a matter of International Law.

However, the same critics of Russia are violating Syrian airspace without the authority of the Syrian Government.

Having been asked to provide assistance by the Syrian Government, it would also be perfectly lawful for Russia to shoot down drones and aircraft which violate Syrian airspace.

I suspect that this is the point they are making - UK be warned before we vote on yet more military action. You are not only violating International Law (again) but you are now playing a very dangerous game indeed.


Mr_HanMan 6 Oct 2015 12:44

Turkey and Russia have excellent relations, Putin and Erdogan are good friends because they are pretty much alike. Russia is building Turkey's first nuclear reactor a $20billion deal and theres the pipeline project to. Relations are so good that Turkey didn't say anything on the Crimean matter when it has its own interests in the crimea. Putin even wished Erdogan good luck in the upcoming elections and said he hoped Erdogan's AKP won when the 2 were in Moscow opening Moscow's grand mosque just 2 weeks ago. So none of this makes sense, I don't know why Russia would want to strain relations with Turkey.

haphazardly -> Indianrook 6 Oct 2015 12:44

I knew it was propaganda as soon as the MSM said that 41 Islamic terrorist groups are going to "unite"... They probably fight against one another on which social media to use for recruiting terrorists... Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.


salthouse 6 Oct 2015 12:42

It's a fair bet this incursion was planned (an accident on purpose) between the Presidents of Turkey and Russia, at their recent meeting, in order to boulster the image of the Turkish President as the great defender and wise leader of the Turkish nation under dire threat from a myriad of hostile and potentially invading powers, and thereby enhance and promote the chances of Erdogan's party, AKP, winning the November election in Turkey with a majority sufficient to enthrone the President, by a new constitution, as one close to absolute power and rule. All the fall out, the apparent outrage and counter threats, is probably false bluster.


OlegB07 -> Bruce Alan Scapecchi 6 Oct 2015 12:40

All countries of the West and USA are eagerly awaiting this moment ... And everybody knows the reason: ISIS is your friend and partner.
And Russia destroys your partners in Syria. Of course it is a tragedy for you.


JiminNH -> Indigo Rebel 6 Oct 2015 12:39

Diplomacy is a delicate thing and Russia has been fixing for a war, clearly.

Are you misinformed due to blatant western propaganda, or are you a misinforming propagandist? Minsk I and Minsk II were both initiated by Russia with EU states Germany and France; the US and UK were intentionally bypassed and left out (probably because we both supported Ukraine's war against the east).

Russia conducted Moscow I and Moscow II negotiations with internal Syrian rebel groups. The "rebel" groups that refused to participate were the likes of jabhat al Nusra and Army of Conquest and other extremist groups (most of which are manned by foreign jihadists); of which the truth has been revealed in the past week or so that such groups are proxy armies funded and armed by the US, GCC states and Turkey, among others.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/moscow-talks-syria-point-plan-150409094410056.html

Of course, the late reporter Serena Shim proved that Turkey even armed ISIS in its fight against the Kurds; no wonder why Turkey violates Syrian airspace to bomb the Kurds but not ISIS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799924/mystery-american-journalist-killed-car-crash-turkey-just-days-claimed-intelligence-services-threatened-coverage-siege-kobane.html

Empirical evidence clearly shows that Russia has been critically involved in diplomatic efforts to stop the war in Ukraine and attempt to stop the war in Syria.
The US has been nothing but a bystander in diplomatic efforts to end the wars in those two nations.

So which is it? Are you a victim of propaganda, or a propagator thereof?


BMWAlbert 6 Oct 2015 12:37

Is the Turkish President speaking of the actual Turkish airspace or that airspace plus the 5 mile. With supply routes to ISIS and the other 41 gangs in the less-extreme terrorist alphabet soup getting weapons largely from Turkey, I imagine taht teh extra five miles would secure the crossings (a problem if the Russians do not recognize the arbitrary five mile zone)...this stpry makes me think that rumor's of the President's son being involved in the oil dumping trade with the Mosul refineries in N. Iraq may be true...he seems to be getting very emotional about a five second transgression in a grey zone.

In other news, it appears that General Breedlove has been playing Dungeons and Dragons, calling the recently imposed RU de-facto no-fly-zone a "Sphere of Negation", sounds like something that might have been made in the golden days of Gondor. Obviously though, the RU airstrikes have been more effective due to better intelligence, must be one of the seven seeing stones.


Foracivilizedworld -> PeterHG 6 Oct 2015 12:36

And not just the Turks.. The US, UK, Franc, Israel.. and others...

What I don't understand is that how politicians talk about respecting borders with a straight face....


TomFullery -> Botswana61 6 Oct 2015 12:36

P.S. Please, remind us what's happened to mighty invincible Soviet Union?

A lesson possibly that no empires last forever.

The US imperium is in terminal decline but as empires go its rise was remarkably fast and now it is declining before our very eyes.

The US - the biggest premature ejaculation in history.


hfakos -> truk10 6 Oct 2015 12:29

Where did you get those numbers? We don't do body counts -general Tommy Franks. I guess that guy running the "Syrian" Observatory for Human Rights out of his Coventry garage is a reliable source to you.


RudolphS 6 Oct 2015 12:29

And while the U.S. is complaining about Russian intervention in Syria are the yanks knee-deep involved in another tragic civil war in the middle-east. Read Trevor Timm's article for the Guardian here: nullhttp://www.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/america-yemen-crisis-is-partly-our-fault


The Western hypocrisy is deafening.

TomFullery -> Bluebird8 6 Oct 2015 12:29

It was 5 billion.

And the neocons' useful idiots conveniently ignore the fact that the conflict in Ukraine kicked off only after the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev.

Interesting how the economics and finance ministers of Ukraine are Lithuanian and Polish (not sure in which order) - both countries being staunch US stooges. They were given Ukrainian citizenship on the day they took up their posts.

US Vice President Joe Biden's son was appointed to the board of directors of Ukraine's largest energy company, also shortly after the Nazi putsch.

The governor of Odessa is Mikhael Saakashvili, US stooge, architect of the war against Russia and now fugitive from Georgian justice.

brianboru1014 -> NeuLabour 6 Oct 2015 12:26

Agreed.
ISIS are Saudi Arabia's Frankenstein and we in the West pretend to hate them but we love Saudi cheaper oil more than anything else. We really did not try to bomb them seriously, but the Russians know what's up and they are in the process of eradicating them from strategic areas in Syria

fotorabia23 -> truk10 6 Oct 2015 12:25

The Lancet reported that 567000 children died through sanctions after 1991.A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the 2nd invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.Your wrong.

[Oct 05, 2015] An Up Close And Personal Look At The Russian Firepower Deployed In Syria

"... command and control centers, ammunition and explosives warehouses, communication centers, mini-factories for the production of weapons of suicide bombings and militant training camps ..."
"... finally ..."
"... The Entire Mainstream Western Media Is a Troll Army http://russia-insider.com/en/entire-western-media-troll-army/5918. Good title, and, for the most part, seemingly true. ..."
"... LOL , What makes you think the US was trying to defeat ISIS? Mainstrem fucking News Media???? Just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or some shit. ..."
Oct 05, 2015 | Zero Hedge

greenskeeper -> carl

this post misses the point. The point isn't russia's hardware, which isn't any more impressive than anything we have. The point is the russians are actually TRYING to get rid of 'ISIS', and are therefore able to do so. While the JSF is overpriced junk, Americans hardware has consistenly beaten russian hardware in every conflict they have faced each other. This isn't a hoo-rah, 'murika post at all. the reason US weapons and air power havent decisively defeated ISIS is becasue that is not what the US govt wants to do, it wants them to succeed and get rid of assad. Any modern nation can destroy ISIS from the air, the russians are just actually trying to do where the US was more interested in another misguided attempt at regime change.

Latina Lover

Technologically, most American Hardware may be ahead of the Russian equivalents, but lag when it comes maintaining it during extended battle conditions. Russian tech is designed to be very tough, versatile and fixable under battle conditions. In the Ukraine, for example, 50 and 60 year old artillery pieces still function despite heavy continuous use.

Poundsand

Actually, our hardware is a lot better, as our the boys who deliver it both on the ground and in the air. But you're right, we have a bunch of politicians who pick targets, play for PR points, avoid PR problems at all costs. How long did Barry wait to send in the boys to get Osama? (heck, 8 months just to get his facsimile shows you how bad it's gotten).

Turn 'em loose and then you would see some shock and awe!

My only concern is supplies. Back in '93 we are down to how many Tomahawks? Remember they destroyed the tooling to make them before they had the next one ready to roll out. Reliance on high tech weaponry is fine and dandy, until you need 100x more than you thought you would. Then it's back to mass production of whatever you can get to shake off the wing.

MrPalladium

"Actually, our hardware is a lot better,"

It is certainly a great deal more expensive. The problem is that the defense contractors and the military officers monitoring them control the narrative on how good our weapons might be. You really have no clue until you encounter another capable opponent and run the equipment in the fog of actual war.

So much of our defense budget is spent maintaining clearly obsolete equipment and base structure (shades of General Pershing's horse cavalry at the outbreak of WWII - my father was there at the time) including all surface naval vessels which would be destroyed in a few days in any war against China or Russia. Also, half the military bases in the U.S. are really nothing more than glorified jobs programs. And most of the many foreign U.S. bases are nothing more than U.S. soldiers as goats tethered to the stake as bait to provoke attack and obtain an excuse for war with the nations they surround. I know, I was in that position many years ago in Berlin and nothing has changed.

We are thus the empire of the unready, shackled by the past and lead by fools.

Mentaliusanything

The USA is lagging (sadly) in the electronic protection feild.

Currently the Russians have a capability (proven) to block F22 raptor short and long distance missiles, They have another more frightening tool which scares the hell out of the Pentagon

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

oh and something comes to mind about lead pencils continuing to work well because of simplicity - well that again is mandated in all Russian weaponary.....

Buck Johnson

Actually no, US military goods aren't better than Russian. Both have limits and draws. What the US is afraid of is the fact that Russia has the capability one to negate their advantages and two of course nukes. Remember during the second gulf war we went nuts when Russia was giving Saddam Hussein devices that scrambled cruise missiles guidance systems and others using GPS. Also Russia has advanced anti-tank weaponry that can destroy and at least disable our M1 tanks. And many of their stuff that they sell or use is old or was developed back in the 80's or 90's. Same with the US.

cowdiddly

To be frank Russia is still using some of its older stuff like the Su25s and su24 nice heavy fighter/bomber but which is being replaced by those awesome duckbill su34s but some of that old stuff still proved pretty effective in Ukraine.

I mean who we kidding, if Russia wanted to they could level the whole place in 3 months with those Tupolev 22s and T95s and some moabs and thats still conventional. God help us all is one of those SATAN missiles was ever used, the deadliest fastest nuke of all. I even hate the sound of that wicked weapons name. Moscow to Ny in 25min, not enough time to find a good rock to crawl under. None would survive the response which makes this whole endeavor of poking the sleeping bear even more insane.

This article came by my screen today and they supposedly moved two of these bad boys in place. An interesting piece to say the least. with a range of 300km I think from what I seen in Ukraine these might have been turned on for a second or two behind the border in Russia to give some of those battles a little bump but who knows, I dont think anyone can prove.

I think its things like this that they are bitching about and shitting bricks because most of the ground troops look to be to protect an airbase that is operating 25km from hostile forces. Lets see the US do that. Impressive feat in itself

And why use Russians when you have plenty of Hezbollah, Iranian, and Syrians willing to do the dirty work. It would be stupid.

Jamming the Jihad. can permanently fry electronics and take out low orbit satellites.

http://sputniknews.com/world/20151005/1028033057/syria-russia-electronic...

Son of Captain Nemo

We have Obama.

Scares the hell out of me.?...

What exactly scares you the most? The part about starting unilateral wars for the last 14 years that got us into this mess?... Or the fact that somebody else like Russia's military is going to take charge to clean up that mess and in the end show us just how bad we really are along with the crisis we made "refugees" and otherwise!

Ode to the American clandestine establishment that thought John McCain, "Fairy" Graham and Retired General Vallely were the worst of your problems!...

Son of Captain Nemo

Adding to that part about how bad "we" the U.S. really is...

This certainly caught my attention....

Russians will be targeting "command and control centers, ammunition and explosives warehouses, communication centers, mini-factories for the production of weapons of suicide bombings and militant training camps". ...

Just think how Syrians and Iraqis will think of the Russians when suicide bombers and IED stop going off in those places that have already killed upwards of 10,000 to 15,000 Iraqis in the past 8 months alone and who knows how many of the 240,000 Syrians that have perished in the last 3 years alone to them?...

Like I said. I sure hope there are no Blackwater/Xi/ Academi types wandering about the ground right about now in either of those countries doing this on a weekly basis and finally getting caught?!! at it!

It will be just like the roundups by Ukrainian rebels they suffered at the end of 2014 where many of them were shot in the back of the head and put into an open pit with no headstone or marker to claim them again!

Johnny_Dangerously

The Entire Mainstream Western Media Is a Troll Army http://russia-insider.com/en/entire-western-media-troll-army/5918. Good title, and, for the most part, seemingly true.

Drink!

stant

Nobody here is really a Vlad fan it just comes out that way we post on the facts

Lostinfortwalton

You hate to be pragmatic but there probably aren't a whole lot of "moderate" rebels left. That leaves the 'chop your head off, blow your head off with explosive chord' ISIS. If the Russian Air Force can go for it and put an end to those savages, why not? Apparently the USAF and USN dropping one bomb a day isn't doing a whole lot.

sgt_doom

Brother lostinfortwalton, us sane people are with you all the way!

Boomberg

Those savages never really existed. Just a bunch of thug mercenaries given guns and license to pillage and rape all the women with impunity by the US and allies. They are disappearing rapidly now and going back home to be good little Muslims now that the party is over.

viator

Don't forget the Sukhoi SU 30SM advanced fighter which has very little use in Syria unless you want to shoot down somebody else's advanced fighter aircraft. Then it is very useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0S4Vrnmz7k

bruno_the

this puppy can fly too. Just saying:

https://youtu.be/b-VNSJMiNt0?t=27

Smegley Wanxalot

Look everyone, people somewhere gotta die so that the US MIC can thrive. Guess those people are just the eggs obama said you gotta break to make an omelette.

johmack2

If IRAN is successful with iraq and syria, they should move to setup a Middle Eastern Economic Union that will eventually be joined in the AIIB and partnered with the Russian EURASIAN bloc. The "MEEU" bloc of countries should also act as a defensive ring(an ME NATO equivalent) with RUSSIAN and CHINESE BASES installed( TWO TO FOUR JOINT MILITARY BASES IN THE ME WONT KILL RUSSIA OR CHINA) as well as an economic engine capable of becoming an regional economic power house for the region. IRAN should also give RUSSIA an fighter jet operating BASE near the coast of IRAN for rapid deployment. IF you guys think the americans dont have something up their sleeves you are sorely mistaken, the first rule of war is never underestimate your enemy.

BustainMovealota

"..watch Russia do in a matter of weeks what the US has failed to accomplish in 13 months"

LOL , What makes you think the US was trying to defeat ISIS? Mainstrem fucking News Media???? Just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or some shit.

AlfredNeumann

Russia/Syria are the righteous ones here. Not the USA funded ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists.

There is no such thing as a moderate terrorist (Lavrov said). He is Right. Act accordingly Vlad.

spyware-free

For those curious about Russian radar and air defense capabilities you might be interested in this;

Top US and NATO Commanders Admit They Cannot Oppose Russian No-Fly Zone

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/top-us-and-nato-commanders-admit-t...

"American military expert, a former Colonel of the U.S. army Jack Jacobs said that the United States can't interfere with Russians in Syria, as Russia de facto set up a no-fly zone, cutting off access to any aircraft with the help of air defense systems deployed on land and on ships of the Russian navy in the Mediterranean."

"The Russians have indicated that they can see everything, and getting closer is not worth it, otherwise it will be shot down", - said the American military.

"Frankly we were surprised by the air defense system of Russia, most likely there are the latest systems S-400. I have no other ideas," - said Colonel Jack Jacobs.

[Oct 05, 2015] Major Interview (38 questions!) of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Iranian Khabar TV channel

Oct 05, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Sake
At the same time, the lies they propagated at the beginning of the events in Syria, in order to promote their positions to their audiences, have started to unravel. You cannot continue to lie to your people for years. You might do that for a limited period of time. Today, as a result of technological advances in the field of information, every citizen in every part of the world could know part of the truth. These parts have started to come together in the minds of their people, and they have found out that their governments have been lying to them concerning what has happened in Syria. They have also paid the price either through terrorist operations, the terrorism that started to affect those countries or through the waves of migrants coming to their countries, not only from Syria, but from different countries in the Middle East. All these factors started to effect a change, but I would like to stress once more that we cannot trust Western positions regardless of whether they were positive or negative.

Question 2: Mr. President, some countries, like France, used to have good relations with you, between 2008 and 2010. You enjoyed good relations with President Sarkozy. Why have such people moved to the enemies' side and started calling for overthrowing the Syrian regime?

President Assad: Because Sarkozy was charged by George Bush's administration to build contacts with Syria. Those contacts had a number of objectives which aimed in general at changing the political line of Syria. But there was an essential objective that the Americans wanted Sarkozy to achieve. At that time there was talk about how the 5+1 group should deal with Iran's nuclear file, specifically how to deal with nuclear materials or the radioactive materials which were enriched in your reactors in Iran. I was required to persuade Iranian officials to send these materials to Western countries to be enriched and returned to Iran, without any guarantees of course. That was impossible. It did not convince us, and the Iranian officials were not convinced.

When the West was unable to change Syrian policies, they found an opportunity at the beginning of the events of what is called the "Arab Spring", an opportunity to attack the states whose political line they didn't like. That is why the period you are talking about was concerned with appearances. In other words, the West opened up to Syria, but in fact that period was replete with pressure and blackmail. They haven't offered one single thing to Syria, neither politically, or economically, or in any other field.

Question 3: What you said was about France. How do you read the positions of other countries, like the UK and the USA?

President Assad: Their positions today?

Intervention: I mean that France wanted to intervene through the relationship that connects you with Iran. How did other countries, like the UK and the USA get involved in dialogue with you at that time?

President Assad: Yes. When we talk about these states, we are taking about an integrated system. We use the term "Western countries", but these Western countries have one master, which is the United States. All these countries behave in accordance with the dictates of the American maestro. Now, the statements of all these countries are similar. They say the same thing, and when they attack Syria, they use the same language. That is why when the United States gives the signal, these countries move in a certain direction, but there is usually a distribution of roles. At that time France was asked to play that role, considering the relatively good historical relations between France and Syria since independence. There is a big Syrian community in France, and there are economic, even military, and of course political relations. That is why the best option for them was to ask France, and not any other country. But ultimately, Western officials follow the orders of the American administration. This is a fact.

Question 4: Does that mean that you know specifically what the West wants from Syria?

President Assad: They want to change the state. They want to weaken Syria and create a number of weak statelets which can get busy solving their daily problems and internal disputes with no time for development or extending support to national causes, particularly the cause of Palestine, and at the same time ensuring Israel's security. These objectives are not new. They have always been there, but the instruments of dealing with them differ from time to time.

Question 5: It seems that some of these countries, working on behalf of the United States, have very close ties with the terrorists, and their policies are identical with those of the terrorist groups. What is the damage that such countries, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can inflict on regional security and stability?

President Assad: There are, of course, different kinds of terrorism in our region, but they are all overshadowed by what is called Islamic terrorism because these terrorist groups or organizations have adopted Islam without having anything to do with Islam in reality. But this is the term being used now. These groups are promoting sedition among the different components in the region in general. This means that the greatest damage is the disintegration of societies in time. Now, fortunately, there is a great awareness in our society about the danger of sectarian sedition, and the necessity of uniting ranks, particularly as far as the Muslims are concerned. But with time, and with the continuation of sectarian incitement, creating gaps between the different components of society and producing a young generation brought up on the wrong ideas, that will be a very serious danger. This disintegration will become one day a de facto situation, and will lead to confrontations, conflicts and civil wars. This is very dangerous, and it is not exaggerated. It is a fact.

Question 6: Now, it has become common in international forums for states to announce that the Syrian crisis cannot be resolved except through a political solution. But Saudi Arabia and the Saud clan insist that you should step down from your position. What is your response to that?

President Assad: What I said a short while ago: any talk about the political system or the officials in this county is an internal Syrian affair. But if they are talking about democracy, the question begs itself: are the states you mentioned, especially Saudi Arabia, models of democracy, human rights or public participation? In fact, they are the worst and the most backward worldwide; and consequently they have no right to talk about this. As to Erdogan, he is responsible for creating chasms inside his own society, inside Turkey itself. Turkey was stable for many years, but with his divisive language, and his talk about sedition and discrimination between its different components, neither he nor Davutoglu are entitled to give advice to any country or any people in the world. This is the truth, simply and clearly.

[Oct 04, 2015] Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria

Oct 04, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker
Evaluation:

In purely military terms this is a rather minor development. Yes, the Syrian Air Force badly needs some modernization (the fact that they are using helicopter-dropped 500kg barrel bombs is a proof that they don't have enough aircraft to deliver guided or even unguided 500kg aerial bombs) and the Russians will be bringing some very capable aircraft (SU-24s and SU-25s for sure, and in some specific cases they could even use Tu-22M3s and SU-34s). But this will not be a game changer. Politically, however, this marks yet another triumph for Vladimir Putin who has forced the US Empire to renounce its plans to overthrow Assad. Because, and make no mistake here, the Russians are now there to stay: a limited Russian military presence will now turn into a major Russian political commitment. Furthermore, not only will Tartus continue to serve a fairly limited but not irrelevant role for the Russian Navy, the airbase in Latakia will become a hub of Russian military operations and, in effect, a forward operating base for the Black Sea Fleet.

Conclusion: a game changer after all?

Yes. But not because of some Russian military move. Consider this: for the United States the main purpose of Daesh was to overthrow Assad. Now that the US is declaring that they "don't plan to arm the Syrian rebels at the moment" and that Assad will not be overthrown, the utility of Daesh to the AngloZionist Empire has just taken a major hit. If the Empire decides that Daesh has outlived its utility and that it has now turned into a liability, then the days of Daesh are counted.

Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid russophobes in the West are still out there (albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".

[Oct 03, 2015] Obama says Russian strategy in Syria is 'recipe for disaster'

That's Shaun Walker, nut the point of view he expresses are point of view of the US government.
Oct 03, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

Russia's failure to distinguish between Islamic State fighters and moderate opposition forces battling against Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, is a "recipe for disaster," Barack Obama has said, as more evidence emerged that Moscow is targeting anti-regime rebels and not just Isis.

The US president said his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, "doesn't distinguish between Isil [Isis] and a moderate Sunni opposition that wants to see Mr Assad go. From their perspective, they're all terrorists. And that's a recipe for disaster."

... ... ...

Moscow's strategy appears to be to mainly attack central and north-western Syria, areas that form the gateway to Damascus and the coast. But Russian planes also bombed targets west of Raqqa, the capital of Isis's self-proclaimed caliphate – apparently the first time likely Isis positions have been hit.

Alexei Pushkov, a top Russian foreign affairs official, told French radio he believed the air campaign could last about three to four months. He also hit out at western criticism, tweeting: "The US is criticizing Russia for 'lack of selectivity in our targets' in Syria. So what stopped them from picking the right targets over a whole year, rather than just pointlessly bombing the desert?!"

[Sep 30, 2015] Obama Snubbed as Xi, Putin Stay at Chinese Owned Waldorf

Sep 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
J Mahoney

Nothing too significant about this...just a minor bitch slap cause the US started the fiasco concerning the Waldorff. After the Chinese bought it last year, the STATE DEPT announced they would no longer have meetings there or house guests there because of the fear of eavesdropping. How ironic the STATE DEPT didn't show the same level of precaution about Hillbillies private email server.

Flying Wombat

Great read:

"Chinese-Russian Relations and the Empire: Analysis w/ The Saker"

http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=513952


luna_man

"Snubbed"?...This is known as self preservation!

bad enough being in the U.S.A. for these two...especially after J.F.K. and 911!

CRIMINALS TURF

Able Ape

I wouldn't step in the Whitehouse even if it was pressure-washed with high-pressure steam hoses, then copiously sprayed with hydrogen peroxide, and finally liberally doused with concentrated bleach and they then offered me a Level 4 biohazard suit. Some places you just need to stay OUT of!...

NoWayJose

The Chinese owned Waldorf is probably the only place they can stay without having to worry about the NSA listening in. You can bet that there are special floors and rooms that are constructed to isolate any electronic leakage, and are swept several times each day.

BarkingCat

Unless the hotel has floors that are never rented, any spy agency can get surveillance equipment planted.

ebear

"1 year ago they bought the Waldorf for two billion US dollars."

Yeah, but do they know how to make a Waldorf salad?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDE3mVLNdRA


[Sep 27, 2015] Putin Russia Supports Legitimate Governments, Unlike US

Sep 27, 2015 | www.newsmax.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a "60 Minutes" interview aired Sunday that his country supports legitimately elected governments and accused the United States of doing the opposite in places such as Ukraine and Syria.

Correspondent Charlie Rose asked Putin specifically about his support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the United States opposes.

"It's my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya where all the state institutions are disintegrated," Putin said. "We see a similar situation in Iraq."

Rose said that the United States sees Assad as someone who kills his own people, but Putin argued that the United States backs terrorists in the battled because they want to overthrow Assad. The United States backs the Free Syrian Army in the three-way war between the Assad regime, the Islamic State (ISIS) and the FSA.

Putin also accused the United States of backing the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was friendly to Moscow.

Putin will address the United Nations on Monday, and denied he wants Russia to play a larger role in the world as a goal in itself.

"But you are in part a major power because of the nuclear weapons you have. You are a force to be reckoned with," Rose said.

"I hope so. I definitely hope so," Putin replied, laughing. "Otherwise why do we have nuclear weapons at all?"

Putin denied the belief in America that he is a czar-type figure or evil autocrat. He said he simply wants to see Russians who were split from their families be able to see each other again. Those bonds were split overnight when the old Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, he said.

Putin said he and President Barack Obama listen to each other after a fashion, "especially when it comes to something that doesn't go counter to our own ideas about what we should and should not do."

Rose noted that GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio has described Putin as a gangster.

"How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?" Putin asked. "Come on. That does not correspond to reality."

[Sep 27, 2015] 60 Minutes of Putin Quotes From Charlie Rose Interview

Brilliant instant reply on provocative question: "Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them," Charlie Rose said. "Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that," laughed the president.
I do not see full interview on YouTube. Large chunk can be found at Vladimir Putin 60 Minutes interview FULL 9-27-15 Vladimir Putin 60 minutes Interview Charlie Rose - YouTube
"... Reprinted in accordance with Sputnik reprint policy. ..."
Sep 27, 2015 | www.sputniknews.com

His love and pride for Russia, his pain over what is going on in Ukraine, his past as an intelligence officer and his attitude towards being called a czar – these are some of the issues brought up in Russian President Vladimir Putin's interview with American talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose.

Ahead of his much anticipated address at the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down with American talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose to share his opinion on the today's hottest news topics.putin 60 minutes - 2

Putin on Ukraine:

'It is absolutely unacceptable to address issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called color revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government'.

Of course, Russia's closest neighbor, Ukraine, is part of the daily news agenda.

President Putin cast some light on why the Ukraine issue is such a huge problem for Russia.

"Ukraine is the closest country to us. We have always said that Ukraine is our sister country and it is true. It is not just a Slavic people, it is the closest people to Russia: we have similar languages, culture, common history, religion etc."

He also revealed what he believes is completely unacceptable for Russia.

"Addressing issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called colored revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government. That is absolutely unacceptable. Our partners in the United States are not trying to hide the fact that they supported those opposed to President Yanukovych."

Asked whether he believed the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, causing him to flee to Russia, the president replied that he, in fact, knew this for sure, at the same time describing his sources.

"It is very simple. We have thousands of contacts and thousands of connections with people who live in Ukraine. And we know who had meetings and worked with people who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, as well as when and where they did it."

"We know the ways the assistance was provided, we know how much they paid them, we know which territories and countries hosted training and how it was done, we know who the instructors were."

"We know everything. Well, actually, our US partners are not keeping it a secret."

Putin on the sovereignty of Ukraine: 'At no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government.'

The Russian leader also stressed that Russia respects the sovereignty of Ukraine and Russia had not and would not take any part in any activities aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government of any country. He added that Russia would never resort to the use of the military force in such a case.

However, the president called on other countries to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine.

"Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government."

Putin on Russia's military presence in Ukraine: 'If we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, it is not a crime.'

The issue of Russia's military presence in Ukraine has long had the Western media in a flurry. But the Russian president explained it using the example of the US' military presence in Europe.

"US tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe, let us not forget this. Does it mean that the US has occupied Germany or that the US never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed the occupation troops into NATO forces?"

"And if we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, you see it is a crime?"

Putin on his rating and popularity: 'There is something that unites me and other citizens of Russia. It is love for our Motherland.'

The sufferings and hardships of the Second World War remain the unifying factor of the Russian nation.

"Yes, my family and my relatives as a whole suffered heavy losses during the Second World War. That is true. In my father's family there were five brothers and four of them were killed, I believe. On my mother's side the situation is much the same."

"In general, Russia suffered heavily. No doubt, we cannot forget that and we must not forget, not to accuse anyone but to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again."

Putin on democracy: 'There can be no democracy without observing the law and everyone must observe it – that is the most basic and important thing that we all should remember.'

The president explained that the most important thing in the country's domestic policy is to continue improving the political system so that every citizen feels that they can influence the life of the state and society, they can influence the authorities, and so that the authorities will be aware of their responsibility before those people who gave their confidence to the representatives of the authorities in the elections.

As for those tragic incidents where lives are lost, including those of journalists, unfortunately, it happens in all countries around the world, he said.

But if it occurs in Russia, the president stressed, the authorities take every step possible to ensure that the perpetrators are found, identified and punished.

There were a number of questions that made the president smile and answer light-heartedly.

Putin on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and recreation of the Soviet empire: 'The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays.

The host's question on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the possible recreation of a sphere of influence, which President Putin might think Russia deserves, made him smile.

"Your questions make me happy," he responded. "Somebody is always suspecting Russia of having some ambitions, there are always those who are trying to misinterpret us or keep something back."

"I did say that I see the collapse of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy of the 20th century. Do you know why? First of all, because 25 million Russian people suddenly turned out to be outside the borders of the Russian Federation."

"They used to live in one state; the Soviet Union has traditionally been called Russia, the Soviet Russia, and it was the great Russia. They used to live in one country and suddenly found themselves abroad. Can you imagine how many problems came about?"

"First, there were everyday issues, the separation of families, economic and social problems. The list is endless."

"Do you think it is normal that 25 million people, Russian people, suddenly found themselves abroad?"

"The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays. Is that not a problem? It is not a problem for you as it is for me."

And then there were some personal questions, such as how he feels being called a czar.

The president light-heartedly answered that the title does not fit him, though he is used to being called many different things. In fact, it does not matter to him what people call him.

He also talked about his past as an intelligence officer, admitting that every stage of one's life has an impact on the person.

"Whatever we do, all the knowledge, the experience, it stays with us, we carry it, use it in one way or another. In this sense, yes, you are right - there is no such thing as a former KGB man. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man."

But then laughed while answering the host's question:

"Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them," Charlie Rose said.

"Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that," laughed the president.

President Putin refused to assess the President of the United States, saying he is not entitled to do that. This is up to the American people.

Finally he revealed what is most important to him.

"What is important is what you think you must do in the interests of the country, which put you in such position, such a position as the Head of the Russian State."

See also:

Reprinted in accordance with Sputnik reprint policy.

[Sep 27, 2015] If Putin wants to dest4ruct Ukraine he got a lot of competition from the EU, US and NATO

Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Oddlots, September 25, 2015 at 5:04 pm

This is kind of interesting as Mearshimer comes to conclusions I'm sure most here would agree with but also some opinions that would seem ludicrous. According to him Putin's strategy is to wreck Ukraine… If that's the case he's got a lot of competition from the EU, U.S. and NATO and would be wasting his efforts as the former seem entirely capable of achieving the goal without any further assistance:

http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2014/08/21/082114-john-j-mearsheimer/

[Sep 27, 2015] ClubOrlov Americas Latest Foreign Policy Fiascos, Part I

"... It caused Russia's "nonsystemic opposition" - so called because it can never garner enough votes to win any election anywhere - which has been financed by American NGOs and transnational oligarchs like Soros, Khodorkovsky and others, to pretty much fade from the Russian political scene altogether ..."
"... It has increased the popularity of Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin personally while making the average Russian greatly dislike the US in particular, and mistrust the West in general ..."
"... It has provided Russia with a bonanza in the form of 1.5 million additional Russians, in the form of refugees from the economically collapsed, war-torn Ukraine. ..."
"... America has no foreign policy; it just has a military with the sole intent of using it... As the old saw goes; when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ..."
"... One advantage the West has derived from this fiasco is that the Ukraine is now another debt slave nation a la Greece without the benefit(?) of being a member of the EU or the Eurozone. ..."
"... In any case, Roberts makes it clear the the neo-conservatives (Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, etc.) are still dictating much of Washington's foreign policy, and it doesn't seem to matter that the neo-conservatives have done nothing but ruin everything they've touched. They stay in power anyway. Maybe that's their goal, to destroy foreign nations whose resources they (and their clients, certain large corporations) covet, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even the Ukraine. ..."
Sep 27, 2015 | cluborlov.blogspot.ca

Some 15 months ago I published a piece on American Foreign Policy Fiascos, in which I summarized the significant negative progress that has been achieved through American involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia, among others, and then went on to boldly predict that the Ukraine is likewise going to turn out to be another American foreign policy fiasco. Since then it certainly has turned into one.

US meddling in the Ukraine has produced none of the results it was intended to produce:

  • It didn't isolate Russia internationally
  • It didn't destroy Russia's economy
  • It didn't pull Russia into a futile, unpopular, bloody conflict
  • It didn't produce regime change within Russia

Just the opposite:

  • It prompted Russia, China and several other countries to opt for closer economic and security ties
  • It motivated Russia to think seriously about import replacement, giving its domestic economy a big boost
  • It made the US and NATO part to a bloody conflict in Eastern Ukraine while Russia has steadfastly stood on the sidelines providing humanitarian aid
  • It caused Russia's "nonsystemic opposition" - so called because it can never garner enough votes to win any election anywhere - which has been financed by American NGOs and transnational oligarchs like Soros, Khodorkovsky and others, to pretty much fade from the Russian political scene altogether, all the while complaining bitterly about the horrible Russian people who don't understand them and the lack of imported French cheeses, not to mention the pâtés; please, don't get them started on the pâtés-that would be simply too cruel.

And then here are some bonus points:

  • It has increased the popularity of Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin personally while making the average Russian greatly dislike the US in particular, and mistrust the West in general
  • It has driven a political wedge between the US and the EU, with EU member-states now starting to dimly discern for the first time that US policies are undermining rather than enhancing their security
  • It has provided Russia with a bonanza in the form of 1.5 million additional Russians, in the form of refugees from the economically collapsed, war-torn Ukraine.
  • It has put Russia in a position where it can just sit back and let the US, NATO and their puppets in the Ukraine twist in the wind, or soak in a cesspool of their own creation, or sit back and watch as a dunce's cap is lowered onto their collective head while circus music plays-or your own hyperbolic metaphor-but their level of embarrassment is already high and getting higher.

The last two points warrant some further discussion.

V. Arnold said...

I would say that's a fair assessment of the "situation" in Ukraine. President Putin has played the hand dealt to him masterfully.

Syria? Once again Pres. Putin has shown his resolve and tactical expertise.

America has no foreign policy; it just has a military with the sole intent of using it... As the old saw goes; when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

B. Green said...

One advantage the West has derived from this fiasco is that the Ukraine is now another debt slave nation a la Greece without the benefit(?) of being a member of the EU or the Eurozone. They are becoming another Troika puppet selling off assets at fire sale prices, cutting pensions, etc., etc. And let us not forget the Disaster Capitalists who will swoop in to profit from any war damage or infrastructure collapse.

Marc L Bernstein said...

Some articles by Paul Craig Roberts and Steve Lendman:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/09/23/russias-false-hopes-paul-craig-roberts/

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2015/09/us-cooperation-with-russia-on-syria.html

Roberts says:

"Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia."

It can't be quite as simple as Roberts portrays. Maybe this will eventually happen but only after Ukraine is on the verge of collapse as a sovereign nation.

In any case, Roberts makes it clear the the neo-conservatives (Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, etc.) are still dictating much of Washington's foreign policy, and it doesn't seem to matter that the neo-conservatives have done nothing but ruin everything they've touched. They stay in power anyway. Maybe that's their goal, to destroy foreign nations whose resources they (and their clients, certain large corporations) covet, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even the Ukraine.

It's a lot easier to destroy things than it is to repair them.

[Sep 27, 2015] On the curious bigotry and racism of #Russias pro-Western liberals

Sep 27, 2015 | www.facebook.com

Sep 24, 2015

Mark Sleboda

On the curious bigotry and racism of #Russia's pro-Western "liberals":

Scratch a Russian "liberal" who fetishes the West and below the surface nearly every time you will find bigoted ethnic nationalism & racism.

Russian liberals as a rule have nothing but contempt & loathing for Russia's 188+ ethnic minorities and other Eurasian peoples....

Russia's liberals see the Eurasian minorities & immigrants as a weight holding Russia, and themselves personally, back from their longed-for Western aspirations & assimilation. They despise them for this. Russia's inner-Orient provoking a self-loathing Orientalism. They see the West as "Civilization" (singular, capital "C" ) and Russia's Eurasian peoples as the barbarian "Other".

Ex. The near universal reaction of Russia's liberals I personally know to the building of the Cathedral Mosque in Moscow was a very visceral horror & outrage - directed against Putin.

This curious phenomenon is at its most obvious in the liberals adoration of the neoliberal-ultranationalist Alexei Navalny and their seething hatred of Ramzan Kadyrov.

See More

Petri Krohn
The driving force of all forms of "Euro integration" and Color Revolution is a racist belief in the racial superiority of West European whites. "Liberals" believe that by "democratization" and "integration" they can make themselves more European, more white. What they most yearn for is acceptance as "equals" by White Anglo-Saxons and their ecclesiastical class in Hollywood.

Aaron Thomas
Its only going to get worse as the world cup approaches. There actually is a problem with racism in russian soccer. But you know they'll use it to describe russia as a whole.

Mark Sleboda
Find me a European country without racism among football fans. Completely turned me off from the soccer I grew up playing

Constantine Goh Curious.
The situation is similar with Chinese liberals.

Michal Mazur
Russia's liberals - sounds like beginning of a joke smile emoticon But bear in mind that somewhere in between Russia and West, things are little bit different. For instance, Poland & Lithuania (actually Lithuania / Belarus) were able to successfully integrate their Tatar muslim minorities even before 17th century. Russia is still 'work in progress' since Caucasus region tends to be a little bit more troublesome sometimes, and this progress has to be appreciated.
Зоран Радишић
Similar with Serbian "liberals" too. I think that these are not necessarily "ideological liberals", as much as they are often simply suffering from an inferiority complex and consider all things Western as superior not only to central Asians or Middle Easterners, but to their own culture and race as well. In the 1930s & '40s the likes of these were nazi and fascist sympathizers and enthusiastic collaborators when the opportunity rose, because it was the Western crap of the day. Now they are "liberals", tomorrow they will follow the next political monstrosity, etc.

[Sep 27, 2015] BBC anti-russian propaganda -- WWII German women rape story

"... During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities. A guy who was a head honchos one of these PR firms was asked what aspects of the media campaigns he was most proud of and he replied that it was getting the influential Jewish lobby onside in the demonisation of the Serbs. ..."
"... I see the constant identification of Soviet soldiers with rape and other atrocities as part of this perception management culture. ..."
"... The reality is that rape, like other lawlessness, is an inevitable consequence of war and that all soldiers, Americans, British, French, German, Russians, committed these crimes. ..."
"... That is quite right. It is all about smear. But the claim of 2 million rapes is a gross exaggeration that has not a shred of evidence to back it up. The true figure is not even 10 time less, it is likely to be around 100 times less and in the same range as the western allies. ..."
"... Given the mass murder of civilians perpetrated by the Nazis, not collateral damage but actual rounding up and shooting or burning villagers in their own homes, why were the Soviet soldiers only worried about rape? If they were seeking revenge they would have been burning Germans alive. I have not heard of a single such instance. So the rape story is utter BS. ..."
Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren, September 25, 2015 at 2:26 pm

http://www.rt.com/news/316518-bbc-wwii-rapist-monument/

Pavlo Svolochenko, September 25, 2015 at 2:49 pm

The BBC really should be treated as a terrorist organisation – or at least accorded the legal status of a paedophile ring.

Warren, September 25, 2015 at 3:04 pm

The BBC serves the British state, its mission is to disseminate propaganda that serves interests of the British state – it is a state broadcaster after all!

kirill, September 25, 2015 at 4:33 pm

So we are back to the tired rape trope. Where are the German abortion and murder records to prove that there 2 million rapes? I can claim the moon is made of green cheese but without any actual evidence it means nothing.

Fern, September 25, 2015 at 7:22 pm

During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities. A guy who was a head honchos one of these PR firms was asked what aspects of the media campaigns he was most proud of and he replied that it was getting the influential Jewish lobby onside in the demonisation of the Serbs.

Things have moved on a little since then and there are now three important lobbies any public perception manager needs to get onboard. Firstly, there's still the Jewish lobby attested to by the great effort undertaken to pin a gas attack on Bashar al-Assad. Any such attack, of course, is Auschwitz redux and guarantees a compulsion to act by the 'international community'. Secondly, there's the women's movement hence the enormous effort that been put into establishing that Public Enemies (Serbs, Gaddafi etc) use rape systemically, as a weapon of war. And thirdly, there's the LGBT lobby which is a comparatively new kid on the block but did sterling service in Sochi.

I see the constant identification of Soviet soldiers with rape and other atrocities as part of this perception management culture. It reinforces a meme that is becoming increasingly common – the conflation of Nazism and Communism – the Nazi war machine and those who destroyed it are as bad as one another. And if the Soviets are exclusively identified with rape, they become uniquely bad in modern eyes. And if the Soviets are bad, well, the Russians are too.

The reality is that rape, like other lawlessness, is an inevitable consequence of war and that all soldiers, Americans, British, French, German, Russians, committed these crimes. It's why the Nuremburg judgements call the waging of aggressive war the supreme international crime that contains within it all the other lesser crimes – like rape – that invariably follow. Angelina Jolie is probably a sincere woman but if she wants to stop rape in war, she needs to stop war.

kirill, September 25, 2015 at 8:02 pm

That is quite right. It is all about smear. But the claim of 2 million rapes is a gross exaggeration that has not a shred of evidence to back it up. The true figure is not even 10 time less, it is likely to be around 100 times less and in the same range as the western allies.

Given the mass murder of civilians perpetrated by the Nazis, not collateral damage but actual rounding up and shooting or burning villagers in their own homes, why were the Soviet soldiers only worried about rape? If they were seeking revenge they would have been burning Germans alive. I have not heard of a single such instance. So the rape story is utter BS.

Patient Observer, September 25, 2015 at 8:34 pm

That is a good point that I have not heard before.

et Al, September 26, 2015 at 3:58 am
During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities.
####

The Serbs did hire a PR firm, but it was squeezed and ultimately forced to drop the account. The name of the firm escapes me…

For bosnia, look up James Harff and Ruder-Finn & Knowlton bosnia or look here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Harff

The UK peer Dame Anne Warburton (Warburton II report)* lead an 'investigation' in to Bosnian war rapes in 1992 that had to speculate the actual number of war rapes to date but found very little evidence to back up the numbers claimed by the media.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/09/world/european-inquiry-says-serbs-forces-have-raped-20000.html

This letter to the editor is quite succinct (goes straight to pdf):
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1813&context=ree

http://www.womenaid.org/press/info/humanrights/warburtonfull.htm
* "…However, on the basis of its investigations, the Mission accepts that it is possible to speak in terms of many thousands. Estimates vary widely, ranging from 10,000 to as many as 60,000. The most reasoned estimates suggested to the Mission place the number of victims at around 20,000."

marknesop, September 26, 2015 at 9:41 am
Hill & Knowlton is also the PR Firm that managed the Iraq War for Kuwait, and coached the fake "Kuwaiti nurse" (actually the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter) in her "Saddam's animals ripped babies out of incubators" story. Worked like a charm. No truth to it at all, though. To me, that stands exemplary of the modern western spin-management technique – sit down as a team and figure out what it would take to get the public on your side. Then invent a situation where that happened.

[Sep 27, 2015] Damage inflicted on the Soviet Union by delay of the invasion of France

A delay characterized by General Eisenhower as an act of betrayal
"... Most Americans have the delusion that the US is pure benevolence, an honorable country that is a moral example to the world. Gag me with a spoon. ..."
Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Patient Observer, September 26, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Many would argue that active planning began for the Cold War by the West after a Soviet victory was certain (circa early 1943). The initial phase may have been to maximize damage to the Soviet Union by delay of the invasion of France (a delay characterized by General Eisenhower as an act of betrayal) among other things. Another major indicator that the Cold War was in full bloom prior to the end of hostilities was the nuclear attack on Japan which was intended to evaluate the effects of nuclear explosions on civilian cities for a future attacks (i.e. Soviet cities) and a warning to the Soviet Union that the US will commit mass murder against defenseless civilians.

The denial of reparations was yet another example that the West had nothing but hostility for the Soviets. Speaking of denials and breaking of promises, Vietnam was apparently promised reparations by the US but later reneged. Per Wikipedia:

"Following the war, Hanoi pursued the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States, initially in order to obtain US$3.3 billion in reconstruction aid, which President Richard M. Nixon had secretly promised after the Paris Agreement was signed in 1973. … Barely two months after Hanoi's victory in 1975, Premier Pham Van Dong, speaking to the National Assembly, invited the United States to normalize relations with Vietnam and to honor its commitment to provide reconstruction funds. Representatives of two American banks-the Bank of America and First National City Bank-were invited to discuss trade possibilities, and American oil companies were informed that they were welcome to apply for concessions to search for oil in offshore Vietnamese waters.

Washington neglected Dong's call for normal relations, however, because it was predicated on reparations, and the Washington political climate in the wake of the war precluded the pursuit of such an outcome."

Most Americans have the delusion that the US is pure benevolence, an honorable country that is a moral example to the world. Gag me with a spoon.

[Sep 27, 2015] Meet The Man Who Prevented World War III

Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

You may have never heard of Vasili Arkhipov. And yet life as we know it on this planet could have ended if it were not for his crucial intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Born in 1926, Arkhipov saw action as a minesweeper during the Soviet-Japanese war in August 1945. Two years later he graduated from the Caspian Higher Naval School, serving in the Black Sea and Baltic submarine fleets – just in time for the start of the Cold War, which would stay with him for the rest of his service.

... ... ...

Arkhipov was second-in-command in the nuclear-armed Foxtrot-class submarine B-59, part of a flotilla of four submarines protecting Soviet ships on their way to Cuba. On October 27, as they approached the US imposed quarantine line, US Navy ships in pursuit started dropping depth charges to force the B-59 to surface for identification – completely unaware that it was carrying nuclear weapons.

The explosions rocked the submarine which went dark except for emergency lights. With the air-conditioning down, temperature and carbon dioxide levels rose sharply. The crew was hardly able to breathe.

Unable to contact Moscow and under pressure from the Americans for several hours, Captain Valentin Savitsky finally lost his nerve. He assumed that war had broken out between the two countries and decided to launch a nuclear torpedo. He would not go down without a fight.

However, unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, the three officers onboard the B-59 had to agree unanimously to launch the nuclear torpedo. As the other officer sided with Savitsky, only Arkhipov stood in the way of launching World War III.

An argument broke out between the three, but Arkhipov was able to convince the Captain not to launch the torpedo. How was he able to prevail under such stressful conditions? He was actually in charge of the entire flotilla and as such was equal in rank to Savitsky. But the reputation he had gained during the K-19 incident may have been the decisive factor in convincing the other officers to abort the launch. That detail may have made all the difference.

The submarine eventually surfaced and awaited orders from Moscow, averting what would have been a nuclear holocaust. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended a few days later.

This crucial episode of the Cold War only became known to the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union many years later.

Arkhipov continued to serve in the Soviet Navy, commanding submarines and later submarine squadrons. He was promoted to rear admiral in 1975 and became head of the Kirov Naval Academy. In 1981, he was promoted to vice admiral, retiring a few years later. The radiation he was exposed to in the K-19 incident contributed to his death in 1998, at age 72.

It is frightening to ponder how closely the civilized world came to the brink of extinction. It was only a click away, with two out of three in favor.

It may not have been the only time either. Who knows how many more Soviet and American personnel played a decisive role in averting nuclear annihilation? One person can indeed change the fate of the world.

We should never let their stories be forgotten.

[Sep 26, 2015] Putin and Xi rock da house4

Sep 26, 2015 | Asia Times

Pope Francis may be the rock star. But once again, the real heart of the action is all about Russia and China - those prime "threats" to Exceptionalistan, according to the Pentagon.

... ... ...

So this is what Putin accomplished even before Obama saw the light and decided to talk:

1) Forget about a Libya-remixed NATO war on Syria. 2) Forget about a Sultan Erdogan-driven no-fly zone over areas controlled by Damascus. 3) Out with the old world order. This is how the emerging new world order should work, and Russia is also driving it.

Putin's speech on Monday at the UN General Assembly will be about "the joint struggle against terrorism" (as branded by TASS). One should expect abundant apoplexy, much more than perplexity, all across the Washington/New York axis.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, last Sunday on Russian TV, already clarified the themes at the heart of the speech; the unipolar world order, and the absolute necessity of the "joint struggle against terrorism," which" must be waged without double standards."

Lavrov was very sharp when referring to" unilateral coercive measures" - and not only as far as Russia is concerned. In his own words:

"Nowadays, you know, our Western partners, primarily, under the influence, perhaps, of American mentality, are losing in general the culture of a dialogue and the culture of achieving diplomatic solutions. The Iranian nuclear program was a bright – and even very bright – exception. In most other cases – in conflicts that continue to flare up in the Middle East, in North Africa – they try to resort to measures of military intervention, as was the case in Iraq and Libya, in violation of UN Security Council decisions, or to resort to sanctions."

Expect Putin to talk about all of it in detail. But the showstopper will be, predictably, Putin on Syria. In Lavrov's words:

"We have declared that we will be helping the Syrian leaders, as we help the Iraqi leaders, or the leaders of other countries who are facing the threat of terrorism. And our military-technical cooperation pursues exactly these objectives. Of course, the supplies of arms [by Russia], they have been going on, they are going on [now] and they will continue. Their [supplies] are inevitably accompanied by our specialists that help put the according equipment up, help to train Syrian [military] personnel to handle these weapons and there are absolutely no mysteries and no secrets [in all of this]."

And yes, Putin will call the usual suspects - from Turkey to the GCC petrodollar gang - to help Assad "without indoctrinations or double standards" in the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. And he will demonstrate how the refugee crisis was not created by Assad, but by the fake "Caliphate." As far as these refugees from the Sykes-Picot-smashed Middle East are concerned, it's up to the EU to deal with them. In Lavrov's words:

"Russia has been fulfilling all her obligations under the international conventions. All those who fall under the category of refugees, we take in, and we will take into the Russian Federation, sometimes even going beyond the criteria that is applied. I refer to the refugees from Ukraine, there are about one million [in Russia]. We sympathize with our European neighbors with regard to the problem that they have been facing, and I believe that they will solve it [on their own]."

Last but not least, Putin will make it very clear Russia never again will be fooled into signing dodgy documents such as UNSC Resolution 1973, which legitimized R2P in 2011 via that legendary "no-fly" zone over Libya, with the corollary of NATO bombing the country into a wasteland run by militias. No wonder deranged R2P groupie Samantha Power wants to kick Russia out of the Security Council. Who needs a shoe-banging Khrushchev? Black (Apoplexy) Monday will definitely be a riot.

[Sep 26, 2015] British Think Tank Complains Russia Might Harm al-Qaeda in Syria

Sep 26, 2015 | news.antiwar.com
September 25, 2015 | Antiwar.com

Says Harm to al-Qaeda Means They'd Be 'Helping ISIS'

A new report from British think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is warning that Russia's involvement in the Syrian civil war could "help ISIS" in the long run, ironically using the same arguments used against the US when it first started bombing Syria.

Russia's current operations in Syria are centered around the Latakia coast, and while they have made it clear they intend to help Syria fight against ISIS and other extremist groups, the group closest to Latakia is not ISIS, but rather al-Qaeda. That means, according to RUSI, Russia is liable to harm al-Qaeda, which is now a "bad thing."

When the US launched its war in Syria late last year, they went after al-Qaeda with some of their airstrikes, which sparked condemnation for rebel factions who argued that al-Qaeda is part of the side the US is supposed to be helping. The US seems to be increasingly on board with that, with former Gen. David Petraeus openly endorsing al-Qaeda as the US ally of choice. Turkey has already been backing al-Qaeda against Syria for some time.

Indeed, it seems that much of the aversion to Russia's plan to fight ISIS by getting Syria's government and secular rebels together really centers on keeping the Islamist rebel factions, suddenly anointed as the good guys, on the outside looking in.

[Sep 19, 2015] Russia Says It May Send Troops Into Combat In Syria As A d Netanyahu Heads To Moscow

"...What really pisses off Israel about the Pantsirs is that they are crewed by Russians. That means even if an Israeli jet or missile COULD get close enough to take one out without being destroyed themselves (which I doubt), they would end up killing the Russians crewing the unit. On the same token, Israel can't send their al Nusra head-choppers to do the job because Russia knows exactly who gives them orders. Russian-crewed Pantsirs take all the options away from Israel. Meaning they can't attack a point air-defense weapon and take it out so they can THEN attack the SAM sites or interceptor aircraft it was protecting."
Sep 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
philipat

Clever. Russia says, "We agree with The US" that ISIL is a problem and we want to help Syria, in coalition with Allies, to form a united front against ISIL. Back to you US.....Lavrov is a class act.

BuddyEffed

Just an observation from an engineer, now if any NATO forces take out an antiaircraft site then there are likely to be Russian casualties. Suspect airspace is going to get more respect than it has been getting as a result.

Can anyone intelligently provide comment on how this now affects issues of international law?

Herd Redirectio...

Here's my question, what part of the North Atlantic is Syria on? (North Atlantic Treaty Organization = NATO)

Unless NATO is just the word for the ZIO-Empire?

The Greek horse
Putin knows what ISIS stands for = IsraeliSecretIntelligentService

Sorry Bibi go blow your Zionist master NOW..

Normalcy Bias

It's REAL now and the Pentagon knows it. Fucking with Russians is a very BAD bet.

They aren't just mouth-breathing neanderthals with AK-47's.

I love my country, but my money is on the Russians.

Mostly Harmless

I believe International Law requires that the U.N. Security Council has to O.K. any Nation/State agression on another Nation/State. It doesn't matter who's manning the weapons. They are still considered the property of a sovereign nation/state. Attacking another Nation/State's property INSIDE that Nation/States JURISDICTION is considered an Act of War.

Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. all required a certain number of votes before the UN/NATO could bomb the snot out of them. If memory serves; Russia, China, or both vetoed military intervention against Syria - so the countries itching to bomb Syria's legitimate government had to seek other means of regime change. Anyone paying attention, already knows what those "other means" were and are.

To better clarify, Turkey sent an RF-4 into Syrian air space a few years back and the Syrians promptly shot it down. Yes, there was a lot of hand wringing at the time by Turkey and NATO allies, but there was nothing they could do. A military reconnaissance air-craft crossed an international border. The Syrian's had every right to shoot it down because it was in their airspace and Syria had not given Turkey permission to spy on it :-)

The Russians are in Syria at Syria's request. Now bombing Syrian targets get trickier. It would be an ACT OF WAR against Russia if any of it's personnel or equipment are attacked by US, NATO, Turkey, etc. because Russia owns the equipment/personnel and have PERMISSION to be there by the Syrian government.

BuddyEffed

This is why I love ZH

The Indelicate ...

And when has the US or UK or Israel at all respected "international law"?

Israel holds the world record for violations of UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions.

In fact, it continues to violate the terms imposed on it for admission to the UN.

Doesn't matter.

They're Juice.

They're *special*

Its in a book!

Son of Loki

The UN? Countries honor UN resolutions when they agree with their plans; if the resolution does not pass, the country will simply ignore the UN or propagandize some other method of circumventing the UN citing some such vague claims of "national security" and so on.

The UN serves one interesting purpose; it gives politicians to come to NYC to party like crazy away from their homelands. Hookers, booze, dope, and more hookers all on their countries' tab. It must be very Booooyaaah.

Mostly Harmless

I believe International Law requires that the U.N. Security Council has to O.K. any Nation/State agression on another Nation/State. It doesn't matter who's manning the weapons. They are still considered the property of a sovereign nation/state. Attacking another Nation/State's property INSIDE that Nation/States JURISDICTION is considered an Act of War.

Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. all required a certain number of votes before the UN/NATO could bomb the snot out of them. If memory serves; Russia, China, or both vetoed military intervention against Syria - so the countries itching to bomb Syria's legitimate government had to seek other means of regime change. Anyone paying attention, already knows what those "other means" were and are.

To better clarify, Turkey sent an RF-4 into Syrian air space a few years back and the Syrians promptly shot it down. Yes, there was a lot of hand wringing at the time by Turkey and NATO allies, but there was nothing they could do. A military reconnaissance air-craft crossed an international border. The Syrian's had every right to shoot it down because it was in their airspace and Syria had not given Turkey permission to spy on it :-)

The Russians are in Syria at Syria's request. Now bombing Syrian targets get trickier. It would be an ACT OF WAR against Russia if any of it's personnel or equipment are attacked by US, NATO, Turkey, etc. because Russia owns the equipment/personnel and have PERMISSION to be there by the Syrian government.

researchfix

"And when has the US or UK or Israel at all respected "international law"?"

Doesn´t matter when they hit Russians.

Then natural law gets going.

The Indelicate ...

When has the US, or Israel, all kidding aside, abided by "international law" which, arguably, doesn't even really exists except the Laws of the Sea are pretty solid and if you used to hand out towels in the German Army, you may be prosecuted, at 93 years old, for some absurd litany of crimes you didn't commit.

That's about it.

Other than that, it is might makes right.

ZippyDooDah

@BuddyEffed

To the US, international law doesn't count; international force matters, however. The Russians are probably inserting themselves as a buffer for Assad, knowing that the Western pow(d)ers will back off, not wanting to start some shit with a true world power, ie Russia. But international law, pffftt, what's that? Invade Iraq, pffftt, why not?

Paveway IV

A good Weekend Tyler article in that Weekend Tyler kind of way. I did find the last sentence so astonishing that it rated a comment.

"...At the end of the day, one is certainly left to believe that Israel's "worries about accidentally coming to blows with Russian reinforcements in Syria" will quickly evaporate should Netanyahu get confirmation that the Quds are indeed on the ground as some reports have recently suggested and if it becomes clear that weapons are being funneled to Hezbollah, well, then all bets will officially be off..."

I had to re-read that a couple of times. Israel's worries about killing Russians would evaporate if something happened? Really? So the implication is that Israel could get SO excited about something that they could or would blow away Russian soldiers without hesitation... kind of like if they were Palestinians or something?

So what would this horror of horror be that would push Israel over the edge? Tyler: 1) Iranian Quds in Syria and 2) weapons being funneled to Hezbollah.

OK, we KNOW Quds are on the ground in Syria right now helping Syrian troops. In a very limited fashion and Iran isn't making noise about it, but for FUCKS SAKE, Iran is Syria's ally. Iran can put 100,000 Iranian troops in Syria if they want. Israel doesn't have a God damn thing to say about it. It's ISRAEL that has no right to send aircraft, missiles, chemical weapons, al Nusra mercenaries or anyone or anything else into Syria. Israel is openly supporting terrorist groups and providing them aid and air cover. It was Israel that paid al Nusra to take out the SAM and radar sites in the hills near the Golan border.

And Israel is going to be pissed if Iranian troops show up in Syria to fight terrorists? Arrogant pricks... I think they're afraid that Iranian troops will prevent Israel from their plan of stealing more Syrian and Lebanese land.

The second part I understand - Israel goes insane if they think Hezbollah is getting any weapons because those weapons will be used to prevent further Israeli aggression. Israeli aggression that involves violating Lebanese airspace to blow away Hezbollah followed by land theft. But Syria doesn't have 'spare' weapons to be handing out to Hezbollah - they need the SAMs themselves to protect SYRIA from Israeli aircraft. There's no way Assad is giving away weapons he's waited years to get. I'm sure he gives stuff to Hezbollah, but not a Pantsir S-1, for Christ's sake.

It's interesting how the rhetoric exploded recently about the Russian invasion after Russia (supposedly) delivered six MiG-31 Foxhound long-range interceptors to Mezze Air Base and also delivered another Pantsir S-1 system to Syria. Both are defensive weapons in practice - they have no offensive role.

Foxhounds would provide beyond-visual-range defense against attacking Israeli aircraft or cruise missiles. The Pantsir S-1, aka SA-22 SAM, is a point defense weapon. You use it close to high-value targets to defend them from missiles and aircraft. Now if there are six shiney new MiG-31s at Mezze, Syria would presumable want to protect them.

I linked Haaretz for the Pantsir to illustrate a point - Israel has bent over backwards to emphasize 'missile' and 'SA-22' in a pathetic attempt to associate this with (supposed) Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli positions. In fact, the Pantsir can do nothing of the sort and is a dedicated air defense weapon, nothing else. Israel is not afraid of a Hezbollah attack - Israel is afraid of not being able to violate Lebanese and Syrian airspace with impunity for whatever attacks they self-justify.

What really pisses off Israel about the Pantsirs is that they are crewed by Russians. That means even if an Israeli jet or missile COULD get close enough to take one out without being destroyed themselves (which I doubt), they would end up killing the Russians crewing the unit. On the same token, Israel can't send their al Nusra head-choppers to do the job because Russia knows exactly who gives them orders. Russian-crewed Pantsirs take all the options away from Israel. Meaning they can't attack a point air-defense weapon and take it out so they can THEN attack the SAM sites or interceptor aircraft it was protecting.

So despite Weekend Tyler's assertion in the last line, there will be no such thing as 'all bets are off' when it comes to Syrian SAMs, not matter what the justification. Israel would have no problem at all smoking a few U.S. soldiers and apologizing to Obama later (maybe), but I will never believe they are so stupid as to poke the bear. There's a reason Putin is widely popular in Russia, and it's not because he's a pussy that wears helmets and mom genes. Israel could expect swift and overwhelming retribution from Russia with no apologies from Putin if they were stupid enough to kill Russian soldiers.

This must frustrate Bibi to no end. He probably spends his entire day ranting about Putin while pacing his office and waving his hands in the air. He probably has to be sedated so he doesn't stroke out. I'll bet Putin will be packing during their meeting - no telling when that psycho Nettanyahu will go ballistic and 'tard out on Putin.

Freddie

ZH should get you to write their articles. They should fire "weekend Tyler."

Jack Burton

Latina, Russia announced that it has proof. via military intelligence, that the USA knows many of ISIS postions, and troop movements in Iraq and Syria, but refused to bomb them, as these ISIS forces are attacking in aid of US foreign policy. Long convoys of Toyat trucks carrying thousands of ISIS have been allowed free access to Iraq and Syrian roads in broad daylight, with no attacks made at all. The Iraq parliament members have also told the press of US airdrops of military supplies to ISIS right in the area of Iraqi army and ISIS combat operations! How much evidence do we need that the USA is only pushing ISIS to the areas it wants ISIS to fight. Beating ISIS is not at all on Washington's agends. How can I say that? Because real hard evidence on the ground PROVES the US does not attack ISIS when it could do so with ease.

Russia wants to step in and attack ISIS where the USA refuses to!

The biggest joke of the week? Australia has sent war planes to support the US war on ISIS in Syria. Australia is a buzz with stories of their hero pilots about to cheat death in the deadly battle on ISIS. My friends. This is the biggest fucking joke of the week! Who in their right mond buys that, except the FOX brainwashed 30%.

Latina Lover

Jack Burton, ISiS is an obvious western creation, likely #3 after the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Can anyone explain how a supposed rag tag group of Muslims can somehow acquire billions of dollars in weapons, vehicles, and hire thousands without help? Heck I cannot send a wire from Guatemala to Texas for $1000 without getting bounce-backs and/or harassment by banksters.

Putin is to address the UN general assembly on or around the 25th of Sept. 2015. I predict this speech will be historic, because Putin will likely comment on the Ukraine and Syria situations. For the first time in decades, the USSA will be exposed to a global audience.

Lastly, the following brilliant comment by Paveway IV explains why the USSA is so pissed over Russia helping Assad:

I'm not sure you guys recognize what just happened here. They didn't risk aircraft to blow up a random few ISIS lairs.

The fake ISIS central bank (ZATO al Raqqah branch) and everything in it just got smoked.

The al Raqqah satcom links have been destroyed - that's how fake ISIS/CIA/ZATO SF guys get their marching orders and avoid being blown up by fellow ZATOers.

There will be no more U.S. resupply of cash, equipment or oil to al Raqqah, and the ammo/replacement headchopper pipeline is in peril.

Fake al Nusra still has their U.S. command bunker and logistics hub in Aleppo, but fake ISIS just lost the ability to pay their mercenaries or exchange any money, fake ISIS can no longer communicate with their ZATO masters via scrambled satlinks to Jordan and Turkey for instructions. Blind and broke, and Assad already took out their oil supply last week.

After he turns the water off (the Tabqua dam) upstream of al Raqqah, fake ISIS and the U.S. will go ballistic. A humanitarian crisis tit-for-tat. Fake ISIS in al Raqqah were the ones using mustard gas mortar shells a couple of months ago. They have a stash somewhere (that probably says 'Made in the USA'). I wouldn't put it past them to blow the dam before the Syrian Army can take it.

This forces Obama to act, and he has no idea what to do. His chickenhawk Israeli-firster generals want WAR, but Obama will never agree to that. If Obama wants to pull out, the DoD (and their Xe/Academi for-profit arm) will refuse.

Things just got to a very dangerous tipping point. Putin has missile cruisers and a Typhoon-class nuke sub off the coast of Syria, and 100,000 Russian soldiers on the southern border participating in Center-2015. I doubt Putin will ever do anything, but this further limits the clownfuckery the Pentagram can get away with.

Whenever the Pentagram has their backs to the wall, bad, bad things happen. They will go full retard barring some miracle - or the obliteration of earth on the 24th - whichever comes first.

Jack Burton

Brilliant indeed! Latina! That's new information to me. I knew Russia would only act if it really counted! Unlike fake US air attacks on ISIS, Russia is ruthlessly efficient with it's attacks. I wonder if Assads forces used new Russian precision guided weapons to take out the ISIS bank and telecom links. Probably.

Anyways ,Thanks for that post latina, it's why I always read you!

Gilnut

Russia will still only push this so far. Desert Storm I and II were proxy wars between Russia and the USA, where the Russian supplied Iraqi's stood their ground, they lasted 1 minute, where they ran they lasted 2 minutes. Russia remembers this. Not opinion, just fact. If this turns "hot" Russia knows it has no other option than nuclear to win. Putin has balls, but he's smart too.

Huh Reeeally

Russia will still only push this so far.

In general I agree with you, they usually don't take it to the nth degree, however with regards to the Syrian armed forces, they've done surprisingly well considering the number of countries and terrorists they're fighting.

Iraq was largely left to survive on its own with little outside help to speak of. Syria is different. It's Russia's Port in the Med, and it is vital to Russian gas interests = Gazprom, just as it is vital to European/US gas interests = Qatar. Syria will not fold unless Russian interests can be preserved as part of the solution. With both the US and Russia coming closer to deploying troops, and all sorts of missiles and fighter jets flying around a small airspace this could get interesting in a hurry. This won't go nuclear until all the proxies are used up, remember Iran is on General Wes Clark's list of seven countries scheduled for regime change.

The US is tired of paying for all those refugees to be housed and fed in Turkey so they're shipping them off to europe, notice two things here. ALL the countries neighbouring Syria refuse to take any syrian refugees/migrants/opportunists, and the EU, with its laughably so-called rich countries with BENEFITS are getting all of them. Even Canada can't wait to be destabilized, I mean take in a boatload - we're in the middle of a federal election so giving away a few thousand passports is a big vote getter here. How come these people, and I have every sympathy for their plight, have the 10K USD to pay for passage but are impoverished when they arrive in the promised land welfare state? If they do have 10K and a passport then why don't they fly? Just who is paying that bill?

At least Russia is calling the US terrorist bluff. I wonder if Vegas has odds on this...

angel_of_joy

...Iraq was largely left to survive on its own with little outside

Wrong! Iraq is under the full control of Iran, and it has been ever since the American withdrawal.

Huh Reeeally

Well yes, ...since the american withdrawal but how much help and support did they receive in the first war over Kuwait? And then the WMD excuse, do you recall anyone lining up to help them out? Remember that Iraq and Iran fought a rather long and bloody war that barely ended before Kuwait 'happened'. My point was to illustrate that Russia has serious interests in Syria, unlike in Iraq back then. The Syrians have done well so far, and I expect they'll have the fortitude to persevere since they are not only fighting FOR their homes but big brother definitely has their back in this one.

If you're saying it's a sordid mess with fluid alliances based on geopolitics, oil, proxies, religion and various religous sects then I absolutely agree with you :-)

Herd Redirectio...

Yes, lets just ignore Vietnam... Didn't happen. LALALA

Also, the M16 (esp. back in 1969) is perfect for dragging in the mud, much better than that super reliable AK47. Yep, take my word for it.

Oh, I forgot, the Vietnamese weren't fighting fair. Those bastards! They killed that guy in the movie Green Berets with a booby trap! Cowards! Dropping bombs from 12000 feet, now that is bravery.

Latina Lover

I have memories in SE asia, of tough motherfuckers who could live on rat meat and a cup of rice. Unless we are defending our homeland, I doubt that most american soldiers are as motivated as the forces we usually oppose.

FIAT CON

Well which wars did the amreicans win?

Vietnam ... ah no winner!

Korean again ah no win there

Iraq Ah I dont think so

Afgahnastan too soon to tell

how big and powerful were these opponents... not very

Lets just see how well the Amuricans do against the extremly strong willed Chinese and or Russians... if you are an Amurican are are not afraid of these two Countries Warriors you better go learn some history.

Freddie

The Banksters win in every war.

flapdoodle

If you want a better comparison, try the *very* well equipped forces in Georgia and how they fared against the relatively poorly equipped Russian forces in 2008.

Even though the Georgians picked up some experience in Afghanistan and were sporting the latest US Humvees and US soldier kit, the relatively rag-tag Russians made short work of the Georgians.

Another comparison - Ukraine didn't fare so hot against the breakaway Donbass rebels, rag tag as well but this time equipped a bit better with Russian kit...

Using the Iraqi Army (which after all was lead up by the US puppet Saddam Hussein) as an example of how the Russians would fare against the US Army is laughable - as in stupid laughable.

Perhaps the Hezbullah success with Kornets against Merkvas and the IDF in 2006 is closer to the truth?

Latina Lover

Hamas blowing up a Merkava Tank likely using a SA29 Vampir:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bemnaJmikXQ

Recently the Russians developed the SA30, nicknamed the Merciless, able to destroy any tank, including the Merkava, Abrams, Challenger, Leopard etc, by countering its reactive armour via a dual staged shaped charge.

Reichstag Fire Dept.

The US Government is attempting to sucking Russia into starting WWIII, Putin is not taking the bait at any cost. He can now come into Syria and directly fight ISIS to help Syria because the US Government has used the "head fake" of wanting to fight ISIS...the US Government cannot back off this position now so Putin can now "run the table" in Syria.

Seriously, Putin's moves are genius. He's making the US Military leadership and it's executive look like amateurs.

the phantom

It's the difference between chess and checkers. Better yet, go rent the movie "Rounders", and fast forward to the last 15 minutes... and tell me what lesson you learned.

Cynicles

It's the strangest thing:

ISIS threatens everyone except Israel.

[Sep 18, 2015] The Weaponization of Ignorance: the West's Go-To Experts

Northern Star, September 17, 2015 at 7:54 am
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-mideast-crisis-syria-arms-idUSKCN0RB1Q020150911
It appears as if the Russians are moving with calculated deliberation.
Whereas for the Empire…Operation ClusterF continues with increasing frenzy:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/16/general-only-handful-syrian-fighters-remain-battle.html

http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-un-diplomat-supports-idea-russian-airstrikes-163754294.html
….stay tuned

et Al, September 17, 2015 at 8:06 am
It's fairly obvious, except for Neuters who refuse to entertain common sense, let alone go there. There will be no repeat of Libya et al (not me!) where the West has set up a 'No Fly Zone' and then proceeded to use their military aircraft as an air force for the rebels/whomever.

Those air defenses sent to Syria mean that they will be the first target (according to Western military doctrine) of any such attempt by the West to intervene directly and that will lead to the death of Russian soldiers and citizens.

There is no way the West could claim to kill Russian soldiers 'accidentally' and get away with it as those systems are expressly defensive. It would not just be the political and military consequences to be faced from such an 'event', but it would be a massive PR disaster for the West too.

As others have commented multiple times here, Obama publicly proclaims his red lines, Putin doesn't, but sets them up pragmatically.

I'm still waiting for those Yak-130s to turn up, though I would now guess that some pilots would be Syrian and some Russian – just to make it even more risky for the West to do anything stupid.

Northern Star, September 17, 2015 at 8:17 am

"just to make it even more risky for the West to do anything stupid."

The Western fascist PTB are obviously not risk averse to serial acts of jaw dropping stupidity….

Cortes, September 17, 2015 at 10:10 am

Peter Lee's take on recent western media reports on how Syria campaign has progressed (his view is now Plan C – Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube is underway):

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/17/hidden-history-of-syria-regime-collapse-strategy-begins-to-emerge/

[Sep 18, 2015]U.S. Begins Military Talks With Russia on Syria

Sep 18, 2015 | The New York Times

The diplomatic initiative amounted to a pivot for the Obama administration, which just two weeks ago delivered a stern warning to the Kremlin that its military buildup in Syria risked an escalation of the civil war there or even an inadvertent confrontation with the United States. Last week, President Obama condemned Russia's move as a "strategy that's doomed to failure."

But the White House seemed to acknowledge that the Kremlin had effectively changed the calculus in Syria in a way that would not be soon reversed despite vigorous American objections. The decision to start talks also reflected a hope that Russia might yet be drawn into a more constructive role in resolving the four-year-old civil war.


The Pentagon announced that Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter had spoken by telephone on Friday with Sergei K. Shoigu, the Russian minister of defense. It was Mr. Carter's first discussion with his Russian counterpart since he took office seven months ago. The two men agreed to continue discussions on "mechanisms for deconfliction" in Syria, Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.

[Sep 18, 2015] Assad Must Go No, American Arrogance Must Go! by Andrew Korybko

"...What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast's republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region. "
"...Think of it as the neocons' version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that). "
Sep 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

The US' obsessive insistence that "Assad must go" is the most dangerous expression of American arrogance in years.

White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest channeled President Obama's famous chant that "Assad must go" when he claimed during a regular press briefing that:

"The international community has decided that it's time for Assad to go. He clearly has lost legitimacy to lead. He has lost the confidence of those citizens of his country - at least the ones that - or I guess I should say particularly the ones that he is using the resources of the military to attack."

The arrogance on display is both stupefying and dangerous. The problem in Syria isn't, nor ever has been, President Assad – it's always been the US' arrogance in dictating demands and then militarily enforcing them after they've been rejected.

American Arrogance

Syria's ills are directly traceable to the failure of American foreign policy in the Mideast. The US rabidly went on a regime change streak that began during the Bush years, with former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO General Wesley Clark revealing in his 2007 memoirs that a senior general showed him a memo and said:

"'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran."

Earlier that year, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an expose in The New Yorker in which he detailed, among other proposed regional regime change specifics, that the Bush Administration was planning to use the Muslim Brotherhood to launch a Gulf-funded sectarian war against the Syrian government.

At the time, the reason was supposedly because of Damascus' closeness to Tehran, but later information as reported by The Guardian reveals that the decision to build a Friendship Pipeline between Iran, Iraq, and Syria in 2010, and Damascus' rejection of a similar one from Qatar, likely had a lot to do with why the anti-government terrorist plan was pushed forward for activation the year after.

Beginning in 2011, the Mideast was rocked by the so-called "Arab Spring", which Russian General Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov would in hindsight categorize as a theater-wide Color Revolution during an official conference on the topic last year in Moscow.

What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast's republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region.

Think of it as the neocons' version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that).

The Gulf Monarchies were not targeted because of their staunch pro-American allegiance and the potential that any domestic disruption would have in upsetting the US' economic interests there.

Between the pro-American Gulf Monarchies and the pro-American EU thus lay a handful of republics that weren't so firmly under the US' sway (or not at all influenced by it like Syria), so in order for the US to securely control the broad swatch of Afro-Eurasia stretching from Iceland to Yemen, it needed to overthrow those governments, ergo the "Arab Spring" Color Revolutions.

The People's Will

But something went wrong as it always does with the US' plans, and it was that the Syrian people wholeheartedly rejected the Muslim Brotherhood's ploy at regime change, instead favoring to preserve the secular and multicultural society that Syrian civilization is historically known for.

For this simple reason, the Color Revolution attempt was a dismal failure from the very beginning, hence why the US and its allies (notably Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) sought to transform it into an Unconventional War by arming their proxies and ordering them to escalate their soft coup attempt into a hard one.

The resultant Hybrid War that's been raging for the past four and a half years is thus a manifestation of the US' geopolitical obsession for regime change. Far from realizing that the people had resoundingly rejected such an approach from the very beginning, the US and its allies dug in by reinforcing their proxy elements inside the country and allowing foreign fighters to flood into Syria via the Turkish border.

Amidst this external onslaught being launched against them, the Syrian people continued to bravely soldier on and democratically show the rest of the world that they supported their government.

A constitutional referendum in 2012 passed by an 89% margin and with the participation of 57% of the population, while President Assad was reelected in 2014 with 88.7% of the vote in which 73% of the electorate took part.

Both sets of numbers trump the civil society participation and political legitimacy of Western countries and their leaders, and as President Assad once said, there is no way he could remain in office during this war if he didn't truly have the support of the vast majority of the population.

It's also telling that most of the country's refugees haven't fled the country, but have instead decided to stay in their homeland and seek safety under the protection of the Syrian Arab Army, which currently provides security to around 80% of Syria's citizens.

Be that as it is, the US and its allies stubbornly ignored the people's will, and instead continued to blindly pump weapons and fighters into the country in clear confirmation of the adage that insanity is "repeating the same thing over again but expecting different results".

Ground Zero In The War On Terror

All of those fighters and weapons that the US and its allies were shipping into Syria were bound to lead to some major problems, chief among them the rise of ISIL, but this was actually predicted and supported by the US government a couple years ago. Judicial Watch published a declassified report that it received in May from a Freedom Of Information Act request that proves that the Pentagon's Defense Information Agency thought that:

"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

This bombshell dovetails with what Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad recently said in an interview where he accused the US of using terrorism to promote regime change in his country. President Putin followed up at the CSTO summit by warning countries of the risks inherent in employing double-standards towards terrorists and directly or indirectly using them to further certain tactical objectives.

In order to stem the tide of terror that the US unleashed in the Mideast, Russia is rapidly moving forward with assembling an inclusive anti-ISIL coalition, and President Putin is expected to use his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly later this month to make his case that the situation is far too pressing to care about regime change, and that the world must unite in supporting Syria as it fights on its behalf on the frontlines against terror.

American arrogance got the world into this mess, but if you ask Russia, it'll be Syrian humility that gets it out in one piece.

See also

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

[Sep 18, 2015] Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting

"...Enormous pressure will now be brought to bear on Putin to try and dissuade him from a military committment in Syria. If he were not an honourable man, he would already have won, because it appears he would be able to name reasonable terms – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – in exchange for simply staying out of the way and letting Washington complete its destruction of the sovereign state of Syria."
"...Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting. While a direct clash between coalition and Russian aircraft is highly unlikely, an active Russian air presence in the region would only muddle the battlefield in Syria's airspace more. Subsequently, it is unsurprising that reports from the rebel Shamiya Front, though currently unconfirmed, suggest that Turkey has abandoned its efforts to persuade the United States to participate in a no-fly zone over northern Aleppo."

et Al, September 16, 2015 at 12:53 pm

ABC Nudes: Kerry: US Weighs Russia Offer of Military Talks on Syria
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russian-moves-syria-flummox-us-33790614

… Kerry said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had proposed the consultation in a phone call on Tuesday and that the White House, Pentagon and State Department were considering it. Kerry suggested that he favored such an idea, noting that the United States wants a clear picture of what Russia's intentions are in Syria following a recent military buildup there.

Lavrov proposed a "military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to deconflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run and have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are," Kerry told reporters at a joint State Department news conference with South Africa's foreign minister.

"You have a conversation in order to do that," Kerry said. "It is vital to avoid misunderstandings, miscalculations (and) not to put ourselves in a predicament where we are supposing something and the supposition is wrong."

Kerry said Lavrov had told him that Russia was only interested in confronting the threat posed by the Islamic State group in Syria. But Kerry stressed it remained unclear if that position would change and Russia would mount a defense of Syrian President Bashar Assad who the U.S. believes must leave power.

"Obviously, there a questions about that," he said. "I am not taking that at face value."

However, he added that if Russia is only focused on the Islamic State group then it remains a potential partner in pushing for a political transition in Syria. "If Russia is only focused only on ISIL and if there is a capacity for cooperation … there still is a way to get a political negotiation and outcome," he said.

Kerry also said he had spoken on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who office announced earlier that he would visit Moscow next week to discuss Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

His comment come as Russia's military buildup in Syria has perplexed the Obama administration and left it in a quandary as to how to respond.

In his call with Lavrov on Tuesday, his third in 10 days, Kerry said he sought clarity about Moscow's moves and warned that Russian support for Assad "risks exacerbating and extending the conflict."…
####

That's right kids, it is the White House and Kerry calling the shots. It was their idea after all!

marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm
The mention of the word "deconfliction" is curious, in the context that Russia is only sending a few advisers to Syria and does not intend to go much beyond that. "Deconfliction" implies a policy to reduce or eliminate the possibility of blue-on-blue (friendly against friendly) engagements, and customarily includes recognition signals, designated operating areas, bla, bla. The military forces of the western coalition currently in Syria are exclusively air power. There should be little requirement for deconfliction unless Russia plans to introduce an air power element of its own, serious air-defense assets, or both.

Kerry has made it as clear as it needs to be that the western effort in Syria is focused on toppling Assad, and the method of it is despicably cynical, since the ISIL/ISIS rebels are also a Washington creation, employed with corresponding enormous property damage and loss of life, not to mention serious depopulation due to fleeing refugees – all a pretext to get the US Air Force in there so they could contribute to forcing Assad from power. It would be nothing short of criminal if such an effort succeeded, since it would reward the behaviour and the stratagem.

Enormous pressure will now be brought to bear on Putin to try and dissuade him from a military committment in Syria. If he were not an honourable man, he would already have won, because it appears he would be able to name reasonable terms – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – in exchange for simply staying out of the way and letting Washington complete its destruction of the sovereign state of Syria. I believe he will not do that; perhaps because he is an honourable man, perhaps out of practical considerations of the harm it will do Russia to have another warlord Islamic state not so very far away from its borders, and the likelihood a successful US creation of chaos there will result in it shifting target to the Caucasus on completion.

Washington has to be faced down here and now, and there is nothing to be gained by delay.

Northern Star, September 16, 2015 at 2:45 pm
" perhaps out of practical considerations of the harm it will do Russia to have another warlord Islamic state not so very far away from its borders,"
Exactly.. The Russians very much have a dog in this fight…yet another ME abattoir created by USA neocon psychos and their PC protégées in the State Department ,the UN etc.,

Someone last night remarked that the continuing deluge of ME refugees into Europe could provoke a fulminating, savage rise of ultra right nationalistic parties who are also virulently anti NATO...

One can only hope for the best…

marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm
For what it's worth, STRATFOR agrees with me that the term "deconfliction" suggests Russia intends to introduce an air component. "U.S. Officials" through their conduits, Reuters and Bloomberg, report that Russia intends to deploy MiG 31 and SU-25 aircraft – the latter would be especially effective as they are designed for ground attack. The report says that ISIS-linked forces have already started to back away from Latakia – but for me, the money shot in the report was this:

Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting. While a direct clash between coalition and Russian aircraft is highly unlikely, an active Russian air presence in the region would only muddle the battlefield in Syria's airspace more. Subsequently, it is unsurprising that reports from the rebel Shamiya Front, though currently unconfirmed, suggest that Turkey has abandoned its efforts to persuade the United States to participate in a no-fly zone over northern Aleppo.

I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. Western governments are angling for a Libya scenario, in which NATO air forces act as the de facto air force of the rebels, assisting them to take Damascus.

PaulR, September 16, 2015 at 5:17 pm
So far this appears to be a lot of fuss about not very much. I remain unconvinced that this is a major escalation by the Russians.

[Sep 18, 2015] Putin did not speak to Elton John

Erika, September 15, 2015 at 11:18 am
Putin did not speak to Elton John
http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150915/1027041069.html

I was at first a bit bemused by this, thinking we were being trolled, but now I wonder if it is something more sinister.

A. this announcement and fanfare is being done days before Putin goes to New York
B. It is meant to force a meeting
C. It is meant to embarrass Russia
D. Reminds me of the Sochi Olympics were everyone "Western Media" will be talking about Gay Rights instead of Putin's speech.

marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm
That's interesting – I saw that report, too; "Putin calls Elton John after speech" or something like that, and it never occurred to me to question it. You might be right, and they might be fuelling up the Gay Bandwagon again. But I'm pretty sure Putin could handle Elton John in any kind of meeting he asked for. Putin is pretty good as speaking in verifiable facts, while Elton John's arguments are mostly emotional and probably rely on the garbage he reads in the papers.

It's the assessment that it is a ploy to make Putin's whole conversation at the UN about gay rights that might well be on the mark. Good catch.

Oddlots, September 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm
Garbage in, garbage out.

Judging by a straw poll of acquaintances it works very well indeed.

Patient Observer, September 15, 2015 at 2:39 pm
I was thinking similarly but not as elaborated as your thoughts. My thoughts was more as a publicity stunt to elevate his perceived influence and importance and to create the impressions that Russia is deeply concerned by the West's views of gay rights in Russia.
Jen, September 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm
If Pamela Anderson couldn't get an audience with Putin – she wrote an open letter to him – and the most she could get was an audience in Vladivostok with Sergei Donskoy (the cabinet minister responsible for natural resources and environmental issues) due to the nature of her request, there's no way Elton John would have been able to speak to Putin. He would have been directed instead to talk to the relevant minister in charge of cultural issues or issues involving discrimination against minority groups, or to someone whom minister delegates John's request to. Elton John can expect no more and no less because exactly the same thing would be done in the UK.

[Sep 18, 2015] Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!

et Al, September 15, 2015 at 9:45 am
Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/

Exclusive: Official Washington's new "group think" is to blame Russia's President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted "regime change," says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

Graham's grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren't eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out…

…Privately, I'm told, Obama agreed to - and may have even encouraged - Putin's increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it's the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can't endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times' editorial page…
####

Yes.

marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 11:49 am
There was a fascinating comment to that article, which seemed to me very informed and was a genuine eye-opener. For instance, the western media regularly raves on ad infinitum about Assad's "Allawite power structure". It was a complete surprise to me to learn "In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister."

I'll repeat the entire comment here; it comes from Wolf Mato, and contains an excellent and informative link which proves the U.S. military community at least is well aware of the inclusive nature of the Syrian government. There seems little doubt that the United States government is aware of it as well.

This is the first article about Syria here, with which I nearly fully agree, and so I try it again to make a comment, after two earlier attempts to comment on other articles failed.

Putin can indeed be blamed partly for the Syrian mess, because a more decisive support of the Government in the early stages of the uprising or bombing campaigns against Jabhat al-Nusra and IS in 2013 would have quelled the insurgency. Russia also should have moved against Turkey, but Putin didn't want to jeopardize trade with Turkey. He proposed even a "Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline, but negotiation about this project fortunately have collapsed, so Russia doesn't have to take care about Turkish sensibilities.

I don't agree with the sentence: "So, although it's surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war…" This appears to be a concession to the popular presumption, established via million times repeated catchphrases (butcher Assad), that Syria is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, where the Sunni majority is suppressed by an Alawite clique.

The classification of the Syrian war as a "civil war" is debatable, it could as well be seen as an undeclared war of aggression by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the USA).

I also object to the sentence: "The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say."

Sunni are represented sufficiently and pols in 2012 and 2013 showed, that the majority of Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad. Sunnis are represented in the government as well as in the security apparatus and account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army. Many high ranking officers are Sunni.

Even a West Point analysis had to acknowledge that https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/syrias-sunnis-and-the-regimes-resilience.

In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister.

Beside that, who should take part in a power sharing transitional government? Who of the external opposition figures has enough support of the Syrian population to justify an inclusion is a power sharing government?

Please name the people in the external opposition who could be entrusted with reconciling the war-torn nation?

In my opinion, this guy's comment kicks the stool out from under nearly every western commentator on the subject. Well done, Mr. Mato – well done.

Jen, September 15, 2015 at 4:04 pm
A power-sharing arrangement along religious lines, as exists in Lebanon and (since 2003) in Iraq, will weaken Syrian society in forcing people to live in parallel sub-cultures (Alawite, Christian, Druze, Shi'ite Muslim, Sunni Muslim) with competing interests. Plus sectarianism in Lebanese politics and society did not help Shi'ites much at all and they practically had to create their own society and institutions outside mainstream Lebanese society in Hezbollah since the 1980s.
Oddlots, September 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm
From what I read years back the "power sharing" constitution of Lebanon was like a demographic time bomb. Can't remember what situation it developed from but it fixed the power balance on an arbitrary point in time (and then set off the timer.)

Naive probably but if you can't come up with a national project that overwhelms this crap (much less enshrines it) then you don't really have a country do you?

Strange that the countries that have actually achieved that are the primary targets of Western interests (and their allies): Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. And our allies are exactly the Islamofascists that US / NATO bobble heads suggest are being countered.

Pull the other one fuckers.

Pavlo Svolochenko, September 15, 2015 at 6:48 pm
What exactly is Washington's case on this point anyway? That a religious minority should not have representation and influence in the government far out of proportion to its numbers as a proportion of the general population?

Have they ever stopped to consider how that principle might be applied closer to home?

Special_sauce, September 15, 2015 at 8:03 pm
There are pics of Assad addressing Parliament at the start of this crisis. Among his audience are men in business suits, men in arab dress, women with hair uncovered, women with hair covered, those with dark skins, those with light, those with kinky hair, those with straight. Precisely the sort of secular multivarious conclave the West never ceases to hold forth as the ideal. The swine.

September 15, 2015 at 9:45 am

Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/

Exclusive: Official Washington's new "group think" is to blame Russia's President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted "regime change," says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

Graham's grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren't eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out…

…Privately, I'm told, Obama agreed to - and may have even encouraged - Putin's increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it's the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can't endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times' editorial page…
####

Yes.

marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 11:49 am
There was a fascinating comment to that article, which seemed to me very informed and was a genuine eye-opener. For instance, the western media regularly raves on ad infinitum about Assad's "Allawite power structure". It was a complete surprise to me to learn "In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister."

I'll repeat the entire comment here; it comes from Wolf Mato, and contains an excellent and informative link which proves the U.S. military community at least is well aware of the inclusive nature of the Syrian government. There seems little doubt that the United States government is aware of it as well.

This is the first article about Syria here, with which I nearly fully agree, and so I try it again to make a comment, after two earlier attempts to comment on other articles failed.

Putin can indeed be blamed partly for the Syrian mess, because a more decisive support of the Government in the early stages of the uprising or bombing campaigns against Jabhat al-Nusra and IS in 2013 would have quelled the insurgency. Russia also should have moved against Turkey, but Putin didn't want to jeopardize trade with Turkey. He proposed even a "Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline, but negotiation about this project fortunately have collapsed, so Russia doesn't have to take care about Turkish sensibilities.

I don't agree with the sentence: "So, although it's surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war…" This appears to be a concession to the popular presumption, established via million times repeated catchphrases (butcher Assad), that Syria is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, where the Sunni majority is suppressed by an Alawite clique.

The classification of the Syrian war as a "civil war" is debatable, it could as well be seen as an undeclared war of aggression by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the USA).

I also object to the sentence: "The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say."

Sunni are represented sufficiently and pols in 2012 and 2013 showed, that the majority of Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad. Sunnis are represented in the government as well as in the security apparatus and account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army. Many high ranking officers are Sunni.

Even a West Point analysis had to acknowledge that https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/syrias-sunnis-and-the-regimes-resilience.

In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister.

Beside that, who should take part in a power sharing transitional government? Who of the external opposition figures has enough support of the Syrian population to justify an inclusion is a power sharing government?

Please name the people in the external opposition who could be entrusted with reconciling the war-torn nation?

In my opinion, this guy's comment kicks the stool out from under nearly every western commentator on the subject. Well done, Mr. Mato – well done.

[Sep 18, 2015] Syria: The (Russian Air) Cavalry Is Coming

In light of the catastrophic outcome of the "western" war on Libya the Russian government declared to oppose any further such "regime change" in the Middle East. But the U.S. continues to train, arm and finance insurgents against the Syrian Arab Republic and, under the disguise of fighting the Islamic State, prepares to take down the Syrian government. Eliminating the Syrian government would likely create a radical jihadist state in Damascus and lead to massacres and mass refugee movements.

But Russia means what it says and will now use its military capabilities to confront the U.S. plans:

Elijah J. Magnier
#Russia is providing #Syria with precision military and destructive equipment. #Russia will start soon operating n #Syria sky to hit rebels+

The participation of the #Russian Air Force in #Syria worries #Israel that won';t be able to have a free sky to hit Syrian troops.+

This is THE major change in #Russia approach and support to #Damascus regime, to prevent game change on the ground in #Syria +

The decision of #Russia comes mainly from regional support 2rebels, not satisfy w/ d north f #Syria (#Idlib) and aiming to #Hama & #Damascus

Russian air-support for Syria against the various forces attacking the state will allow for additional air attacks against those forces. The Syrian air force is today already flying more than 100 sorties per day against it enemies. The Russian forces will add to that but not necessarily in a decisive amount.

The main support for Syria by Russian air assets will come by keeping away those foreign air forces forces that threaten the Syrian government under disguise of "fighting terror". With Russian fighters in Syrian skies Israel will no longer be able to use its air force in support of Jabhat al-Nusra (and for its oil stealing endeavors in the Syrian Golan heights).

The U.S., Britain, France and others announced to enter Syrian skies to "fight the terror" of the Islamic State. Russia will use just the same claim to justify its presence and its air operations flying from Latakia. Simply by being there it will make sure that others will not be able to use their capabilities for more nefarious means. Additional intelligence from Russian air assets will also be helpful for Syrian ground operations.

The Russian air capabilities will be supplemented with air defense cover from Russian naval assets on the Syrian coast. Russia announced several air defense drills with live missile launches off the Syrian coast near Tartus. New land based air defense assets are said to be on their way. I would not be surprised to see, over time, some Chinese naval assets joining the Russian presence.

Secretary of State Kerry whined to Russia that its intervention in Syria might intervene with the U.S. intervention in Syria. Well, yes sir, that is the sole purpose:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday coordination was needed between Russia's military and the Pentagon to avoid "unintended incidents" around Syria, where both countries have a military presence.

Lavrov said Russia would continue to supply weapons to Syrian President Bashar Assad to help the Syrian armed forces fight against ISIS militants.

He told a news conference Russia was conducting military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, that it had been for some time, and that they were in line with international law.

The neoconned State Department childishly pressured Greece and Bulgaria to disallow Russian military air transport over their countries. But Russian planes can just as well fly via Iran and Iraq and both countries are very unlikely to ever block such flights. As Russian ground forces will not be involved in any fighting the supply needs can be kept limited.

Any attempt by Turkey, pressured by State Department lunatics, to block the Bosporus sea route between Russia and Syria would be in breach of the Montreux Convention and could be interpreted as hostile act against Russia on which Turkey depends for a large amount of its energy supplies. After losing control over the predominantly Kurdish south-eastern city Cizre Turkey also has to take care of its own civil war which Erdogan foolishly ignited to regain a parliamentarian majority. That internal war will hinder resupplies for the Islamic State through Turkey.

The U.S. plan to use the fight against the Islamic State as cover to remove the Syrian government is now in tatters. The months long U.S. supported "Southern Front" attack in south Syria failed to make any gains against the government. The Islamic State attack against Syrian government forces in Deir ez-Zor was repelled and further moves against Syria in the north will have to defy Russian air power.

Washington will now have to decide to risk war against Russia or to shelf the Syria regime change project.

Posted by b at 09:32 AM | Comments (109)

Posted by: Kim Sky | Sep 11, 2015 12:39:03 PM | 10

Wishful thinking, I'm afaid...

as far as I can tell, the war plans are too advanced for the U.S. to pull out now. seems i remember options to not begin the bombing campaign against Iraq and Afghanistan, and they did it anyway.

Posted by: james | Sep 11, 2015 12:50:41 PM | 11

b - ditto @9 post..

@10 kim - it certainly looks that way.. more war is all i can see in all of this.. the usa and it's western alliance seem to have their foot stuck permanently on the gas pedal and don't have any braking features anymore.. crash and burn has come to define it, but there is a lot to crash..

Posted by: aaaaa | Sep 11, 2015 12:58:04 PM | 12

@Kim Sky - if the resistors can make some gains it will help them immensely in a political sense.. ultimately it's crunch time right now; I'm sure the puppeteers are going to press their terrorist brigades to assault heavily over the next few days/weeks, so the SAA + allies will need to survive and advance. I've never considered the SAA to be very good, so a complete overhaul of their forces should be in order.


Ultimately I think Russia wants a political solution above all else, and isn't committing much to this enterprise.. but who knows

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Sep 11, 2015 1:09:51 PM | 15

Am I the only one that's getting the feeling that everybody is now actually in on this?

The first reports that I heard about Russia doubling down in Syria came from Ynet news, which quoted "unnamed Western officials". If what they claimed is true, as now appears to be the case, it doesn't make sense that Kerry, another Western official, would contact Lavrov to confirm whether the reports from "unnamed Western officials" were true. Surely Kerry would already know? So is it a ruse? Feigning indignation to be seen to be sticking to your principles, when in reality a compromise was reached as part of some grand deal during the nuclear negotiations?

When a temporary truce was reached between the rebels in Idlib besieging the villages of al-Foua and Kefraya, and Government forces in Zabadani besieging the rebels, it was mooted that a transfer of the civilians from these two Shiite villages would be made for the evacuation of the Zabadani rebels - ethnic cleansing lite. It was in fact Iran and Turkey that brokered the truce between the two sides, and Iran and Turkey were negotiating the exchange. Is Syria being divided; to be cut up and controlled by different sides? Is Russia now asserting control over the Government designated zones?

After two years, Abu al-Duhur airbase was the final Government position to fall in Idlib province yesterday, leaving al-Foua and Kefraya isolated. Did Iran and Turkey agree that Idlib is to be surrendered to Turkey's Islamists to mark a line between pro and anti Government control?

It is generally accepted that neither side has the capacity to defeat the other, and neither will Iran or Turkey tolerate defeat. So better to draw a line around what you have, to hold it, and to claim some small victory.

I suspect that Erdogan would now quite like things to go back to the way they were - to facilitate regaining a majority in Parliament and become President - and that the Saudis are more interested in Yemen. Did Russia throw Yemen under a bus at the UNSC and support the Saudi war in exchange for concessions on Syria? Has the Daraa "Southern Front" offensive failed because the support has subsequently dried up?

Much will be answered when the Russian bombers begin their sorties. We will see the extent of their operations and whether a line in the sand has been drawn between Government and Turkish Islamist control, and if the rest of the IS mess is to be handled by the US coalition..

(sorry, couldn't be bothered with links)

Posted by: Grieved | Sep 11, 2015 1:25:08 PM | 16

@virgile #2 - the element of theater is truly a substantial piece in this I believe. US foreign policy is obliged to maintain an ethical narrative with the US domestic population. Theater is important, and personally, apart from its still huge global financial heft, theater is about the only weapon I can see left to the US.

Against the US is Russia. Russia's actions are almost invisible in this world, but extremely effective. It may be as some say that the US war plans are too advanced to halt, but I'm sure they're also pretty transparent to the Russians. By finally sharing satellite intel with Syria, what Russia has done is notch the no-fly possibilities one degree higher, as a matching move to the US/Israel covert activities, as a warning to the hot heads to cool down, and as a preparation for further escalation if required. One degree at a time.

To me it is unthinkable that Russia will allow US to control the skies over Syria. This presumably is where the showdowns will occur - IF they even need to. There will be tactical casualties and apparent losses, but strategically I believe the US is finding itself forestalled at every turn.

Posted by: fairleft | Sep 11, 2015 1:46:16 PM | 18

Kim Sky @10: No, I disagree, and think Lavrov/Putin have played Kerry/Obama well. Fearful, uninformed, PR-centered, distrusting their idiot generals, they'll hesitate and then hesitate some more, and the warmongers' reality-defying plans won't happen. The US won't escalate and directly intervene. But unfortunately the war and terror in Syria will go on. Russia is not committing to destroy unofficial US ally Islamic State, just to prevent regime change.

Posted by: fairleft | Sep 11, 2015 1:58:14 PM | 19

Angry warmonger:

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday he would try to impose sanctions on Russia from the congressional side if the administration doesn't move in that direction. He said that Russia's military involvement in Syria will only make the terrorism threat and the refugee problems emanating from there worse.

"This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."

Posted by: plantman | Sep 11, 2015 3:54:49 PM | 28

Unfortunately, this post is mostly wishful thinking...

The US has no "Off" switch anymore.
The confrontation between Russia and the US is probably unavoidable now, although Moscow has been very clear in its actions to avoid a miscalculation.
Even so, now that Washington nabbed Incirlik, they feel obligated to press on. That means Putin will have to deploy the Migs to prevent a no-fly zone from being put into place.

Erdogan will provide the footsoldiers after another false flag helps him win the Nov 1 election.
Erdogan is a man to watch. He's going for all the marbles. He expects to get Aleppo at least for his efforts.

Washington despises him, but they figure they can take care of him after they get rid of assad. Assad comes first, then Erdogan

Putin will have to fight to stop the regime change crazies.
He doesn't want a war, but he'll be ready.

The US hasn't gotten a bloody nose in a while. I can't think of a better time than now.

Posted by: Oui | Sep 11, 2015 4:17:42 PM | 29

Hopeful sign, Germany's change of heart ...

Germany says would welcome Russian role in fighting ISIS | Reuters |

BERLIN - Germany would welcome more Russian engagement in the fight against ISIS, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Friday. "I think we would welcome the Russian Federation and the Russian president ... getting actively involved in the fight against ISIS given the dangers arising from Islamist terrrorism," spokesman Martin Schaefer said at a regular government news conference in Berlin.

German Espionage Ship Off the Syrian Coast Is a War Act | August 2012 |

Posted by: Oui | Sep 11, 2015 4:45:42 PM | 30

More hopeful signs ...

Poll finds Nato's Europeans wary of Russia confrontation

The report by the Pew Research Center - a non-partisan US think-tank based in Washington DC - surveyed attitudes in North America and across Europe as well as Ukraine and Russia to assess public attitudes towards the current Ukraine crisis.

On average in Europe, only 48% of those polled - less than half - backed the idea of their country using force to come to the aid of another Nato country attacked by Russia.

Among the countries surveyed Germany is the most reluctant: 58% of those polled said they did not think their country should use military force to defend a Nato ally against Russia. [A rise of 18 percentage points in 12 months]

France too was unenthusiastic - 53% of those polled were opposed. Even in Britain - often seen as a staunch Nato member - less than 50% supported the idea of using force to help another member of the alliance under attack.

Overview opinions by nation

Posted by: spinworthy | Sep 11, 2015 7:25:52 PM | 39

By this point in time, the majority of rational individuals in the world can clearly see that the Syrian war is, and always has been, a proxy war. The Syrian war more than any of the other recent (planned) conflicts in the ME (also including Afghanistan) was intended to be the ultimate Jackpot!

On one side (pro-Syria) we have Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
On the other side (anti-Syria) we have USA/NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel.

Defeating Assad and destroying an independent Syria primarily implies (among many other things) the following:

1. Removing Russian forces from the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
2. Cleaving and isolating Hezbollah from it's base of support.
3. Securing territory for an energy corridor from the Gulf to Turkey.

Number 1. - Benefits all of the anti-Syria players tactically (mostly USA/NATO), and strategically undermines Russia.
Number 2. - Strategically benefits Israel with minor benefits to Gulf players, while tactically undermining Iran, and strategically undermining Hezbollah.
Number 3. - Strategic benefits for Turkey and Gulf players, with perks for USA/NATO and Israel, while strategically damaging Russia and Iran.

The Syrian war is a very, very loaded situation and will not go away until something breaks.
For Russia and Hezbollah the stakes are huge (not to mention Syria!). For Iran they're not as bad. Perhaps this is why completing the Iran nuclear deal was suddenly so important for the USA a few months ago (against all the screaming out of Israel and Saudia).
For the anti-Syria group the stakes are not so huge at all. Whatever they stand to gain comes at the expense of their efforts and risks little else. Their determination, opportunism and budgetary restrictions are the main determining factors. As long as there are willing mercenaries and money, they risk little in continuing their efforts.

But...Things aren't going so well for the anti-Syria group after 4 yrs of proxy fighting they have tried several schemes to accelerate their efforts. Methods include: False flag chemical weapons attacks c/w controlled media narratives; destabilzation of Iraq in conjunction with the introduction of ever more radicalized 'islamist' proxies c/w controlled media narratives; crashing the price of oil; opening up another front against Russia and introducing sanctions. All of these were intended to shake Russia's grip and confidence, whilst hurrying up Assad's fall.
All efforts seem to be having serious blow-back issues.

Why all the sudden hysteria and hyperbole over a Russian presence in a proxy war? Perhaps as noted, to counter the blow-back and failures?

Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 11, 2015 8:34:33 PM | 41

Both Kerry and Obama have, in recent days, argued that Russia's support for Assad is responsible for the refugee crisis. I think they are getting very worried that Europe will begin to realize that the civil war supported by the US and its closest allies is causing the crisis. Today I noticed that the foreign ministers of Germany, Austria and Spain have suggested that Russia, Iran and, yes, Assad's forces could play a positive role in defeating ISIS. This is a major departure from the Assad must go policy that they supported at the urging of the US. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a major split between Europe and US over foreign policy. Not just Ukraine but the ME as well.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 11, 2015 9:00:55 PM | 42

- ISIS is a good excuse for Russia to increase their military support for Assad.

- ISIS has been demonized in the US media and it was meant to drum up support for more military action against ISIS. And when one is bombing ISIS then one can easily start bombing Assad & Co. as well, right ? No, US military action against ISIS is simply a smoke screen for action against Assad. And Russia knows it IMO.

- More over: British troops (SAS ??) are disguised as ISIS fighters in Syria. The UK & US have delayed actions against Syria because of the trouble brewing in the Ukraine. But now "Syria" has been put on the "front burner" again.

Source: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

- I see a more devious reason why Russia increases support for Assad. This will lead to more "unrest" in Syria and will increase the amount of Syrians fleeing to Turkey. Combined with other economic problems (credit bubble, decreased tourism, collapse of turkish textile exports to Russia) it will be only a matter of time before Turkey's economy will receive a (giant) blow.

And a collapse of Turkey is the last thing the US & NATO want. A military coup in Turkey is coming and will depose Erdogan. But a military coup WILL not solve the economic crisis in Turkey.

So, Russia's actions in Syria could accelerate the end of a solid, stable & reliable Turkey for the US & NATO.

Even if Russia wouldn't support Syria then increased US attacks on Syria will also lead to more syrian refugees.

There're A LOT OF "moving parts". That makes a prediction of what's going to happen very difficult. But I do think the story above gives us a good clue what is likely to happen.

Posted by: fast freddy | Sep 11, 2015 9:41:49 PM | 43

Historically, the US has only attacked defenseless countries/people. A betting man would bet that the US will back off. The same pretense - attacking ISIS - provides a face-saving out for the US and a reason for Russia to participate.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 11, 2015 10:49:10 PM | 47

S-300 and S-400 are decent anti-aircraft weapons, Turkey tested it and lost a plane. But they require a bunch of radars which can be disabled by rebels, I think, and Israel bombed a number of times with impunity. Therefore the logistic chain for SAA would enormously benefit from restoring air defenses, and that would also put rest to any ideas, mooted in American and British press, to declare "no fly zone" over Syria and make short work of Syrian regime.

So how one should go about it? I guess we see step one: radars and missiles on ship instantly bolster the air defense on the coast. I think that they operate with more than 100 mile radius, but against aircraft with countermeasures, multiple missiles are needed. So several land-based system will restore defenses from Latakia to Damascus and Jordanian border, and perhaps over Golan foothills.

Concerning troops on the ground, I doubt if Russian would like to engage the rebels, but they may have guarding duties to secure radar facilities. That cannot be purely defensive to be effective, but there could be a mission creep. Similarly, it is better for Russia if Syrian pilots are engaged against the rebels, but they can improve their aircraft and weapon supplies. After all, barrel bombs were use surely because of the shortage of more effective bombs and missiles.

The news from Germany are almost amazing. From concern at September 9 to support at September 11? Are both dispatches correct? Are the Germans so desperate that they would actually resort to a reasonable policy? After all, end of civil war in Syria, even with some lingering terrorism like in Algeria, could allow to deport/repatriate the refugees Germany suddenly volunteered to accept. Contrary to some interpretations, Germany does not have a shortage of workers given the surplus of workers (i.e. high unemployment) in Poland, Baltics and Balkans, including Greece I presume. Possible (but speculative) scenario: Merkel got a phone call from Israel that was so annoying that she decided to drop niceties and instructed her Foreign Ministry to be frank.

Interesting image from Syria: Poster, Syria, 2015 The inscription reads: "These people kneel only before God"

Great post, b, great comments, everyone.

I think this move by Russia was totally foreseeable seeing as we did their very serious and meaningful actions following the Ghouta attacks. Now, with the usual suspects laying the groundwork for a similar plan, the Russians are again obliged to repeat the actions they took then - protecting the Syrian Government from those who seek to make it fall, and protecting the Syrian people from the bloody, chaotic consequences that would surely follow. To say he is "finally stepping up to the plate", IMHO, ignores the important actions Russia has taken not just to defend major parts of Syria, but to keep the West from bombing, the results of which would be far worse than even what has come to be in Libya. And that's an important point: there is far more at stake than just the chaos of Libya. In the case of Syria, there is the probability that sectarian genocide - run by the Takfiri forces funded by the Gulf States - would occur. Russia simply cannot allow that to take place.

Syria means a great deal to Russia, and on so many more levels than people in the West understand. Syria is far more to Russia than just a base in the Mediterranean. If policy makers in the West are basing their calculus for Russian action on that relatively small issue, they are making grave miscalculations. There are real human and historical links that bind Russia and Syria. There are long standing political links that go deep back into the Soviet Era. A look at http://vk.com (you need to sign up to do searches) shows much concern over the war in Syria. There are Russians, like their counterparts in the West, who feel concerned because of the Christian link - though in Russia's case, this has an interesting historical link going back to the Czar claimed to be the defender of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. I imagine (and see evidence on VK) that Russians must also feel for the Syrian people because of the experience of the Second World War, presumably hearing the stories of their parents and grandparents of people facing conditions of total war. Finally, and this seems to make up the majority, there are those people there who clearly link all of Russia's battles - from Syria to Novorossiya - as all the same contest being directed against them from the United States. After all, the Russians know better than anyone the US links with radical Islam, and having witness the continued enmity of the US even following the dismantling of the USSR, the Russians may truthfully say (compared to the lie of George W. Bush saying it) that "we fight them in the Middle East, or we fight them at home".

The point is that there are links between Russia and Syria at all levels. And it is from these links that comes three things: the willingness of the Russian Government to take risks in the situation, the ability of the Russian Government to formulate and honest and clear policy, and finally and most importantly, the public support which allows for taking those risks without facing backlash at home. Compare the domestic political strength of the Russian position with the general weakness of the Western policy, a weakness which was exposed during the last crisis where the anti-war voice was heard loudly enough that it had to be a part of the calculations of policy makers. Surely this comes from the convoluted policy of the West which falls apart with simple attempts to even describe it, a policy which has no internal consistency that can be explained to the public at all. There are no political links between Syria and the US, evident in the fact that the US could find only exiles to populate its "revolutionary government". The Christian link is certainly there... except that the US is on the wrong side of it. Then there is the idea of an alliance with Al Qaeda - an idea which could hardly be more repugnant to the American people (to be clearly separated from their leaders). So while the Russian Government can count on domestic support, the Western governments have to rely on media gimmicks which have definite shelf life and which are, at their core, untrue and so subject to controversy in the public discussion. The refugee story is an excellent example of this - the issue is real and its emotional appeal is undeniable, but using refugees as a case for more war? This is the same as trying to square the circle. It cannot be done. The same with goes for the promotion (and I do use the word advisedly) of ISIS as a threat ultimately works against the real US policy by opening the way for Russia to call of an anti-terrorist alliance.

That said, there is the "honest" version of US policy, given in Senator Graham's statement posted by fairleft: "This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."

That's as honest as you can get from a policy maker, of course. Syria is, for the US, another chance to smack Russia. The war is about achieving US aims, and war will continue until the US achieves them. Peace for the sake of peace figures no where in the equation. Those who don't follow the warlike policy are weaklings who are allowing themselves to be "slapped in the face". So it is honest, but bring that to the American people as an excuse for another war in the Middle East and you'll get laughed out of the room, forget about finding some kind of majority. As Grieved noted: "US foreign policy is obliged to maintain an ethical narrative with the US domestic population" and when there is absolutely zero behind the US narrative, then the majority of US citizens will not back it. The only question left, then, is wether the US elite is confident enough (read: anti-democratic enough and disconnected enough) to completely ignore public opinion.

This only covers Russia's position, but the same goes for Iran. Though someone said the stakes for Iran in Syria are not so high, I disagree. I think the very clear threat to Hezbollah makes it a clear threat to Iran. Without Hezbollah, Iran will lose its main connection with Palestine and the struggle there, and this connection is a key to the Islamic Revolution's raison d'être as any. But the stakes for Iran are evident in the huge amount they've invested in fighting ISIS and al Qaeda in both Iraq and Syria. The Iranian's are no strangers to facing war by carried out by US puppets, and certainly they know very well that allowing a radical Takfiri state (allied with KSA and ultimately with the US) to form in the ashes of Iraq and Syria means war on Iran anyway so why not risk all to kill this viper in its nest?

==============

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 12:45:25 AM | 48

Posted by: fairleft | Sep 12, 2015 1:20:31 AM | 49

Great post by b, great posts by everyone in the comments, especially:

Pat Bateman | Sep 11, 2015 1:09:51 PM | 15

Grieved | Sep 11, 2015 1:25:08 PM | 16

b | Sep 11, 2015 3:09:47 PM | 24

plantman | Sep 11, 2015 3:54:49 PM | 28 (Though I disagree generally, this is great: "The US has no "Off" switch anymore." Yes! There's an automatic quality to US military/economic aggression these days, unguided but PR-ed by people like Kerry/Obama. But the beast does have at least a reptile brain, and recoils for a period in the face of real danger. But the US proxies will keep on fighting, funding will likely be boosted, "let's have a war to save the refugees" will keep on being uncritically blasted from the 'respectable' media. More generally, the US will keep on coming, with one scheme after another for unipolar world power preservation. Each new one will be a bit less reality-based until the game is lost, I hope.)

guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 12:45:25 AM | 47

Posted by: jfl | Sep 12, 2015 2:27:11 AM | 52

BREAKING: US drones strike Syrian Army, blame ISIS

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) of the US Air Force struck Syrian government forces [at Camac near Hamah] on September 10. This was stated by the senior representative of the Syrian military. He pointed out that this attack was disguised as an air strike by militants of the Islamic State, allegedly using a captured MiG-21.

According to a Syrian air force colonel, militants of the Islamic State successfully managed to capture the military air field [Abu al-Duhur]. However, no current equipment had been there by the time, as everything was previously transferred to other air fields so as to avoid seizure by the terrorists ... militants of the Islamic State physically could not carry out air strikes on the positions of the Syrian military. ... Citing anonymous US officials, the newspaper [Washington Post] writes that the CIA and Joint Command of Special Operations are implementing a joint program of drone flights over Syria. The secret program means a significant strengthening of CIA intervention in the war in Syria.

According to the statements of high-ranking military in Syria, it was drones, and not "terrorist MiG's" which attacked the Syrian army. This is not the first time that US forces have struck the Syrian army, hiding behind the Islamic State.

It would be nice to see open season on US drones in Syria ... and not only in Syria. In Yemen as well. Someone above, Okie Farmer, calls attention to the fact that ...
Nils Muiznieks of the Council of Europe called the developments [Residents in the mainly Kurdish town [Cizre] say they have been unable to buy food or medical supplies since the military imposed a curfew eight days ago.] "distressing".

... how long has it been since all the Yemenis in Yemen have been unable to buy food or medical supplies? Anyone heard anything from the Council of Europe on that one? Not so much, aye.

The report I read of the fall of Abu al-Duhur yesterday emphasized Al CIA-da's subsequent straight line of attack against Latakia in consequence. Interesting to see them attack the Russians ensconced there. No doubt they'd have US drone support?

Posted by: jfl | Sep 12, 2015 3:02:53 AM | 53

A Russian-Egyptian alliance?


Rapidly expanding instability in the Middle East, coupled with the inconsistency of Washington's foreign policy, is driving Arab leaders to seek partners and allies on the side.

Several high-ranking politicians from a number of Muslim countries, such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Deputy Supreme Commander of the UA, Mohammed al-Nahyan, Vice-President of Iran Surna Sattari, Syrian Minister for National Reconciliation Ali Haidar, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah, all visited Moscow on business trips. It is this last meeting which is of greater interest ...

The problem of combatting the spread of radical islam and expanding the geography of a "Green International" occupies a special place in Russian-Egyptian relations. In particular, the President of Egypt expressed his support for the Russian program for resolving the Syrian conflict, whose main point is the necessity of forming a broad anti-terrorist coalition led by Syrian government forces.

The solidarity of the Egyptian side with Putin's proposed plan of settling the Syrian conflict means exactly one thing: Egypt not only recognizes the legitimacy of Bashar al-Assad, but also believes that "the tyrant doesn't have to leave at all." This is a very significant statement, as the main sponsor of Egypt is Saudi Arabia, for whom the overthrow of Assad is a cornerstone of regional policy.


It's still difficult to see who will step up to the plate and dispatch the CIA/Daesh, but it does seem clear that Syria has more supporters now than a few weks ago, and is gaining more, or firmer support daily. Putin would not stick his neck out if he thought it might get chopped off. And if the Russian presence in Syria restrains the Israelis ... that alone is worthwhile. May it restrain European knee-jerk support for the USA, too.

The 'leadership' in the USA is divided, just as b points out. Things are happening 'to' the US and they are reacting. They've done the 'best' they can, conjured up the worst demons whose names they knew, and it still hasn't 'worked out'. Worse, their vassals have noticed that it hasn't, noticed that the US is reacting rather than acting, noticed that things have slipped beyond the US' control.

Multiple-centers of power may well now emerge, beginning in Europe and MENA. The US may well have foolishly, though successfully divided its own power base, and conquered itself.

irgile | Sep 12, 2015 11:06:05 AM | 63

Kerry's surprise appears totally theatrical and destined mainly to the Saudis and to the supporters of the Syrian opposition

The decision of Turkey to join the coalition has triggered an expected reaction from Russia.
Turkey has been long committed to a regime change in Syria. While Saudi and Qatar's would obey the USA in refraining from bombing the Syrian army, Turkey may find it the best opportunity to weaken the Syrian government, boost Erdogan's credibility and protect the Islamist militias they have been funding and supporting in Syria. The USA has little leverage on Turkey from the moment it uses the Incirlik base.
That's the reason why Russia decided to show its teeth. No way would it accept that the US coalition threatens the Syrian army. It has been expecting this to happen and has been prepared for a long time.
Iran is also preparing for the same and will act in defense of the Alawites and Hezbollah in case Damascus or the coast is seriously threatened.

In view of the tougher attitude of Russia and Iran, the Turks have tried to reassure them that they are too busy repressing Kurds and dealing with their doomed "snap election" that they have no intentions of attacking anybody in Syria. The Russians and the Iranians just do not trust the Turks and took their precautions. I trust that we will not see a single Turkish plane bombing Syria !

The official entrance of Russia in Syria is a game changer and the USA is discreetly playing its part

john | Sep 12, 2015 12:47:35 PM | 74

Virgile @ 63 says:

The USA has little leverage on Turkey from the moment it uses the Incirlik base

WTF does that mean? the USA has used the Incirlik air base uninterruptedly since they built it in 1951. it has always been central to wars both cold and hot in the region and plenty of other imperial subterfuge as well(spawning ground for 'ISIS'?). it sports state-of-the-art surveillance equipment, a 10,000 ft runway and 50 or so hardened aircraft shelters. it's home to the 39th air base wing and about 5,000 airmen and repository for something like 90 b61 nuclear warheads.

i don't think they need no stinkin' leverage.

GoraDiva | Sep 12, 2015 3:36:48 PM | 78

An excellent explanation from a Syrian commentator at the Saker
http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-1-the-islamist-american-love-hate-quagmire-facts-and-myths/
(Too bad Juan Cole does not really understand (never has) what is going on in Syria and the wider ME.)
This post gives a lot of background - some known, some less so, and an explanation of where ISIS is coming from.

guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 3:54:50 PM | 79

Russia's deepening military involvement in Syria will make it harder to dislodge Bashar al-Assad from power and find a political solution to the war raging there, President Barack Obama said....

"The strategy they're pursuing now, doubling down on Assad, I think is a big mistake," Obama said Friday in remarks to military personnel at Fort Meade, Maryland.

tom | Sep 12, 2015 4:09:19 PM | 80

These Obama comments posted by rufus say it all. To paraphrase Our Dear Peace Prize Winner - "The US wants a political solution! (only after we've achieved all our military aim of removing the government)". How gracious.

After this logical blunder, he goes on to give us his analysis of Putin's latest moves as "a big mistake". From the man who never passed up a foul compromised deal, be it on taxes or healthcare, he ought to know a big mistake. But I imagine he is safe from that knowledge safe in his little Presidential cocoon. Obama goes from mistake to mistake, he hardly needs to be giving others lessons in that regard.

America's "HOPE" President, now on track to have initiated more overthrows of governments than Eisenhower and Nixon combined.

Just on adding to the comment on Turkish leverage with the U.S. By allowing them to use the Incirlik airbase.

No matter what conditions the Turks think they can force onto the US, it will be completely delusional if they believe it. The endlessly duplicitous US Empire couldn't give a fuck about what fake promises they made as they have forever shown.

Imagine during the US bombing campaign in Syria using the Incirlik airbase ( or any over Turkish military facility ) In a way works against Turkeys wishes, hegemony or its interests, what are they gonna do, demand the US stop using our base in the middle of a US war ? The Turks might as well declare war on the US itself if they tried that.

US could arm Turkish Kurds to make life difficult for the Turkish military, and an endless array of other threats.
There's only one current military empire and it's like not like the US doesn't know it.
The Turks know it and the US knows it - in other words, nearly no leverage whatsoever.

rufus magister | Sep 12, 2015 4:25:07 PM | 81

g77 at 78 --

I esp. like the way it elides the fact that we created, along with the French, this whole mess in Syria to begin with.

Haven't we learned any lessons about implementing fantasies of transformative regime change? Especially when using fundamentalist proxies supplied by our theocratic Saudi friends.

jfl | Sep 12, 2015 4:39:45 PM | 82

@69 harry law, @77 goradiva

I think Juan Cole understands completely. He's an army brat, a born and bred American imperialist of the kinder, gentler variety.

@67

The Iranians have a better take on the Saudi crane.

@46 virgile, @66 james

Yes ... that article to the 'insiders' indicates that Kerry/the US expects Saudi Arabia and the Gulfies to finish off their war games in Yemen and swing up to help Daesh/ISIS give Assad/Syria the Gaddalfi/Libya treatment.

There seems to be no limit to the depths to which the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate will sink, and the velocity of my country's implosion continues to accelerate. Like a black hole it is sucking "Western Civilization" into its vortex. Nothing, not even light - if there were any, can escape.

john | Sep 13, 2015 6:38:59 AM | 85

john @ 73 says:

i don't think they need no stinkin' leverage

the Turkey/US deal regarding the use of the Incirlik base was a real big talking point in the nooze a while back. a perfect example of parsable fodder fit for the hoi polloi. any suggestion that the US hegemon asks permission for anything from anyone is risible.

Sibel Edmonds cuts to the chase.

Jackrabbit | Sep 13, 2015 1:00:46 PM | 87

Interesting discussion. Especially liked "no off switch".

fairleft @60
Don't you think Russia would probably prefer not to send planes over ISIS-controlled territory?

jfl | Sep 13, 2015 8:32:43 PM | 93

The Saker has an interesting analysis of the Russians - Iranians, Hezbolla - in Syria.

brian | Sep 13, 2015 10:59:34 PM | 96

amazing! US media war dance:

'"This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."'

does the writer believe what he writes?
a war in syria makes insecure america less safe how? Doesnt the US backed war in Yemen make america less safe?

Obama and Kerry have never sought a solution that didnt involve more chaos and more jihadis.

Americans whether in the backwoods of Oregon or the towers of NY live in ignorance and hopes the rest of us are

brian | Sep 13, 2015 11:36:35 PM | 97

US and its media continnue to act as agents of ISIS and alnusra as we see in Josh Rogins article... while doing his best to twist reality into a pretzel http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/russias_syrian_air_base_has_us.html

Piotr Berman | Sep 15, 2015 7:27:07 PM | 108

Re: Louis Proyect, "So funny that ..."

I prefer fun not based on thousands lives lost and millions lives wrecked. A more thoughtful analysis would start from examining cases of similar terrible conflicts in the past and present. Mexican revolution lasted ten years of "war of all against all", and so did La Violencia in Colombia. Violence is still present in those societies even if governments are quite stable -- and sketchily democratic. Algeria had a conflict of similar duration, now the regime seems to be stable again.

Americans ("American-led coalition") did not lack resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, and results were woeful. The prognosis of GCC + USA + mercenary allies in Yemen is not good at all, even with "reasonable goal of restoring to power the legitimate President who won elections with 99.8% votes cast and 65% turnout" and all weapons that oil money can buy (although those monies were stashed in better years than 2015).

The positive stories are Algeria and various regimes that survived ethnic and other rebellions, usually (not always) with Western aid. Three ingredients may be crucial: domestic force with a sufficiently wide base and military competence, supplies of war material, and restricting those supplies to the opponents. Iraq has widely based government of mediocre competence, Syrian government seems to have narrower base (but not an isolated small elite group) but it demonstrated much higher level of competence.

Given that Syrian government had modest resources and yet survived and brought the insurgency more-or-less to stalemate, in spite of copious supplies that it got, it is reasonable to expect that with somewhat larger external resources it can actually win. By the way of contrast, if we eliminate "the regime", the governability of Syria is very questionable, given the record of atrocities AND infighting among the opposition. Mad Max movies give an almost prophetic depiction of what can be expected.

Of course, the West can easily increase the supplies to the opposition forces, But the sober question asked here if this is a good idea: fomenting a number of atrocious wars for some vague and contradictory goals. It is worth to observe that we do not have any Iron Curtain any more, so atrocious problems created "on the other side" trickle to "our side". Also, if simply doing nothing is more humane and decent than the current course of action, one should expeditiously stop funding and otherwise facilitating the supply of weapons and recruits to rebels in Syria and Iraq, and drop embargoes affecting the government of Syria, and we can get Algerian solution, perhaps more democratic, perhaps less, hopefully much better governance than in Egypt. If the Islamists of Turkey would loose face and power in the process, it could be a huge bonus.

Turkey shows Western dilemma starkly: we start from "exporting freedom" and we end up importing police state.

Putin Accuses World Of Using Terrorist Groups To Destabilize Governments

"...If you've followed the incessant back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow over the course of the proxy wars raging in Ukraine and Syria, you know that the Kremlin is without equal when it comes to describing US foreign policy in a way that is both succinct and accurate. "
"...The first thing to note there is that Putin has essentially called the US out for using terrorists to destabilize Assad. So for anyone just looking for the punchline, that was it. Everyone else, read on. "
"...As clear as that is, the US must stick to the absurd notion that the Pentagon just can't seem to get to the bottom of what Russia is doing and to the still more absurd idea that Russia - who seems to be the only outside party that's actually interested in fighting ISIS as evidenced by the fact that there are Russian boots on the ground - is somehow hurting the very serious effort by the US and its allies to defeat Islamic radicals in Syria. "
Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

If you've followed the incessant back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow over the course of the proxy wars raging in Ukraine and Syria, you know that the Kremlin is without equal when it comes to describing US foreign policy in a way that is both succinct and accurate.

This was on full display earlier this year when Vladimir Putin's Security Council released a document that carried the subtle title "About The US National Security Strategy." We've also seen it on a number of occasions over the past several weeks in the wake of Russia's stepped up military role in support of the Assad regime at Latakia. For instance, last week, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova delivered the following hilariously veracious assessment of how Washington has sought to characterize Moscow's relationship with Damascus:

"First we were accused of providing arms to the so-called 'bloody regime that was persecuting democratic activists, now it's a new edition - we are supposedly harming the fight against terrorism. That is complete rubbish."

Yes, it probably is, but let's not forget that Russia hasn't exactly been forthcoming when it comes to acknowledging that, like Washington, Moscow's interest in Syria is only related to terrorism to the extent that terrorism serves as a Western tool to destabilize the Assad regime which, you're reminded, must remain in place if Putin intends to protect Gazprom's iron grip over Europe's supply of natural gas.

Of course what that suggests is that even as Russia uses ISIS as a smokescreen to justify sending troops to Syria, the Kremlin is by definition being more honest about its motives than The White House. That is, ISIS has destabilized Assad and because Russia has an interest in keeping the regime in power, Moscow actually does have a reason to eradicate Islamic State. The US, on the other hand, facilitated the destabilization of the country in the first place by playing a role in training and arming all manner of Syrian rebels, and to say that some of them might well have gone on to fight for ISIS would be a very generous assessment when it comes to describing the CIA's involvement (a less generous assessment would be to call ISIS a "strategic CIA asset"). That means that the US will only really care about wiping out ISIS once Assad is gone and it's time to install a puppet government that's friendly to both Washington and Riyadh and at that point - assuming there are no other regimes in the area that the Pentagon feels like might need destabilizing - the US military will swiftly "liberate" Syria from the ISIS "scourge."

To be sure, Russia is well aware of the game being played here and if there's anything Vladimir Putin is not, it's shy about calling the US out, which is precisely what he did on Tuesday at a security summit of ex-Soviet countries in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Bloomberg has more:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the fight against Islamic State should be the global community's top priority in Syria, rather than changing the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

"It's necessary to think about the political transition in that country" and Assad is willing to "involve healthy opposition forces in the administration of the state," Putin said. "But the focus today is definitely on the need to combine forces in the fight against terrorism."

Countries need to "put aside geopolitical ambitions" as well as "direct or indirect use of terrorist groups to achieve" goals that include regime change, in order to counter the threat of Islamic State, Putin said. "Elementary common sense responsibility for global and regional security demands the collective effort of the international community."

The first thing to note there is that Putin has essentially called the US out for using terrorists to destabilize Assad. So for anyone just looking for the punchline, that was it. Everyone else, read on.

At this point what should be obvious is that Vladimir Putin's intentions in Syria are anything but unclear. Russia is openly supplying the Assad regime with military aid in an effort to prevent terrorists and extremists (some of which were trained by the US and received aid from Qatar) from facilitating the strongman's ouster. It's that simple and frankly, the only two things Russia hasn't made explicitly and publicly clear (because this is international diplomacy after all, which means everyone is always lying about something) are i) the role that natural gas plays in all of this, and ii) that the Kremlin will seek to prevent anyone from overthrowing Assad, so to the extent that there are any real, well-meaning "freedom fighters" in Syria, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of Russian tank fire just the same as ISIS.

As clear as that is, the US must stick to the absurd notion that the Pentagon just can't seem to get to the bottom of what Russia is doing and to the still more absurd idea that Russia - who seems to be the only outside party that's actually interested in fighting ISIS as evidenced by the fact that there are Russian boots on the ground - is somehow hurting the very serious effort by the US and its allies to defeat Islamic radicals in Syria. Here's Bloomberg again:

Russia's intentions in Syria are unclear and it's important for U.S. diplomats to understand them, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday. While Putin's said it wants to prevent Islamic State's expansion, "explaining the purpose and seeing how it actually evolves on the ground are two very different things and we will be working on that," Dempsey said.

Right, "explaining" that your "purpose" is to take your very powerful military and defeat what amounts to a large militia that's woefully under-armed and under-trained by comparison "and seeing how it actually evolves are two very different things." If you buy that argument, then you are buying into the patently ridiculous idea that if the US and Russia were to bring their combined military might to bear on ISIS in Syria, that somehow the outcome of that battle would be in doubt.

The Pentagon knows that notion is silly, but what it also knows is that once American troops are on the ground, there's no not routing the other militants while you're there, so what would happen in relatively short order, is that the opposition would be all gone and then, well, what do you do with Assad?

The much more straightforward way to go about this (unless of course you have a 9/11 and a story about WMDs buried in the desert as a cover that makes an outright, unilateral invasion possible), is to allow for the entire country to descend into chaos until one or more rebel/extremist groups finally manages to take Damascus, at which point you simply walk in with the Marines and remove them, then install any government you see fit. In the meantime, you just fly over and bomb stuff (hopefully with a coalition that includes Europe) in order to ensure that the situation remains sufficiently unstable. But now this plan won't work, because unless we see a replay of the Soviet-Afghan war, none of Syria's rebel groups are going to be able to rout the Russian army which means the US is stuck doing exactly what it's doing now: trying to explain why it won't join Russia in a coalition to eradicate ISIS while working to figure out what's next now that the Russians are officially on the ground.

We'll close with the following from Alexander Golts, a military analyst and deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal who spoke to WSJ:

"The idea of this is…to show Russia as part of the alliance of civilized nations that are standing against barbarism. But that idea won't have much of a chance, because the U.S. and the Saudis and others consider Assad the source of the problem."

COSMOS

http://www.rt.com/news/315465-bmw-ceo-faints-stage/

Symbolic of what is happening in Germany right now. And very Prophetic.

Germany is on its way down, the ROT starts from the TOP (at least with fish it does). Merkel is about the most rotten one there is. Seems like the disease is spreading.

They all should of stayed away from Nulands SWEETS

http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=12031

Scroll down and see that life is Sweet for the ones on the Winning Team.

Save_America1st

Putin: "Putin Accuses World Of "Using Terrorist Groups" To Destabilize Governments"

Yeah, well: The Truth Is Treason In An NWO-Bankster's Empire Of Lies

TeamDepends

"Welcome to Europe, invaders!" - Soros
It is hard to believe the POS that is Soros could get any stinkier, but he will stop at nothing.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Tk74-O-so

Latina Lover

But now this plan won't work, because unless we see a replay of the Soviet-Afghan war, none of Syria's rebel groups are going to be able to rout the Russian army which means the US is stuck doing exactly what it's doing now: trying to explain why it won't join Russia in a coalition to eradicate ISIS while working to figure out what's next now that the Russians are officially on the ground.

Putin is calling out the USSA on its BS, and showing to the world that Amerika is the greatest sponsor of Islamic Terrorism. Putin will offer proof that the USSA is behind the creation of ISIS, and the best way to eradicate terrorism is to stop supporting it to overthrow governments Amerika does not like. This is the real story.

johngaltfla

"Terrorist group" = CIA

Nuff said.

Raging Debate

Latina - While all of this is correct subtle but dangerous signals are not being heard by the American public at large and some that is like WSJ readers isnt being absorbed as to just how dangerous all this is.

Check out Karl Denningers site. He has commentators discussing going over there and "kicking muzzies asses" on a thread about following money. i don't see Karl's magic ban-hammer coming out or even scolding these people. But oh oh hoh! Bring up how the BIS and CFR relations run this world and watch how fast that hammer comes out.

While I admire the man for educating on some issues he is is fucktarded willfully ignorant on what really counts in how systems work. That is wierd considerin he touts himself as a master systems engineer.

This situation wit Russia is analagous to cornering a grizzly in his cave and you have a .22. Sure you'll kill it but not before it knocks your head off. And even though Putin may be attempting to be more moderate (out ot necessity) he would not hesitate to kill every living person on earth and even accept 50% Russian casualties than have Russia become owned again by Jmafia. And tye Russian people would be right behind him all the way.

As a double agent training of course will play a game within a game. Shit though even Kissinger knows this is taking a really bad turn.

Enough said about this subject. Some things going forward may hurt rather than help the global populace and my American countrymen. But I really wished some leaders understood we are 40-50 years from ending classical death and onto other places even potentially outside our very universe. One big giant waste of time and the death toll will get God awful.

Urban Redneck

The UN would not lay off desk jockeys if Hell froze over. Anyone can address the UN in whatever language they please, and the UN is always happy to hire moar desk jockeys to accommodate them.

Lavrov can, in English, articulate the long and inevitably backfiring history of US arming terrorists and draw the parallel to current situation with ISIS in Syria. Over 80% of the leaders assembled comprehend English, and 100% of their press corps and thought police do, as well as a huge chuck of their respective plebes back home, which eliminates a massive and critical tool of the establishment to control the public narrative. It wouldn't be politically (or socially) correct for Putin to so, even if could speak fluent English, but that's what Foreign Ministers are for.

indygo55

I saw the sarcasm. The US is such a fucking amatuer here. That they got caught like this is really the playing out of the story where Putin is playing chess and Obama (or whomever is steering him) is playing checkers. The table might get thrown over by the fools.

trulz4lulz

Our "government has been doing this for 50 fucking years, at least. Central America, South Ameria, various Asian nations, the middle east, north Africa,, central Africa....I wont even bother naming all the countries its fucked over. Time for them to pay the god damned piper if you ask me.

Bay Area Guy

50 years? Hell, it's been screwing over MENA for at least 70 years. Central and South America have gotten hosed since before the Civil War.

FIAT CON

Free book on the subject by John Perkins

http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Money_and_Economics/confessions_of_a...

Freddie

The Founding Fathers would never have approved of Israeli Rita Katz and her green screen videos of fake ISIS beheadings and other nonsense. I hope Spielberg works with her soon so ISIS can feed hostages tio a Great White shark and to dinosaurs.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d14_1412697367

ThroxxOfVron

Chuck Schumer's primary concerns in order of importance:

1. Chuck Schumer

2. Chuck Schumer

3. Chuck Schumer

4. AIPAC $$$$

5. Chuck Schumer's Committee assignments:

.... Schumer currently serves on the following Senate Committees in the 114th United States Congress:

.... Committee on Finance;

.... Subcommittee on Health Care;

.... Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight;

.... Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy;

.... Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs;

.... Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development;

.... Subcommittee on Financial Institutions;

.... Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment;

.... Committee on the Judiciary;

.... Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts;

.... Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights;

.... Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs;

.... Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security (Ranking Member);

.... Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security;

.... Committee on Rules and Administration (Ranking Member);

.... Joint Committee on the Library (Vice Chair);

.... Joint Committee on Printing ..."Get to work Mr. Chairman.." (Chairman);

.... Joint Economic Committee ;

.... International Narcotics Control Caucus;

.... Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (Chair).

6. Israel

7. The Democratic National Committee

8. Campaign donations and bribes paid to Chuck Schumer

9. 'Jews'

10. Chuck Schumer's hair

Raging Debate

11b40 - Good point. Consider this. Empires seem to last less than 400 years. This banking one where it buys governments has just about run its course.

It was no wonder Jefferson was freaking out about a private central bank to run the currency. Because once that happens it is only a matter of time before the government sells out.

By the late eighties the Rothschild model pretty much conquered the globe. When that happens and empire attempts to use an iron fist to retain all power is when it all goes south pretty quickly. Shame that playing King of the Hill this time will get 1/3 of the global population dead. As for specifics, lets just say evolution. As mentioned not going to inflame passions on by offering up certain speculations any more.

God bless people of all nations. May we forgive one another after this cycle ends. All of our shit kinda reeks a bit if one really has the stones to look in a mirror.

[Aug 30, 2015] The Abyss Looks Back: Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

Aug 25, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
... ... ...

On Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

A lot of august bodies have decided to share their thoughts on the current vis-à-vis between Russia and what is colloquially known as "the West". Most of such "musings" inevitably touches the subject of the current situation in Ukraine, due to it's being a "hotspot" in the bilateral relations. Most often we are graced by some strongly worded opinions from the veritable Legion of the Free and Independent Western press (), or it might be even a Deep and Thorough Analysis by this or that think-tank, NGO or research facility, sharing with the hoi-poloi of the world their convoluted (and, therefore, unquestionably true) findings on the nature of things they probably didn't even have any previous personal contact with.

And then we have something… anomalous. And huge. I'm talking here about a report (well, "commentary", to be precise) of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a rather self- explanatory name for an organization.

The Limits and Necessity of Europe's Russia Sanctions

The picture below the title of the article shows Moscow's Kremlin and the snow-covered streets of Moscow. Because –apparently! – it is always gloomy and snowy in Russia. How you gonna argue with such a paragon of Western objectivity on Russia's portrayal as the Independence Day movie, where there is snow in Russia in July?!

You might say that I'm too nitpicky. Honestly, I'll cease and desist the very moment the West stops this kind of petty manipulation of public perception of my country.

The article from the very beginning says what it's about:

To get a clearer understanding of the situation it might be useful to start from the other end – not to ask if the sanctions work, but to first look at the nature of Europe's problem with Russia and ask what it would take to fix it, or even whether it can be fixed by the West at all. That will allow us to see what role the sanctions can play in remedying the problem – and what the things that sanctions cannot accomplish are.

In short – this article is about judging Russia by the esteemed people of the EUrocracy, and determining – is it worthy of their "mercy". The author asks her audience,

"Do we want Russia to leave Donbas? Give back Crimea? Do we expect a regime change in Moscow? Or do we want Russia to start behaving "as a normal European country," i.e. one that tries to base its influence on attraction rather than coercion?"

with the straightest face possible. Suddenly, Russia became an object of EU decisions, as if Russia now is a member of the EU (it isn't) or that the EU is some super strong, unified world power capable of really compelling Russia to do it's bidding (again – nope).

Unfortunately, what follows is the author's opinion on "the nature of our Russian problem". The author had a mighty lot of predecessors willing to find a "final solution" for the "Russian problem". This particular individual, elevated well above her station by the simple fact that she writes for the ECFR, does the most "professional" thing possible – goes full ad hominem not only against Russian president Vladimir Putin (KGB reference included), but to the Russian people as well. You see, for the author of this "commentary", Russians are just "rent-seeking clients" mobilized against "enemy figures – real or imaginary". The Russian system of education (in the Soviet era, second to none – now "thankfully" reformed by the West worshiping "democrats") plus "the state-centric way history and international relations are taught at Russian schools and universities" has contributed to the fact that the EU is "having problems" with Russia.

As a person educated in Russia by the Russian system of education (including Higher Education) I can say that this kind of claim is inaccurate. In the Moscow State University (aka "Lomonosov's") our professors took a lot of effort to drive us to the "multi-vector approach" of the history and historiography, taught us of many existing schools of thoughts and research. No one indoctrinated gentle young souls into some Putin-worshiping cult. I can safely claim, from personal experience, that I was educated from a plethora of historical textbooks – including extremely "handshakable" ones, both in school (state run) and at the Uni. Still, I am who I am despite (and thanks) to everything that I've learned earlier. So, basically implying that the Russian state is "brainwashing" youngsters in the state-run higher education institutions is a big fat lie. One only need to look at MSU's (of Lomonosov) Journalism department to see teeming masses of "handshakables" and "not-living-by-the-lie-ers" in the making.

But the article is actually right in one regard – it admits the vast abyss that exists now between the Western perception of the current situation and the Russian one. The author is even sufficiently capable to articulate it correctly:

What makes the current standoff so tense and dangerous is not the reach of Russia's territorial ambitions, as many suggest, but vice versa – the limited nature of them, and its psychological implications. Moscow sees itself as having given up everything: it has left Central Europe, it has left the Baltic States, not to mention Cuba, Africa and the Middle East, but now the West seems intent on 'taking' the last little bit that was left – 'brotherly' Ukraine. Of course Moscow takes it emotionally and tries to fight back.

But then, as tradition dictates, the author allows her own ideological bias to distort the rest of the narrative in what might have become an honest attempt to look at the current problem from both sides' perspective:

The countries in Russia's neighbourhood – in what one can call the Eastern Partnership area – received their independence semi-accidentally in 1991, when it was promptly hijacked by corrupt elites. Now, their societies are starting to mature and demand better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures. This manifests in a bumpy, but inevitable evolutionary process that the EU did not launch and does not control, but cannot do anything other than support. Moscow, on the other hand, is fixated on the elites it can control – and therefore bound to resist it. The clash is systemic, and likely to manifest repeatedly as long as the fundamentals remain unchanged.

Calling the multitude of processes that in the end resulted in the dissolution of the USSR "a semi-accident" is an admission of one's ignorance about the history of every single country of the so-called "Eastern Partnership area". The author also fails to mention that "societies" (the author obviously likes this term as much as she despises the term "the people") in some of these countries indeed have found an answer how to reach a "better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures". One only has to look at Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. And let's not forget that Russia itself was "promptly hijacked by corrupt elites". And what the EU "did not launch… but cannot do anything other than support" were the forces inimical to these governments, which managed, indeed, to bring better governance, rule of law (which was non-existent before) and more say over their countries' futures (that's it – they will have more say about it, not some "advisers" from Brussels or Washington).

And then the article lists all the reasons why the West won't reach any agreement with Russia. The EU will continue to do what it pleases, not giving a damn about Russian concerns over "spheres of influence" because of "the OSCE charter, the principles of the Council of Europe, the founding documents of the EU and NATO and so forth"- even despite the fact that some members of Russia's elite are indeed ready to strike a deal with them. This sort of sincerity is kinda refreshing, I must say. When a person speaking on behalf of the West freely admits that they don't care about Russia's opinion at all, that any real equal dialog is pointless, this sounds both arrogantly prideful and refreshingly new.

But the article also discusses some methods to "fix the Russian problem"! Once again, I'm reminded of some other high-ranking citizens of the "United Europe" of old, who had similar plans. But the new generation is much, much more merciful to the undeserving "lessers":

Ideally, Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential. Some experts suggest that to achieve that, we need a regime change in Russia. This would be true if our Russia-problem was rooted solely in the personality of Putin and the nature of his regime – but this is probably not the case. Russia's dominance-fixated mindset has survived multiple regime changes…

What is needed, therefore, is something much more complicated: Russia's sincere and extensive rethink of the means and ends of its international behaviour. This is closer to an identity change, than to a regime change. And a lot trickier. While such things have happened in history, the circumstances that bring them about are generally unpredictable and tend to vary greatly – which means that this is not something that outsiders can easily bring about, and achieve a desired outcome.

One of the biggest reasons why Russians resisted so fiercely (and why the common people's memory preserved it through generations) the many-faced West is because of its desire to "re-make" and "re-model" Russia into forms more suitable to the West. Numerous nomads from the East were up to the usual stuff – pillage, burning, slave taking. But they've never dictated to the Russians how they should rule themselves or how they must worship. Only the West did it and by doing it have forever earned the special degree of distrust – confirmed once again by this "commentary" of the EU institution, not intended to be read by Russian "savages" at all. While the author generously admits that "perhaps" Russia doesn't warrant a "regime change" (which, you must understand, is sort of a norm for the Free and Democratic West – i.e. changing legally elected "regimes" for fun and profit) in Russia, she still argues for an "ideal" Russia without an independent foreign policy; she is arguing for Russia surrendering its security and economical concerns in the name of "appealing to Europe". Oh, and she also dreams of a Russia which abandons any thoughts of allying itself with China because the EU are the good guys, and China is a "meanie".

The article is a true hodge-podge of some brilliant epiphanies (for a typical westerner) – when, say, the author argues that the West's blind support or Yeltsin in 1996 in face of the possible "communist revival" has been unwarranted and even harmful. But then, unfortunately, the author decides to touch upon the subject of Western sanctions, and here we might glimpse the true attitude of "what it's all about" concerning them:

This implies a wider strategy that consists of boosting the security of the vulnerable EU and NATO members, defending the independence and sovereignty of the EaP countries, and keeping sanctions until the conditions for lifting them – implementations of the Minsk agreements or settlement of the Crimea issue – are fulfilled…

… It is good that the sanctions are linked to concrete demands – return of Crimea and fulfilment of the Minsk agreements. This provides a relatively clear conditionality that Europe needs to stick to. While the Crimea-related sanctions will probably remain in place for the foreseeable future, as a settlement of the issue is not on the horizon, the Minsk agreements are supposed to be implemented by the end of the year.

This is very notable, because in just a few paragraphs a person close to the EU analytical stuff (at least) admits that:

  1. Russia MUST "return" Crimea to Ukraine
  1. b) Russia will be held personally accountable for any failures in implementation of Minsk agreement.

And despite the fact that the author tries to distract us with all her flowery words about "one does not need to make sanctions a 'barometer' of Russian behaviour in Ukraine" (because, As Everybody Knows It () – "Russia is waging a war on the territory in the territory of Ukraine, and about Zero percent of locals actual contribute to it"), while demanding that the EU's policy " must consist of a refusal to roll back sanctions before Ukraine has gained full control of its eastern border". In short – the current Kiev government can do nothing regarding their responsibilities according to the Minsk-2 accord (with the blessing of the EU, it's implied), but Russia must be held responsible for EVERYTHING. And be sanctioned appropriately, should it falter in its duties. After all, "sanctions should be a slow squeeze that gradually reduces Russia's freedom of manoeuvre and thereby reminds it of its misdeeds and Europe's displeasure."

The conclusion of the article, despite the absence of any bellicose terms, reads (at least for me) as a declaration of War against Russia:

Europe needs to be aware that our problem with Russia is long-term and multi-layered. It is clear that the sanctions are not a miracle cure to fix it all, but they need to be a small part of a bigger strategy. They are instrumental in restoring our credibility and possibly fixing a few near- or medium term goals. Getting that right, however, is important, as credibility is something Europe badly needs if it wants to influence processes in the future. Hence the necessity of sanctions – despite all their limits.

Actually, the majority of politically aware Russians won't find anything "revelatory" in this article. It's been a "Punchinello's Secret" that the EU will always skew more on the side of regime in Kiev while reviewing the "fulfillment" of the Minsk-2 resolution. The Official EU (as opposed to its individual members) will always see Russia as an aggressor and the guilty party by default. While the talks about "possible cancellation of sanctions" remain a sort of tasty carrot for some people (especially for some too eager to sell Crimea for a batch of the "true" Italian Mozzarella cheese), the fact remains – the EU will renew its sanctions against Russian at the end of 2015, no matter what.

The sheer gall of claiming that "…Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential" is astonishing. Since when did the so-called "United Europe" abandon the use of "coercion to win allies and make itself influential"? What has happened to the collective memory of the Enlightened Western Public () (Totally Entitled to Its Own Opinion Even Without Knowing A Thing) about the events that preceded the bloody coup d'etat in Kiev on February 22, 2014?

But, despite all its flaws, I actually like these kinds of "anomalous articles" that sometimes grace the pages of the Free and Independent Western Press (). First of all – some admissions here signify that the so-called analysts in the West are not brain-dead and that they can still understand and articulate some basic things about Russia's perspective, in the language probably accessible to the vast majority of their target audience. Second – the article is refreshingly honest about the West's goals and objectives in the conflict with Russia.

Yes, there is some flowery prose here, but the core imperatives are hard to miss. And, yes, I'm using the term "the West" in rather broad definition here. Despite their best attempts to conceal this, it's rather obvious for anyone with a functioning brain that the EU sanctions against Russia applied (as they claim) due to "the unlawful annexation of Crimea", "support of militants in the Ukrainian East" or "Russia's as yet unconfirmed (but we are counting on it anyway!) complicity in the downing of MH17" have nothing to do with any point of the Minsk-2 agreement. In fact, right after the signing of this treaty, the EU decided to prove to the Whole Civilized World that it didn't bow down to Russia's demands, and issued yet another batch of sanctions.

But for every Russian who will read this article (and believe me – there will be a fair amount of them), after they get the essence of it, they will realize that this is not some op-ed by the typically "handshakable" Western outlet, that this "commentary" had been published by the Powers That Be of the EU – and that everything written herein bodes nothing good for Russia in the foreseeable future, no matter what. Russians, being the citizens of Russia, tend to react very negatively to some Western countries' decision to "deal" with them. And the reaction will follow. As it turned out, the Westerners of old (who also had some "long- term problems with Russia") were truly… mortified by such manner of counter-reaction.

ThatJ, August 29, 2015 at 4:30 pm
@yalensis

I don't make any definitions. Similarities and differences are easily observed by the naked eye, but if you want something more scientific, you can always rely on genetics. "Ethnicity" can be considered a modern substitute for "tribe" anyhow, and closely related peoples did wage wars against each other in the past (and today). There was a motley of Germanic tribes in the past, many of whom are today just "Germans", "Dutch", "Danes", &c.

From Darwin Revisited:

The following observations in The Origin regarding the nature of evolutionary competition provide valuable clues as to why civil wars occur, why the French make jokes about the Belgians, the Norwegians dislike the Swedes and the British go to war against the Germans. Darwin wrote that 'the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure' (1968: 165).

[Aug 10, 2015] Big myth that Yanukovych was pro-Russian

karl1haushofer, August 8, 2015 at 7:32 am
"This is good to remember, because long before Maidan, every single government in "independent Ukraine" was a puppet of the West and incessantly plotting against Russia."

Even Yanukovich government???

Moscow Exile, August 8, 2015 at 8:24 am
Big myth that Yanukovych was pro-Russian.

He was pro-Viktor Yanukovych.

And Putin, they say, can't stand him: never could.

At least, that's what a man who rods the blocked drains at the Kremlin Palace told me.

This person, Elizabeth Pond, believes that "the reasons why Putin can't stand Yanukovich are: First, Yanukovich wasn't smart enough not to kill the goose while he was pocketing golden eggs, and second, Yanukovich had the effrontery to play off Russia and the EU for two years".

Medvedev used to suck-hole up to Yanukovych though:

Well he would, wouldn't he?

marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 11:14 am
It often seemed that Putin could barely restrain himself from being openly impatient with Yanukovych, and he seemed to me (just a personal opinion, unsupported by anything analytical) to consider Yanukovych a provincial clod not a great deal different from Yeltsin. For his part, Yanukovych appeared thoroughly committed to the EU Association agreement and subsequent EU membership – which probably would have happened quite briskly, had Ukraine not been shattered by war and assuming it remained intact – even going so far as to hold that private and semi-secret meeting (in a theatre or something, wasn't it?) that we learned of via our talented researcher Peter, in which he allegedly raged at his government that Ukraine was irrevocably on an EU course and he would have the guts of anyone who did not get on board the plan. It seems very ironic now to observe that had the west not pulled the rug out from under Yanukovych – in a display of overconfidence that is so typical as to constitute the default – by insisting that Tymoshenko be freed as a condition, then compounding the error by pulling the trigger on a violent coup, there is every reason to imagine they would have gotten the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, none the worse for wear.

[Aug 09, 2015] The intention of installing Gaidar in a position of power in Ukraine is to infuriate Russia

Moscow Exile, August 8, 2015 at 3:11 am
Мария Гайдар отказалась от российского гражданства

Maria Gaidar renounces Russian citizenship

On Friday, August 7, Maria Gaidar, the newly created assistant to the Odessa Region governor, Mikhail Saakashvili, wrote a statement renouncing her Russian citizenship.

"I do not know when this might take place: it is just a formality that I was ready for and I wrote the statement", she told reporters.

Up to then, Gaidar had insisted that she was not going to voluntarily give up her Russian citizenship. And if she was deprived of it, then it would be a "tragic moment".

This week, Ukrainian President Poroshenko personally handed her a Ukrainian citizen's passport, Gaidar thereupon stating that she was ready "to share the fate of the Ukrainian people".

It seems that this political whore's stance changes as rapidly as does a real whore's in response to her clients requests.

yalensis, August 8, 2015 at 3:25 am
I don't think that Maria is actually being a whore.

I think this is what she truly believes, and she is willng to take this big risk (losing her Russian passport) for what she believes in.
Which is NATO, Bandera, and the American Way of Life.

Besides, all of this has been brewing ever since August of 2008.

Jen, August 8, 2015 at 4:53 am
I'm thinking that Maria Gaidar, like Kurt of Lemberg, lives in a parallel fantasy world and does not realise the full import of what she is doing in renouncing Russian citizenship. Perhaps she half-expects Moscow to refuse or denounce her renunciation and make her into a martyr, in which case the right thing for Moscow to do is to publicly accept her disavowal and say her Russian citizenship will be annulled in due course.
yalensis, August 8, 2015 at 5:05 pm
Maria is making a desperate wager. Like Pushkin's Hermann, she is going all-in, betting everything that she has, on 3 cards, which she received in a mystic vision.

She is wagering that Russia, an ancient and respectable nation of 150 million people, will collapse; and that her new Motherland, a johnny-come-lately nation of 20 years and some 40 million souls, most of them unwilling participants, will flourish, in the arms of NATO..

Instead, it is more likely that Ukraine will dissolve into several parts.

Maria's former boss and lover, Governor NIkita Belykh, will not join her in this illogical wager. He is a kreakl too, but is more of a realist, he knows that the 3 cards are just a cruel scam. This is why he (Nikita) remarked that Maria still has not achieved her final state of self-realization.

kirill, August 8, 2015 at 4:07 am

Good riddance. The rest of the liberast 3% should pack their bags and bugger on off. Fifth column degenerate trash.
marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 9:43 am
As I mentioned previously, I devoutly hope she does indeed share the fate of the Ukrainian people. Cats like her always land on their feet, though, and she'll bug out before things go completely sideways. The difference is that now she will not be able to go back to Russia. Well, maybe not – Ukrainian citizens are still able to travel to Russia at will. But she will have foresworn benefits of Russian citizenship that she will not be able to get back. I reckon she will head off to the Shining City On A Hill for eventual residence, where she will doubtless be received with the ecstasy traditionally reserved for "Russian dissidents".
ThatJ, August 8, 2015 at 12:13 pm
The intention of installing Gaidar in a position of power in Ukraine is to infuriate Russia, but it will backfire: she will be a reminder of liberal treachery and failure.

[Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

Notable quotes:
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

[Aug 08, 2015] Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands

Notable quotes:
"... The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

yalensis, August 4, 2015 at 2:04 pm

Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands:

Starting 10 August, Russia will start limiting import of cut flowers from Netherlands.
The pretext is that all cut flowers from Netherlands must go through phyto-sanitary inspection before being admitted into the country.

In Russia, a whopping 90% of all cut flowers are imported. Of this, Europe supplies 40.5%; Netherlands by itself 38.5%. Hence, the new rule is sure to hit the Dutch in their pocketbooks.

The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya.

Recently Russia started forming direct ties with those countries and importing the flowers directly, bypassing Netherlands. This process is expected to continue.

Already, Ecuador is pushing out Netherlands in the Russian market for flowers.

Even China is getting in on the game, starting to supply some of the voracious Russian appetite for cut flowers. Given all these sources of the flowers, Russian consumers are not likely to suffer a deficit of flowers, the article concludes.

[Jul 28, 2015] The Geopolitical Big Bang You Probably Don't See Coming

In the end, whatever Washington may do, it will certainly reflect a fear of the increasing strategic depth Russia and China are developing economically, a reality now becoming visible across Eurasia.
Jul 28, 2015 |  thenation.com

So consider it the Mother of All Blockbusters to watch how the Pentagon and the war hawks in Congress will react to the post-Vienna and-though it was barely noticed in Washington-the post-Ufa environment, especially under a new White House tenant in 2017.

It will be a spectacle. Count on it. Will the next version of Washington try to make it up to "lost" Russia or send in the troops? Will it contain China or the "caliphate" of ISIS? Will it work with Iran to fight ISIS or spurn it? Will it truly pivot to Asia for good and ditch the Middle East or vice-versa? Or might it try to contain Russia, China, and Iran simultaneously or find some way to play them against each other?

In the end, whatever Washington may do, it will certainly reflect a fear of the increasing strategic depth Russia and China are developing economically, a reality now becoming visible across Eurasia. At Ufa, Putin told Xi on the record: "Combining efforts, no doubt we [Russia and China] will overcome all the problems before us."

Read "efforts" as new Silk Roads, that Eurasian Economic Union, the growing BRICS block, the expanding Shanghai Cooperation Organization, those China-based banks, and all the rest of what adds up to the beginning of a new integration of significant parts of the Eurasian land mass. As for Washington, fly like an eagle? Try instead: scream like a banshee

[Jul 19, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Greece's Lesson For Russia

"...The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions. As long as this doctrine reigns in Washington, neither Russia, China, nor Iran, the nuclear agreement not withstanding, are safe. As long as Iran has an independent foreign policy, the nuclear agreement does not protect Iran, because any significant policy conflict with Washington can produce new justifications for sanctions."
"...If Obama were to dismiss Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power and replace these neoconservatives with sane diplomats, the outlook would improve. Then Russia, China, and Iran would have a better possibility of reaching accommodation with the US on terms other than vassalage."
"...With the deregulation that began in the Clinton regime, Western capitalism has become socially dysfunctional. In the US and throughout the West capitalism no longer serves the people. Capitalism serves the owners and managers of capital and no one else."
"...The "globalism" that is hyped in the West is inconsistent with Washington's unilateralism. No country with assets inside the Western system can afford to have policy differences with Washington. The French bank paid the $9 billion fine for disobeying Washington's dictate of its lending practices, because the alternative was the close down of its operations in the United States. The French government was unable to protect the French bank from being looted by Washington."

Jul 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

"Greece's debt can now only be made sustainable through debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe has been willing to consider so far." - International Monetary Fund

Greece's lesson for Russia, and for China and Iran, is to avoid all financial relationships with the West. The West simply cannot be trusted. Washington is committed to economic and political hegemony over every other country and uses the Western financial system for asset freezes, confiscations, and sanctions. Countries that have independent foreign policies and also have assets in the West cannot expect Washington to respect their property rights or their ownership. Washington freezes or steals countries' assets, or in the case of France imposes multi-billion dollar fines, in order to force compliance with Washington's policies. Iran, for example, lost the use of $100 billion, approximately one-fourth of the Iranian GDP, for years simply because Iran insisted on its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Russian journalists are asking me if Obama's willingness to reach a deal with Iran means there is hope a deal can be reached over Ukraine. The answer is No. Moreover, as I will later explain, the deal with Iran doesn't mean much as far as Washington is concerned.

Three days ago (July 14) a high ranking military officer, Gen. Paul Selva, the third in about as many days, told the US Senate that Russia is "an existential threat to this nation (the US)." Only a few days prior the Senate had heard the same thing from US Marine commander Joseph Dunford and from the Secretary of the Air Force. A few days before that, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned of a Russian "hybrid threat."

Washington is invested heavily in using Ukraine against Russia. All the conflict there originates with Washington's puppet government in Kiev. Russia is blamed for everything, including the destruction of the Malaysian airliner. Washington has used false charges to coerce the EU into sanctions against Russia that are not in the EU's interest. As Washington has succeeded in coercing all of Europe to harm Europe's political and economic relationships with Russia and to enter into a state of conflict with Russia, certainly Washington is not going to agree to an Ukrainian settlement. Even if Washington wanted to do so, as Washington's entire position rests on nothing but propaganda, Washington would have to disavow itself in order to come to an agreement.

Despite everything, Russia's president and foreign minister continue to speak of the US and Washington's EU vassal states as "our partners." Perhaps Putin and Lavrov are being sarcastic. The most certain thing of our time is that Washington and its vassals are not partners of Russia.

The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions.

As long as this doctrine reigns in Washington, neither Russia, China, nor Iran, the nuclear agreement not withstanding, are safe. As long as Iran has an independent foreign policy, the nuclear agreement does not protect Iran, because any significant policy conflict with Washington can produce new justifications for sanctions.

With the nuclear agreement with Iran comes the release of Iran's $100 billion in frozen Western balances. I heard yesterday a member of the Council for Foreign Relations say that Iran should invest its released $100 billion in US and Europe companies. If Iran does this, the Iranian government is setting itself up for further blackmail. Investing anywhere in the West means that Iran's assets can be frozen or confiscated at any time.

If Obama were to dismiss Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power and replace these neoconservatives with sane diplomats, the outlook would improve. Then Russia, China, and Iran would have a better possibility of reaching accommodation with the US on terms other than vassalage.

Russia and China, having emerged from a poorly functioning communist economic system, naturally regard the West as a model. It seems China has fallen for Western capitalism head over heels. Russia perhaps less so, but the economists in these two countries are the same as the West's neoliberal economists, which means that they are unwitting servants of Western financial imperialism. Thinking mistakenly that they are being true to economics, they are being true to Washington's hegemony.

With the deregulation that began in the Clinton regime, Western capitalism has become socially dysfunctional. In the US and throughout the West capitalism no longer serves the people. Capitalism serves the owners and managers of capital and no one else.

This is why US income inequality is now as bad or worse than during the "robber baron" era of the 1920s. The 1930s regulation that made capitalism a functioning economic system has been repealed. Today in the Western world capitalism is a looting mechanism. Capitalism not only loots labor, capitalism loots entire countries, such as Greece which is being forced by the EU to sell of Greece's national assets to foreign purchasers.

Before Putin and Lavrov again refer to their "American partners," they should reflect on the EU's lack of good will toward Greece. When a member of the EU itself is being looted and driven into the ground by its compatriots, how can Russia, China, and Iran expect better treatment? If the West has no good will toward Greece, where is the West's good will toward Russia?

The Greek government was forced to capitulate to the EU, despite the support it received from the referendum, because the Greeks relied on the good will of their European partners and underestimated the mendacity of the One Percent. The Greek government did not expect the merciless attitude of its fellow EU member governments. The Greek government actually thought that its expert analysis of the Greek debt situation and economy would carry weight in the negotiations. This expectation left the Greek government without a backup plan. The Greek government gave no thought to how to go about leaving the euro and putting in place a monetary and banking system independent of the euro. The lack of preparation for exit left the government with no alternative to the EU's demands.

The termination of Greece's fiscal sovereignty is what is in store for Italy, Spain, and Portugal, and eventually for France and Germany. As Jean-Claude Trichet, the former head of the European Central Bank said, the sovereign debt crisis signaled that it is time to bring Europe beyond a "strict concept of nationhood." The next step in the centralization of Europe is political centralization. The Greek debt crisis is being used to establish the principle that being a member of the EU means that the country has lost its sovereignty.

The notion, prevalent in the Western financial media, that a solution has been imposed on the Greeks is nonsense. Nothing has been solved. The conditions to which the Greek government submitted make the debt even less payable. In a short time the issue will again be before us. As John Maynard Keynes made clear in 1936 and as every economist knows, driving down consumer incomes by cutting pensions, employment, wages, and social services, reduces consumer and investment demand, and thereby GDP, and results in large budget deficits that have to be covered by borrowing. Selling pubic assets to foreigners transfers the revenue flows out of the Greek economy into foreign hands.

Unregulated naked capitalism, has proven in the 21st century to be unable to produce economic growth anywhere in the West. Consequently, median family incomes are declining. Governments cover up the decline by underestimating inflation and by not counting as unemployed discouraged workers who, unable to find jobs, have ceased looking. By not counting discouraged workers the US is able to report a 5.2 percent rate of unemployment. Including discouraged workers brings the unemployment rate to 23.1 percent. A 23 percent rate of unemployment has nothing in common with economic recovery.

Even the language used in the West is deceptive. The Greek "bailout" does not bail out Greece. The bailout bails out the holders of Greek debt. Many of these holders are not Greece's original creditors. What the "bailout" does is to make the New York hedge funds' bet on the Greek debt pay off for the hedge funds. The bailout money goes not to Greece but to those who speculated on the debt being paid. According to news reports, Quantitative Easing by the ECB has been used to purchase Greek debt from the troubled banks that made the loans, so the debt issue is no longer a creditor issue.

China seems unaware of the risk of investing in the US. China's new rich are buying up residential communities in California, forgetting the experience of Japanese-Americans who were herded into detention camps during Washington's war with Japan. Chinese companies are buying US companies and ore deposits in the US. These acquisitions make China susceptible to blackmail over foreign policy differences.

The "globalism" that is hyped in the West is inconsistent with Washington's unilateralism. No country with assets inside the Western system can afford to have policy differences with Washington. The French bank paid the $9 billion fine for disobeying Washington's dictate of its lending practices, because the alternative was the close down of its operations in the United States. The French government was unable to protect the French bank from being looted by Washington.

It is testimony to the insouciance of our time that the stark inconsistency of globalism with American unilateralism has passed unnoticed.

[Jul 12, 2015]Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen

"..."The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy.""
.
"...I understood some time ago that USA presidents are very fickle animals, nobody can trust them and nobody is safe of them, they could turn from being a friend to be your enemy overnight"
Jul 07, 2015 | huffingtonpost.com

Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord, a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this -- Putin gave all this -- to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya -- with disastrous consequences -- despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument -- for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not -- ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

Joseph Skibinsky · Top Commenter · Las Vegas, Nevada

I understood some time ago that USA presidents are very fickle animals, nobody can trust them and nobody is safe of them, they could turn from being a friend to be your enemy overnight, starting from Bush - father, and those who followed him. For those who don't believe me about Bush-father, I suggest to read Autobiography of Colin Powell who was a member of Bush's staff. And what Pr Cohen tells us about Bush-son confirms what I stated about our Presidents/politicians.
Those who want to comment on my statement, please, stick to facts. I don't take easily personal attacks and let me assure you, I will respond in kind.

Samuel Ramani · Contributor at The Huffington Post

I think that Professor Stephen Cohen is raising a valuable and vital point, that Russia's annexation of Crimea and Ukraine was not just naked aggression. Russia acted impulsively due to a variety of factors: the fear that it would lose great power status if NATO encroached onto its sphere too much, the fear that the Maidan protests could be an inspiration for unrest in Russia, and the concern that a Westward tilt for Ukraine would weaken his Eurasian Union project. Our perceptions of what is rational differ markedly from Russia's as our regimes are different and climate in which decision-making is made is different. Neoliberal_rationality/ is always contextual and the same should apply to Russia.

To prevent this conflict, an incremental approach would have been best- we should have very clearly delineated that EU association agreement would be strictly economic and not a gateway to immediate NATO membership for Ukraine. Preserving Ukrainian neutrality in security matters, while revitalizing its economy and broken political institutions was the optimal approach. I'm not excusing Russia's conduct by any means or claiming that Russia was right in annexing Crimea, and violating the sovereignty of Ukraine, but at the same time, we have to realize that Russia views this conflict from a very different lens than the West. Russia views NATO expansion in the CIS with the same alarm as we would if Russian missiles and equipment started appearing in Latin American countries with uncomfortable proximity to America. Russia views sovereignty not as the inviolable rights of individual countries but the inviolable integrity of the Russian sphere of influence (the CIS), as a zone that the West cannot enter and intervene.

Donald Schellberg · Top Commenter · Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá

It seems like you are leaving the Ukrainian people out of this. I don't think it is between the US and Russia. It is for them to decide. They should allow a referendum in Donbas, free an open with international monitors. The same with Crimea. If the majority of the permanent residents want to remain in Russia, that is fine, if not let them choose. If Crimea does formally become part of Russia under this referendum than Russia should reimburse the Ukrainian government for the businesses, bases and state institutions that were taken over. And Ukraine would guarantee access via Maripol until they finish the bridge. Just my opinion.

John-Albert Eadie · Top Commenter · Stanford University

This is late. If you look in adjacent media you will see folks like Stephen Cohen and others are not ignored, but looked to as being experts. WHAT YOU MUST DO IS LOOK TO ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. BECAUSE Time, WSJ, and all else cannot be trusted. Then you would have first seen Stephen Cohen's stuff, and many serious others. Try Facebook first, flimsy as it seems.

[Jul 12, 2015] Putin, the Greeks, and Academic Spies by Phil Butler

July 9, 2015 | phillip-butler.com

...Switching gears here, that rag of an information portal, The Daily Beast, now jumps on Vladimir Putin again about a supposed "Witch Hunt" for western spies in academia. Excuse me! My research so far indicates Putin should be on a spy hunt. I'll get into that in a more in depth report later, but the CIA and GCHQ, all the embassies and diplomatic corps of America, Britain, Germany, France and the rest, are scurrying about Russia like idiotic Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau of the Pink Panther films, performing everything from sabotage to corporate espionage. I mean, why wouldn't they be? Mr. Putin's Russia is as easy to mill around in as California these days.

The latest "Beastly" piece from Newsweek's Moscow agent, Anna Nemtsova, is standard anti-Putin ritual with a Pulitzer Center protege flair for sub-headlines:

"The Russian president's effort to stamp out Western influences is full of dangerous contradictions for scientists, students, and the future of Russia."

Meanwhile the level head of Mr. Putin's press adjutant Dmitry Peskov is prevalent again. He was quoted as saying; "I hope things will change at some point. The trend of mixing politics and education is a dangerous one." and I add, "Ain't it the damned truth?" Peskov, the smartest of the lot in my book, cut to the bone with that one. Teachers have no business performing their proper propaganda duties on young minds anywhere, much less in a Russia assailed on every corner. I say; "What, do you think you are dealing with idiots?"

To round out this latest moron attack of mine, a news media outlet I've worked with four or five years just discontinued overnight an entire blog/contributor community on account of this writer's moderate stance on Russia. How's that for Russian-American agents in the heat of a media war? Oh, and it's not just me. I've got correspondence from dozens, a Forbes writer says he's tired of the "bullying" and pressure to "adhere to the party line", and there's more, a lot more.

BBC pulling strings and things to alter opinion and polls, Reuters interested in interesting vested interests, Newsweek and Daily Beast authors exuding quantitative and qualitative analysis with no proof? What's a citizen journalist to do amid all this? Nemtsova pulls a professor who was at St. Petersburg State University out of the magic Russophobia hat. A Dr. Dmitry Dubrovsky who does double duty as a human rights activist and Washington think tank plebeian. Fired back in March from the university, the good doctor was Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellow in between Jan 2015 – Jul 2015. That endowment is part of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is essentially a non-profit arm of the United States government since its institutionalizing.

The President of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman (pictured, second from the left), presents an award to a Tunisian leader of the Arab Spring in November 2011 (Wikipedia)

Dubrovsky is one of hundreds of "fellows" at Woodrow Wilson Center's Kennan Institute who the US State Department and other foreign policy instruments lean on for at best expert testimony, and at the worst various forms of what I would call "light espionage". Of course I've not the resources (yet) to ascertain Dr. Dubrovsky's role in any "questionable" activities, I'll leave that to the powers in charge in Russia. My point here is the lack of any real proof either journalists, or these supposed inured parties provide.

I'll tell you this much, if Vladimir Putin did not recognize the internal threat to Russia via academia, I'd question his reputation as a KGB super-brain, or as a Russian leader who cares about his people. In the end we are at war in this world. It is not a world war like the one that ended in 1945, but the breadth and scope are not far off impact wise. The weapons have changed some, tanks and bombs often replaced by sanctions, economic "haircuts", the leveraging of debt onto an already burdened society. In a very real way the big players in this game ignore the rest of us, save to demonstrate to get our professor back, to buck majority systems, or two tweet our the latest White House quasi-victory over an invisible foe who never harmed us.

Vladimir Putin is hunting down spies, as well he should be. Greece is telling the Brussels puppets to go to hell, as well they should. And I am calling a tiny bit of attention to western operatives, that really should be called attention to before they become too dangerous. Oh my, I fear I am too late. Wait and read my "frustration theory" of destroying good. It's a story about pitting friends against friends, and shutting the mouths of all truth speakers.

If you think I am too harsh, read Dr. Dubrovsky's "Undesirables" piece from May of this year. Then march over to the Department of Homeland Security to compare legislation and infringements of freedoms in America. My vote is Mr. Putin's government gave fair warning based on Russia's societal requirements. Remember, Moscow is not Washington. For me, warning "agents" that acting contrary to what's good for the people is a more honest method than hiding behind phantom terror. The truth of Russia's "desires" seems easy, while The Daily Beast and Newsweek just contend at it.

But then, this is an opinion piece.

[Jun 29, 2015] Russian sanctions blockback

www.unz.com
Fern , June 29, 2015 at 3:21 am
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, schadenfreude:-

"In 2015, the German economy is estimated to lose up to 290,000 jobs and receive $10 billion less than it could due to restrictive measure imposed on Moscow, the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations told Contra Magazine. German exports to Russia last year fell by $7.2 billion.
"The current developments exceed our worst fears," committee chairman Eckhard Cordes said.
This nasty short-term implication of an unreasonable Western policy towards Russia is affecting many European countries, not only the largest economy in the EU. In total, the European Union could potentially lose as much as $110 billion and up to 2 million jobs from the anti-Russian sanctions, according to the committee's estimates.

But the long-term consequences are far more profound and damaging. German businesses now fear that their reliable and long-time Russian partners have pivoted to Asia, specifically China.

German businesses are concerned that this shift could be permanent. By the time restrictive measures are lifted, former ties and partnerships could be long gone."

http://sputniknews.com/business/20150629/1023973728.html

"Former ties and partnerships could be gone". You bet. What's it gonna take before Europe's so called leaders wake up to the fact that US sanctions aren't just about trying to destroy Russia's economy, but also about doing serious, possibly terminal damage to the European one?

[Jun 22, 2015] The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard

nationalinterest.org
Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:36 am
Hasn't even registered on European economies.

Können Sie Deutsch?

Sanktionen kosten Europa bis zu 100 Milliarden Euro, Freitag, 19.06.2015, 10:09

Russlands Wirtschaftskrise hat verheerende Folgen für Europa. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine Studie aus Österreich. Besonders betroffen ist Deutschland. Die Krise könnte das Land mittelfristig eine halbe Million Arbeitsplätze und Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung kosten.
Die Wirtschaftskrise in Russland hat weitaus schlimmere Konsequenzen für die Länder der Europäischen Union (EU) und die Schweiz als bislang erwartet. Nach einer Berechnung des Österreichischen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (Wifo), die der europäischen Zeitungsallianz "Lena" exklusiv vorliegt, sind europaweit weit mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze und rund 100 Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung in Gefahr.

Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:44 am
The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard – Der Spiegel, July 21, 2014
Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 11:32 am
No, it's not what I maintain, it's what these people report is happening:

German businesses suffer fallout as Russia sanctions bite (Financial Times)

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/9a620f0c-73fc-11e4-82a6-00144feabdc0.img

German Businesses Urge Halt on Sanctions Against Russia – Wall Street Journal

In most countries, it would be highly unusual for corporate executives to inject themselves into geopolitics and matters of national security with the forcefulness that a number of German business leaders have. But many of Germany's largest companies have substantial Russian operations, built in some cases over decades, and worry that tough economic sanctions would rob them of a key growth market when their home market-Europe-is stagnant.

Germany's economy hit by trade sanctions on Russia – FT

The sanctions being placed on Russia by Europe are having a negative impact on the bloc, experts have said.

European countries have implemented a series of trade embargoes as a punishment for Russia's moves to annex Crimea and for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Rowan Dartington Signature's Guy Stephens said the eurozone had been "rife" with weak economic data and one of the biggest concerns was Germany because of its relationship with Russia.

"Sanctions against key trading partner Russia, coupled with declining demand from China, have begun to take their toll on Europe's largest economy," he said.

"Business confidence is also waning and GDP growth for next year has been downgraded to just 0.8 per cent, well below the government's forecast of 1.3 per cent. All in all, the decline of Europe's powerhouse could just turn out to be the ammunition that European Central Bank president Mario Draghi needs to begin a prolonged quantitative-easing campaign."

Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Europe's share of global profits had "collapsed".

"And complicating the immediate path of liquidity and corporate earnings in Europe is the ongoing collapse in the Russian rouble," he said.

[Jun 22, 2015] The Russian Pipeline Waltz

Jun 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
Gaylord June 20, 2015 at 3:47 am

Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.

Barry Fay June 20, 2015 at 6:33 am

"Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!

Macon Richardsonn June 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

Thank you Barry Fay! Well said.

Nick June 20, 2015 at 9:06 am

With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.

Gio Bruno June 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.

Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)

Steve H. June 20, 2015 at 9:21 am

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/naomi-oreskes-the-hoax-of-climate-change-denial.html#comment-2458611

Externality June 20, 2015 at 12:28 pm

1. Russian- – unlike some Western nations – has submitted a detailed carbon-reduction plan to the upcoming climate conference. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/russia-submits-its-climate-action-plan-ahead-of-2015-paris-agreement/

2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative" (TINA) to Russian gas.

3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.

Rex June 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm

Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly." There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.

Russian scientists contribute much to Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane release.

Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh

Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
Valentin Sergienko

To name a few.

One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.

Ian June 20, 2015 at 8:37 pm

What about thorium reactors. I am aware that at least China is investing in the technology.

Lune June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users) rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas, then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.

That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities (certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.

Otter June 20, 2015 at 8:15 am

The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest in the energy politics.

Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.

Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.

Jackrabbit June 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm

I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence) :

Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.

Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).

The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia). Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.

The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine – despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.

=

I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive to the US/EU establishment.

Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:

The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and 17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
among its members.

It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment. This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.

David in NYC June 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.

susan the other June 20, 2015 at 1:14 pm

Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the mercy of China and India. The BRICS.

Raj June 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm

You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10 yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream), but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar signs.

Gerard Pierce June 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece, but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal with right now.

A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China. Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.

Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are necessary and correct.

The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.

If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.

Susan Pizzo June 20, 2015 at 8:49 pm

An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over till it's over…

http://www.ibtimes.com/greece-russia-reach-preliminary-gas-pipeline-deal-greek-debt-woes-continue-1976077

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/greece-russia-gas-deal/index.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-18/russia-greece-ink-pipeline-deal-gazprom-boosts-ukraine-bypass

[May 28, 2015] Authoritarian Symps

May 27, 2015 | FPIF

In Praise of Putinism

When the Nazis pressed Stalin's back against the wall of the Kremlin in World War II, the Soviet leader fought back with a famous speech on November 7. It was the 24th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, so Stalin made the requisite references to the "banner of Lenin." But he knew that the revolutionary fervor of Russians was by that point weak at best. He relied on a more tried-and-true tactic: an appeal to defend the Motherland and a lineage of imperial leaders like Alexander Nevsky and Dmitry Donskoi. With German soldiers at the very gates of the city, Stalin fell back on Russian nationalism.

Vladimir Putin is no Stalin, but he's resorted to a similar ploy.

Putin is a product of the Soviet system, a KGB operative from long back who was stationed in East Germany in 1989 and helped destroy Soviet intelligence material to keep it out of the hands of demonstrators. Putin has carefully risen through the new post-Soviet system, cultivating elite contacts in politics and the business world. His appeal inside Russia stems from the long-standing attraction many Russians have for "iron fist" politics, the lucky circumstance that his political rise coincided with a spike in oil and gas prices, and a popular and legitimate grievance that the international community has treated Russia as a loser.

When Putin argues in favor of incorporating Crimea or the creation of Novorossiya encompassing parts of eastern Ukraine, he doesn't talk about a resurrected Soviet Union. He couches his phrases in traditional Russian nationalism: the glories of Russian history, the importance of Russian language and culture. He's set his sights lower, nationalist rather than internationalist. The Soviet era, meanwhile, becomes only one part of the grand historical procession from tsars to commissars to TV stars, culminating in Putin himself.

Putin has deeply conservative instincts. The European far right supports him for the same reason they approve of Assad. He is a bulwark against Islam. On top of that, he has no enthusiasm for the European Union. Little in his project should appeal to the left. And yet, because of a misconception that Putin is somehow balancing American hegemony, some elements of the left have rallied around him.

But Putin is miscast as an anti-imperialist. He doesn't care about the extension of U.S. power in the world except where it constrains his own ambitions, which are limited to the Russian near abroad and a few locations beyond (such as a military base in Syria).

"For the American left, of course for them only American imperialism exists, yes? I can't understand it," left-wing Russian activist Ilya Budraitkis complained to Charles Davis in Salon. "In Russia, there are a lot of leftists who also believe that Russia is the main evil in the world, it's a reactionary empire, and it should be destroyed. Or, at the same time, you have a lot of leftists who believe somehow Russia is resisting American imperialism [and] who support these 'republics' in the East of Ukraine."

As Budraitkis points out, imperialism can come in a variety of flavors, not just American vanilla.

Michael Hamrin

I have been a fan of Tom Dispatch for a long time. I think that I have the same birthday and age as Tom. And I was also an early supporter of Chalmers Johnson (from the old Berkeley days), but I really must take exception to your bashing of the likes of Fidel Castro, Vladimir Putin and Bashar Al-Assad. While they are all autocrats to be sure they came to power as a necessary anti-dote to challenge Washingtonian dominion. The concept of rule of ballot box is a pipe dream. Money and military backing is the rule of the day. Therefore, you must take into account the "lesser of two evils". This is especially true of Fidel Castro, who has done much good in the world -- especially in the medical field. He is also a veritable prognosticator. Putin's response to Yankee skullduggery should be recognized as necessary and Assad is primarily a less-than-charismatic defender of his family lineage. He cannot simply capitulate to take-over plots of Yankee scheming.

[May 27, 2015] Why we love to hate Russia European writer Guy Mettan enlightens RT

May 27, 2015 | RT Op-Edge
Europe has manufactured an artificial "Russian enemy in order to create an artificial European identity," French journalist, politician and author Guy Mettan told RT France, speaking about his book "Russia-West: A Thousand Years Of War."

The writer said he became interested some 15 years ago in the how relations between Russia and the West had developed. During this time he has been frequently dismayed by the way Russia-related news was covered in the Western media. But it was the Ukrainian crisis that really motivated Mettan to write the book.

"When the Ukrainian crisis exploded in February 2014, I was really shocked by the way my colleagues were covering these events with a consistent anti-Russian bias," the journalist told RT France.

Anti-Russian sentiment is prevalent in the West, both in Europe and the United States, Mettan said, adding there is no such a phenomenon "in China and Japan and other countries."

"For me it is a form of racism. I believe that there is no other way to explain it," the writer said, adding he thought the roots of it were in "stereotypes that arose from the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. <…> This is why my book is called 'A thousand years of war'," he said.

Modern Russophobia originated in Western Europe in the 18th century, Mettan continued, saying the West became hostile towards Russia during the colonial expansion of Europe, when Western states realized Russia was "a major power" on the continent.

Read more 'Stop blaming everything on Russia': Heirs to 1917 revolutionary-era emigrants appeal to EU

According to Mettan, the US adopted Russophobia after World War II, but added that "today Russophobia has become essentially American."

"Once Nazism was defeated in 1945, the Americans turned against their Russian ally, which was also the case with the British in 1815, soon after their victory over Napoleon."

American Russophobia was first linked to the struggle against communism, Mettan explained, but it "continued unabated" even after the fall of communism and the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. "It consists of two forms: an ideological form around the so-called struggle for democracy and human rights and then, of course, a geopolitical rivalry, because the US wants American hegemony to prevail," he said.

READ MORE: Russia overestimated EU's independence from US – Lavrov to French media

Speaking about the European Union, Mettan said the bloc "has no identity" and struggles to exist, especially since the integration of new Eastern European countries. Freshman EU members, such as Poland, Romania and the Baltic states, once associated with Soviet Russia, felt the need to create a new European identity.

READ MORE: Polish FM trolls Russia with V-Day insult, gets verbal volley

"And what could be easier than to invent an enemy, an opponent," the journalist said, adding that for these EU members "Russia acts as an ideal enemy" and also allows them to get support from the US military and oil lobbies.

The author said that although he had some fears of hostile reviews from other journalists who he criticized in the book, his work ended up being "rather well received." Both literary critics and the general public accepted it positively. "I realized the public was tired of the completely biased way the dominant Western media reported events related to Russia, and now [the audience] is hungry for another point of view," Mettan told RT France.

READ MORE: Americans, Europeans want non-MSM coverage of intl. news – poll

[May 16, 2015] Crucified Putin: Latvian artist nails Russian president's effigy to cross

Warren, May 15, 2015 at 8:16 am

'Crucified Putin': Latvian artist nails Russian president's effigy to cross

http://rt.com/news/258985-crucified-putin-latvia-art/#.VVYNGREZCus.twitter

Fern, May 15, 2015 at 10:31 am

I wonder what the reaction would be if a Palestinian 'artist' did an identical piece of work with a nailed figure of Netanyahu or any other prominent Jewish politician?

marknesop says: May 15, 2015 at 11:01 am

I'd be interested to see that, too.

cartman, May 15, 2015 at 12:42 pm

Is he Jesus? Or is this an endorsement of Roman torture?

This is confusing, which I don't think was intentional.

yalensis, May 15, 2015 at 3:48 pm

I may not know much about art, but I know what I don't like.
And this is it.

Reply
kirill says: , May 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm

At least the Moscow scrotum nailer had some originality. This is just lame.

Reply

[May 16, 2015] Now they are calling Putin a "strong man"

yalensis, May 15, 2015 at 3:03 am

Now they are calling Putin a "strong man" ?
Is that a step up or down from being a "autocrat" or "dictator" ??

marknesop, May 15, 2015 at 7:36 am

It's almost like the difference between "oligarch" and "tycoon". I think it's a step down; an attempt to preserve an air of overall disapproval, but more like he is naughty than evil.

Northern Star, May 14, 2015 at 4:14 pm

"What was it a fully confident Pham Van Dong had told Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times in December 1966 in Hanoi:

"And how long do you Americans want to fight, Mr. Salisbury ? One year? Two years? Three years? Five years? Ten years? Twenty years? We will be glad to accommodate you."

The members of the American/Brussels 2015 leadership cadre -for lack of a better term-were in junior high in 1966…

They simply don't get that the above determined and ruthless commitment is what they are up against in their attempts to subjugate the Russian people……….

astabada, May 14, 2015 at 9:53 pm

The natural unit of measure for the attention span of Western policy-makers is the trimester.

This is not an inherent deciciency, it is just a bias deriving from their education.

[May 02, 2015] Any analysis of Russia has to consider the effect of Nato expansion

Apr 22, 2015 | The Guardian

Russia's president Vladimir Putin. 'One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity,' writes James Rodgers.

Timothy Garton Ash (There is another Russia, 20 April) makes some interesting points, but misses others. While true that some "Putin understanders" do seek to "excuse all" when looking at Russia today, there are also pitfalls in adopting the opposite approach. Nowhere does the article mention Nato expansion. One can agree or disagree as to the wisdom or otherwise of Nato's policies in eastern Europe since 1991. One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states in particular, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity.

James Rodgers

City University London (and Reuters TV Moscow 1991-93; BBC Moscow 1998-2000 and 2006-09)

Nato's eastward expansion and the continued development of a US missile defence system in eastern Europe have contributed to heightening tensions in the region. Russian military announcements and actions should be understood in that context, especially considering that at the end of the cold war, the Warsaw pact was disbanded, while Nato increased its membership. A new government should carry out an evaluation of Trident's relevance to current threats in this year's strategic defence and security review, but the alternative doctrine Paul Mason seeks (Russian subs are circling, but what should Britain's nuclear deterrent be?, 20 April) in response to Russian foreign policy must be a commitment to peaceful relations and a process of de-militarization and nuclear disarmament.

The non-proliferation treaty review conference in May is the opportunity for a new PM to resume relations and revive disarmament negotiations, building on Obama and Putin's successful New Start treaty and setting out a willingness to scrap Trident, alongside a commitment to seeking resolution of conflicts through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN, rather than the cold war relic of Nato.

Kate Hudson
General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

[Mar 28, 2015] The Kremlin's Kool-Aid - By John Feffer,

Completely detached form the reality rant. No attempt to point out the position of Russia with the new neoliberal order governed from Washington, DC. I noticed that he did not use the term neoliberalism and neo-imperialism even once in the article. And this is not accidental ;-). This guy is a essentially a neocon in peacenik cloths.
March 11, 2015 | FPIF

We were nearing the end of dinner when the eminent personage leaned in my direction and began yelling at me.

Up to that point, the argument among the five of us at the end of the long table at the restaurant had been heated but at a conversational volume. The fact that we were arguing at all was at least partly my fault.
After all, I'd brought up the subject of Russia. Just before the entrees arrived, I confessed that I found the political situation in Moscow troubling. I made it clear that I thought the Russian leadership in no way progressive and that I sympathized with the isolated dissidents concentrated in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
The argument escalated. Just before the desserts arrived, the eminent personage told me in no uncertain terms that I'd gotten my priorities all mixed up. My concerns over human rights in Russia were nonsense. The number one issue was to avoid nuclear war, which required close cooperation with the Kremlin. These sentences were delivered with all the finesse of an exasperated parent disciplining a misbehaving child.
As I stood up, mumbling something about my decision to forgo dessert, I suffered a brief spell of vertigo. I was suddenly not sure what decade I was in. I could have been having the same confrontation, more or less, in 1985 or 2015. I'd thought the Cold War had ended.

More importantly, I'd thought that the Cold War mindset had ended.

But as the science fiction writer William Gibson once wrote, "The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed." I'd somehow stumbled into one of those pockets of the past that coexist with the present and the future.

Alvin Toffler introduced the famous phrase "future shock." But I was experiencing "past shock," like when you wander off the main road and discover an Amish village going about its business as if it were 1850. Except that this anachronism was philosophical, not physical.

And it went far beyond the loudly expressed views of the eminent personage.

Neither East nor West

I came of age politically during the last years of the Cold War.

I campaigned in college against U.S. interventions in Central America and protested U.S. nuclear policy in the streets of New York and the halls of Congress. But as a Russian major, I was also acutely aware of the repressions that took place in the Soviet bloc. I refused to accept the bipolar thinking of the Cold War. I saw no reason to choose between Moscow and Washington. Geopolitics was not a multiple-choice test with only two possible answers.

I naively believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the end of this false dichotomy. I continued to critique U.S. foreign policy, but my opponents no longer told me that I should move to Russia if I didn't like what Washington was doing. I also continued to criticize the policies of the Russian government, but no one accused me any longer of being a State Department symp.

The challenge as I saw it in the 1990s was to create a European security structure that bound together both the United States and Russia according to international norms. Washington saw things differently. It was wedded to NATO, even though the alliance's raison d'etre had evaporated along with the Soviet Union. NATO not only crawled out from under the wreckage of the Cold War, it prospered.
I described the errors of NATO expansion in one of the first Foreign Policy In Focus briefs in 1996, our first year of publication.

"Russia has steadfastly opposed NATO expansion," I wrote at the time. "Virtually all political forces within the country view this policy as an encirclement, a containment that will lead to greater isolation. Thus, Russia is particularly sensitive about the inclusion of bordering countries….Since Russia poses a considerably diminished security threat to Europe, expansion is an aggressive act that threatens to undo decades of security cooperation and tilt Russia closer toward considering an anti-Western alliance with China or pariah states such as Iraq."

I stand by those views 20 years later. We pushed Russia into a corner, and Russia pushed back - just as it said it would. Washington, in other words, deserves the lion's share of the blame for the persistence of Cold War thinking.

But none of that excuses or justifies what Vladimir Putin is doing today in Russia. He is, from economics to politics to social policy, about as far away from the progressive ideal as possible. Yes, of course, I support negotiating arms control treaties with him, working with him to resolve the conflict in Syria, and soliciting his support for a resumption of talks with North Korea. But that doesn't mean that I won't vigorously criticize his policies and bemoan the state of Russia today.

Pro-Putinism

A week before the outburst of the eminent personage, I was participating in a conference on Ukraine in Toronto. In the audience, those who blamed everything on the "fascists in Kiev" squared off against those who blamed everything on the "imperialists in Moscow." I tried to present a different picture - of the political diversity of the Ukrainian government and the legitimate security concerns of Russia - while also offering a grim but workable solution to the crisis.

Afterwards, someone came up to me and asked why segments of the Western left were ga-ga over Putin and his crowd. "Do you think they're being paid by Moscow?" she asked.

I said no, I didn't think so. Except for a few outliers, progressives do things for principle, not profit, which is probably why we remain on the margins of U.S. politics.

But even when you take money out of the equation, her question is an interesting one, and worth exploring. Why do some voices on the left insist that what happened in Kiev last year was a "U.S. coup," that Russia's seizure of Crimea was somehow legitimate, that Moscow is blameless in the war that has raged in eastern Ukraine, and that Putin isn't systematically eliminating his opponents by throwing them in jail, pushing them into exile, or possibly having them killed?

Perhaps the people making these arguments get their information only from the English-language RT broadcasts. But when even the sensible journalist Glenn Greenwald starts to edge in this direction - for instance, by exaggerating the influence of fascists in Ukraine today - then clearly something else is at work here.

Russia Today

First, there is an entirely understandable concern that a new Cold War is emerging between the United States and Russia. This Cold War will, like its predecessor, at minimum produce some low-intensity conflicts, a war of words, and many missed opportunities to further international agreements on nuclear weapons, climate change, and so on. At worst, the confrontation could escalate into the nightmare of the Cold War: a nuclear war.

But many anti-nuclear protestors during the 1980s - both here and in Europe - were able to address both security questions and human rights issues. Indeed, the very concept of "human security" was an attempt to address the full spectrum of challenges from war to hunger to civil rights.

Certainly we must avoid the misuse of human rights issues, through politically motivated "linkage," to sabotage arms control agreements. But progressives have a distinguished record of upholding human rights issues even as we embrace pragmatic agreements - with Iran, with North Korea - that reduce the risk of war. The U.S. government is selective in its application of the human rights yardstick. Progressives should resist the temptation.

Another popular theme presents Russia as a counter-hegemonic force to the United States. This argument revives the old notion that the Soviet Union might have been nasty and brutish, but at least it represented a check on U.S. power in the world. This argument sounds very much like the realpolitik of Henry Kissinger, though turned on its head.

As frequent RT guest and anti-imperialist blogger Eric Draitser writes in 5 Reasons Why Leftists Should Support Russia, "Any self-described 'leftist' should immediately question their own position when they find themselves on the same side with Washington and NATO on questions of foreign policy, war, and peace. Russia has consistently (and with increasing assertiveness in the last few years) opposed the Empire's agenda in various corners of the globe." He offers only two examples: Syria and Ukraine.
But Russia is largely not interested in opposing U.S. foreign policy - except where the interests collide in Russia's "near abroad."

Putin is perfectly happy with Washington's "war on terror," for the two countries see eye to eye on battling Islamic extremism. Only when Washington gets distracted by "democracy promotion" - in Egypt or Syria - does the Kremlin get antsy. But the rise of the Islamic State has led to a convergence of U.S. and Russian objectives (though Moscow still objects to coalition air strikes). Moreover, Moscow doesn't want Iran or North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons. And given its oil and gas interests, Russia is happy that the Obama administration hasn't been more radical in its efforts to arrest climate change.

And what are the "progressive forces" that Moscow is supporting around the world? It's a rogue's gallery: Syria's Assad, North Korea's Kim, Belarus's Lukashenko, Tajikistan's Rahmon, Egypt's Sisi. Sure, the United States has no better record when it comes to making deals with devils. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Putin represents a geopolitical alternative.

A third argument, that Russia offers an alternative to economic austerity, reflects the grave and legitimate disappointment with globalization and its effects. "Russia and its leaders are hardly trembling behind Kremlin walls," writes F. William Engdahl. "They are forging the skeleton of a new international economic order that has the potential to transform the world from the present bankruptcy of the Dollar System."

Although it's true that Russia is working with China and other countries on a BRICS bank that challenges the current international financial system, Putin hardly presents an economic alternative. His view of capitalism is, if anything, even more rapacious than the "Dollar System." Russia today is a playground of oligarchs where the state has helped facilitate the amassing of vast fortunes (and the occasional expropriation of vast fortunes like Khodorkovsky's). Income inequality is exacerbated by enormous regional disparities, with some areas of the country at the level of sub-Saharan Africa and others at the level of the EU --[is not this the same in the USA ? NNB]

Through it all, Vladimir Putin remains popular - even more so now than before the Ukraine crisis broke out. The economy might have recently gone south, as a result of sanctions and falling energy prices, but Putin has racked up an 86-percent approval rating.

There's no reason to doubt these numbers. Russians have long favored an "iron fist" style of leadership, and Putin has delivered in spades, by stabilizing the economy, reducing violent crime, arresting population decline, and installing a puppet dictator in Chechnya to "solve" the crisis there (a dictator who, to give the Kremlin plausible deniability, is probably responsible for the murders of Putin's opponents). But Putin's popularity is not a sign of democratic health. After all, Russian respect for Stalin has also shot up over the last decade or so.

To get these poll numbers, Putin has put together a potent brew of nationalism, Orthodox Christianity, and social conservatism, all served with a splash of gaudy entertainment via state-controlled television. It's a cocktail that has proven attractive to right-wing politicians all over Europe, like Viktor Orban of Hungary, Marine Le Pen of France, and Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party.

Of course, like Greenwald, we should be concerned about the Azov Battalion and high-ranking extremists in the Ukrainian government (even if far-right parties like Svoboda and Right Sector have bombed at the polls). But the real darling of the far right is Putin. It's no surprise that European extremists are intoxicated by his authoritarian style. The mystery is why some on the left have also drunk the Kremlin's Kool-Aid.

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Mar 12, 2015] Boris Nemtsov murder: Putin 'politically responsible' – daughter by Ben Quinn

Guardian pressitute decided to exploit this death in a standard "Litvinenko-style" way. what about question "Cue bono" instead of emotional drivel?
Mar 12, 2015 | The Guardian

The daughter of the murdered Russian opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov, has accused Vladimir Putin of being "politically responsible" for her father's death.

Zhanna Nemtsova said that the motive for the killing was related to her father's role over the last decade as, in her words, the most prominent critic of the president.

"He was the most powerful leader of the opposition in Russia," she said in an interview conducted in Italy with BBC Newsnight.

"After his death the opposition is beheaded and everybody is frightened. People and politicians … both of them."

Nemtsov was killed by four shots to the back on 27 February as he walked across a bridge next to the Kremlin, in central Moscow.

His daughter, a business journalist normally based in Moscow, was said to have not previously regarded herself as an activist, but she conceded that the way in which she was viewed, in some quarters at least, was now likely to change.

"I think that after I have expressed my opinion on the murder I think that authorities in Russia could regard me as a political activist," she said, adding that she was not afraid to return to Russia and planned to do so this weekend.

"I am not afraid. I will go back on 15 March but I said they have killed my father. I cannot just keep silent. It's absolutely impossible."

[Mar 05, 2015] The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war by Seumas Milne

Lebensraum was the ideology behind Drang Nach Ost. This EU expension is just more modern version of the same. This describes what EU/Nato is currently up to.
Mar 05, 2015 | The Guardian

yoron_ -> AlanC 5 Mar 2015 18:36

"The U.S. and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, ready to launch with only a few minutes warning. High-alert status permits the launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of a perceived nuclear attack.

Early Warning Systems (EWS), high-alert nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and nuclear command and control systems, all working together, provide the U.S. and Russia the capability to Launch-on-Warning.

When Early Warning Systems warn of an impending nuclear attack, then decisions have to be made very quickly because the flight times of the missiles are very short. 30 minutes or less are required for a nuclear-armed land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to travel between the U.S. and Russia and vice versa; 15 minutes or less for a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) to reach its target.

Thus, once the attack is detected, evaluated and passed up the chain of command, the U.S. and Russian president would have at most 12 minutes to make the decision to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack.

In the event an attack is believed to be real, the president must decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations. To launch a retaliatory nuclear strike based only upon electronic information derived from Early Warning Systems is to Launch-on-Warning. If the perceived warning turns out to be false but a retaliatory nuclear strike has already been launched, then accidental nuclear war will have occurred.

The US and Russia are the only two nations believed to have the capacity to carry out Launch-on-Warning (they both have nuclear C3I systems connected to their nuclear weapon systems which enable them to carry out LoW). "

Arthur_Pendragon 5 Mar 2015 18:46

There isn't any invasion of Ukraine. There hasn't been an invasion. And there never will be an invasion.

The Crimea incident wasn't an invasion or annexation at all. It was the will of the people - a popular uprising just like the one in Kiev. Self-determination is a right according to the UN. Well, that right was upheld on March 16th 2014.

The problems in East Ukraine, also, are connected with a popular uprising of the peoples who live there. They have been attacked by their own government and many civilians have died because Kiev and its western backers did not have the balls to give those people what they initially and peacefully requested - a referendum.

The people of Crimea have acted in the true spirit of democracy. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk have acted within the true spirit of democracy. The only party that didnt act within this spirit was Kiev. There was no vote to remove Yanakovych. There was no vote to join Europe.

The west has turned black into white again.

codeinesunrise -> Skalla 5 Mar 2015 18:41

Your arrogance betrays your historical ignorance. These 'old powers' that you refer to largely have the Marshall Plan to thank for their economic prosperity - an injection of money that dwarfs current EU investment (and that's what it is, investment - many European companies benefit from these contracts) in Eastern Europe.

It is important to also remember that a lot of the 'wealth' these countries created often came at the expense of its colonies, which it raped mercilessly. At least our 'poor little' Eastern European countries don't have this shameful legacy upon our conscience.

You would also do well to remember that Britain itself was bailed out by the IMF in 1976 when it was little better than a failed state. Have a little humility, nothing is more embarrassing than misplaced, fatuous triumphalism.

str8shtr -> Dzomba 5 Mar 2015 20:00

1. And of course NATO couldn't say "Sorry, we already have an important agreement, we can not include countries from Warsaw pact"? And wasn't it told to Hungary and others that joining NATO is the shortest way to become a part of EU and west?

I wonder about complains of Russian invasion after WWII. So u preferred to be under Nazi Germans and soviet solders paid their lives in vain? Or Russian troops had to go home leaving everything for US? Yes, you suffered from soviet framework and communist system, but it wasn't only Russian framework, it was soviet. You couldn't choose any other ideology except communist? So nobody in Ussr could. Everyone was equal in that)) In soviet Russia the regime was much more strict then in Warsaw pact countries. In east European countries national languages were taught, they had their own party (communist, of course), their own leaders (communist of course), constitution (communist) etc and the union invested a lot in recovering after the war and developing it economies. It doesn't look like a devastating invasion.

2. Everything is on the contrary. The problem was that Russia did not give a damn about Ukraine after the fall of communism, coz it had it's own huge problems till 2001. Meanwhile Ukrainian nationalism was rising. Communists invented country "Ukraine" in the beginning of the 20th century and started nationalism there, but during USSR existed it was under control. Also US started to invest in changing Ukrainian loyalty to anti-Russian in early 90s, same as in east Europe ("red invasion", "you were their slaves", "they used you", "you suffered enough" and so on), it was a bit more difficult then in east Europe but time and nationalism of west Ukraine helped them much.

3. Yanukovich was a weak president. He was trying to balance between EU/US, Russia and ukranian billioners interests trying to trade the best conditions for his country (for his family first of all). He played to much in that game.

4. I didnt read the text of the Minsk agreement, but if the advisers have ranks and are a part of military forces don't they are a military help?..

gnorblitz 5 Mar 2015 19:58

This is the ultimate fantasy for these threads. The Right and the Left actually spilling blood over ideology instead of the typers here on Guardian Commentary spitting bile at one another. No matter what camp you're in or who you think is the good guy, war is always murder. And the people in this region are the ones suffering. The rest of you are just ghouls, looking on and stroking your political peckers.

BloodOnTheWattle Strangest 5 Mar 2015 19:56

I am not sure actually, you make it sound like President Obama is more than a match for President Putin. I mean, he has sanctioned the killing of 5000 people by killer drones during the last 4 years, created havoc in Ukraine, cheerlead and assisted NATO in what is today a cauldron of terrorism in Lybia, picked the wrong guys (yet again in Syria), institutionalized, torture and kidnapping and arm twisting of nations by not acting on the perpetrators of these criminal acts.

So there you have it apparently Obama makes Putin look like a choir boy.


irishmand sikaniska 5 Mar 2015 19:42

The demonization of Russia risks paving way for a credible military defence capability in Europe.

Which will be a waist of money and will only help to US MIC. Russia is not going to attack any of the european countries. It doesn't need it.

geedeesee psygone 5 Mar 2015 19:50

It speaks volumes when you keep dodging these opportunities to show the Russian Army invaded Ukraine. :-)

irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:37

Moscow's ambitions are an obvious threat to the whole world because the Kremlin's aggressive tactics may not be limited to just Ukraine. If the EU and NATO fail to stand up to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, later Russia will very possibly turn against the Baltic states and/or Moldova.

Why are you not working hard to bring the Ukrainian economy back from ruins? You should be doing that instead of trying to create more hatred and fear in people. Or you only good at jumping?

geedeesee LiamIrl 5 Mar 2015 19:47

Ha ha - the protesters were nowhere that many. The Guardian said about 30,000. The more thuggish the protestors became, the smaller the crowd. The ultra-nationalist thugs appeared to number about 5000. But as I said, it's called a Coup when a government is overthrown violently by a small group. The democratic way is through elections, which were scheduled for later in the year.

irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:45

The Russian plan is clear. They will seize more of Ukraine and depose the government in Kiev if not checked in time. Only the swift and immediate action of the West to train and equip the Ukrainian army can stop Putin's strategy to deconstruct the trans-Atlantic architecture, to deconstruct the post-cold war order. Like a cancer, Putin and his elites, must be cut out.

1. How are you going "check" Russia?
2. Russia already had a chance to take over Ukraine and didn't do it. I don't see why it will decide to do it in the future.
3. Train ukis so they could kill more people and more efficiently?You want more blood? More dead bodies?


geedeesee -> Kamil Piwko 5 Mar 2015 19:16

Of course, we watched many reports of Ukraine Army defecting and joining separatists. Kiev lost many military barracks, depots and arsenals. We know Ukraine Armed Forces totalled around 220,000 men (and maybe some women). The head of the Ukraine Navy went over. Elite forces went over. We read the reports; we saw the TV. Over and over again it happened. We know all this. Just type "Ukraine Army defects" into Google or your search engine. Also type in "Ukraine Army defectors" for more. This is why anti-democratic Kiev Regime of ultra-nationalists passed new draconian law to shoot soldiers who do not obey orders

BUT - you have replied to a call for evidence showing and proving this huge Russian Army has invaded Ukraine, and yet you don't take the opportunity to reply with the evidence. Instead you tell us what is already known.

Rossiya 5 Mar 2015 16:25

What a wonderful and truthful article. Surprised it was published in so anti-Russia country/times/hysteria.

Every evening the meteorologists remind us how the bad weather always comes from Siberia, it never comes from Scandinavia or North Pole for instance...

Simply the Anglo-Saxons are born with 'hate Russia' genes unfortunately.
Perhaps it is right time to press Reset button and return to the Stone Age (?!)

yoron_ -> AXWE08 5 Mar 2015 17:15

AXWE. There are no clean hands in this. It's about geopolitical power and who will exploit what. Putins Russia is definitely no cleaner than USA, both though are superpowers, both have nuclear missiles, some of them modernised recently, directed at Stockholm some minutes away, with one of those superpowers calling itself democratic, making its moves at another continent.

No clean hands, and those that will lose to this stupidity are firstly Europeans, secondly Americans.

Pavel Prokofiev -> Roguing 5 Mar 2015 17:13

Ukraine was a colony of Russia?? What?? So, Russia was ruled by Georgian Stalin, by Ukraininan Khrushev and Brezhnev from Moldau, i.e. people from colonies?

We will discuss you question once a person of indian origin will become a king of the UK.

ID1439675 -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 17:12

But yeah, the few instructors of another country is a major violation.

Although it's hard to disagree with much of what you have to say, you are incorrect on this point. The presence of British and US instructors does not violate the Minsk2 package of measures for two reasons. First, by virtue of the Budapest memorandum the US and the UK are both guarantors of Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty. That means, amongst other things, they are obliged to provide whatever support is deemed necessary to restore Ukrainian territorial integrity when it is adjudged to have been breached. Although not parties to the Minsk2 agreement it could be argued that by sending instructors the US and British are violating the UNSC resolutuon which amongst other things urged all parties to observe the Minsk2 package. However, a UNSC resolution cannot override an existing treaty obligation or agreement unless the resolution specifically allows for that. Secondly, were this matter taken before a court for adjudication the most likely judgement would be that the Minsk2 reference to the removal of foreign troops relates primarily to the disputed area and to Ukraine's demand during the agreement's formulation that Russian troops leave Ukrainian territory. It was never intended to refer to instructors from other countries invited in by the Ukrainian government to train its troops in areas well away from the line of contact and the disputed area.

Of course all this a moot point since neither the Russian Federation nor its proxies have fulfilled their obligations since the agreement was signed. Minsk2 is a convenient fiction for all but those who are still being killed, maimed and made homeless by the fighting. Those who believe otherwise should consult the OSCE sitreps and the Ukrainian casualty announcements (which are anyway widely believe to be understating the true figure). The hardcore fighting will resume when the Russian proxy army has reorganised its forces in preparation for the next part of its offensive - the capture of Mariupol, further territorial gains in the Donbas region and the capture of Kharkiv.

Evgeny Skorobogatko -> Pavel Prokofiev 5 Mar 2015 17:12

1) You changed topic from neo-nazis to something else. You lost.
To your other topic of anti-Russia rhetoric - what kind of rhetoric would you expect vis-a-vis an invading nation? Pro-invasion? The rest is unclear and unsubstantiated narrative that I can hardly understand. Can you try to first at least make a statement before you try to prove it?
2) Agreed, and Putin is one of those enemies, he's a dictator.
3) If only were you able to quote an article from the Minsk-2 agreement that allowed killing the army inside the self-defined encirclement past the start date.
4) both statements flat out lies. Prove them. Some of the many politicians participating in Maidan (incl. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk) got a lot of popular vote in the coming general elections. Also, no one is forcing Ukraine into NATO (even if Ukraine wholeheartedly wanted that, it's like a ~10-year journey)
4') Another lie, no one is marching into any cities which haven't been invaded by the Russian army, special forces and paramilitary fighters.
5) See 4'. Didn't get the rest of the post re. population growth, not relevant to Russian invasion
6) Thanks for sharing your dreams.

wheresmewashboard -> Smileyosborne12 5 Mar 2015 17:05

Russians generally have such confidence in Putin that they believe that however difficult the problems may be that their president will find a way to overcome them.

I don't doubt that this is true, but the point that I was making is that if the Russian economy ends up suffering terribly due to the sanctions, both as they are now and how they may increase, then it is inconceivable that over time the Russian people wouldn't start to think that there are other options.

The admiration for Putin is mostly as a result of the fact that he brought stability to Russia. The force of his personality is not to be taken for granted I admit, but it is relatively superficial compared to the stability he and Medvedev have brought. If, however, this stability is lost, and Russia enters a protracted period of economic slump, or potentially worse, then his approval ratings, over time will surely begin to collapse. This has happened in every example of economic calamity within a democracy in history. Admittedly, it may take longer in Russia than in most Western countries, but to think that the Russian people will continue to support Putin regardless of the depths of economic hardship and for how long it goes on for is naive, to say the least. Russian people may well be stoical, but they are not masochists.

The potential problem from Putin's point of view, is that his actions in Ukraine are isolating him and therefore his country. The SEC rules the world of financial regulation, like it or not. No foreign banks / financial institutions will deal with Russian banks or businesses whilst they remain persona non grata with the SEC. Russia's reserves will see them right for a while longer but not forever. The new structure of the world financial system places a lot of power in the hands of American regulators, and this will cause all manner of problems for those who are blacklisted. Russia cannot hope to win in an economic battle with America.

Ukraine is a regional dispute in America's eyes. They are probably not likely to get involved in a proxy war with Russia. The damage they can do to Putin economically is enough.

Pavel Prokofiev -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 16:48

To 1) What for Svoboda is needed, if Yatzenyk and Poroshenko have taken its role with "Heil Ukraine!" and full anti-Russian rhetoric. Who would vote for Tyagnibok if they see that he is not tolerated by the Europe and U? If Europe and US would make clear that they do not support violence of nazi on Maidan - there would be no nazi coup. If Europe and US would not support killings of civilians there would be civil war. Even Venediktov warned Ukrainians that "tituschkas" and "policemen" are also citizens and have rights and own views, but very well educated journalists ignored and ignore this. One can got an impression that such journalists represent the common view, but the truth is that they are in a minority. The truth is that the durty work including fighting with Kalashnikovs is done by other type of people. It is possible to ignore the reality for some time, but one day there will be a hard confrontation with it.

2) Murder of Nemtsov benefits only enemies of Russia.

3) Debaltsevo is just one of the cases of confrontation with reality. Poroshenko believed that there was no encirclement - reality proved to be different.

4) NATO expansion is ok, but why to use nationalistic minority (who could not get even 5% of votes) to make a coup and force a country into NATO?

4') Poroshenko promised that there would be no civil war and any fighting would end within hour after his election - same lies as all stories and policy itself in the current Ukraine. Uncontrolled bataillons are marching into your city - your action? This what people in Eastern Ukraine were doing. Trying to protect themselves from uncontrolled Nazi battalions.

5) Military solution?? Russia will pay high price? But it is the population in Eastern Ukraine, who disagree with Kyiw policy - they are the driving force. If do not want that some Nazi battalions are marching on their streets, you want to force them at any price? The question is, what price will then pay the Ukrainian people on both sides of the conflict, to make Russia to pay high price? This is the main question. The result will be the following: by birthrates Ukraine with 40 million people is now on the same level as Somalia with population of 10 million. During Soviet times each year almost one million people were born in Ukraine, now it is about 400 thousand. 60 years ago population of Ukraine was equal to population of Nigeria or Pakistan (was 1 to 1). Today in Nigeria or Parkistan each year are born 10 to 20 times more children. In Nigeria alone are born more children than in entire EU+Ukraine. At the end of the day we have now Ukraine and Russian and Europe with 30% population of pensioners, and in other countries we see for 40 years now non-stop demographic revolution. Western values against family values? Do you see, who will be the winner? Certainly not Russians, Ukrainians or Europeans.

6) Neutrality? No Neutrality but united and mutualy beneficial block from Roca to Dezhnev.

MysticMegsy -> Tonterias 5 Mar 2015 16:33

US bases are a relic of the cold war - they are of absolutely no strategic importance now - how could they be without tanks?

Both the US and Russia will have a large number of SLBMs parked off the coast of the other's country, so whining about bases and NATO encroachment in Europe is irrelevant. NATO and Russia could wipe out each other's cities regardless of how many bases they have, no matter how close to the other's border.
This argument that Putin 'feels threatened' by Ukraine joining the EU is a total smokescreen to justify his own expansionist agenda (to secure power at home), when the real danger lurks under the Barents Sea regardless.

nnedjo -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:28

Ukraine didn't want to be a part of Putin's Eurasian Union which triggered Russian invasion Russian Eurasian Union is a non starter without Ukraine, and Putin knows it.

Read what former Ukrainian prime minister says on this subject:

Top EU officials, rather than Russia, threatened Ukraine with a coup d'état if Kiev refused to sign an association agreement in 2013, Nikolay Azarov, Ukraine's former prime minister, said.

"I've never heard neither Putin nor Medvedev saying that if you sign an agreement with the EU, you'll have a different government. But I've heard [EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy, Stefan] Fule, repeatedly saying that if you don't sign then the other government will sign it," Azarov said at the presentation of his book 'Ukraine at a crossroads. Prime Minister's notes' in Moscow.

EugeneGur 5 Mar 2015 16:27

The great writer Anton Chekhov wrote a short story "A letter to a learned neighbor ". The story has a personage whose favorite argument was: "It cannot be because it can never be". A lot of people commenting here strongly remind me of that personage. No amount of evidence or logic can possibly convince them of anything they prefer not to see.
Example:
Crimea referendum was under the gunpoint. You can point them to multiple perfectly anti-Russian sources showing that Crimeans voted not only willingly but happily - not, it was annexation, referendum illegal (because we say so), Crimea is occupied, and so on.

One question. If Crimea is occupied, and the population was forced to vote to join Russia, how come the West sanctions Crimea? Just recently the US said Crimea will be under sanctions until it returns to Ukraine. Does it make any sense to punish occupied people for something they had no control over?

I don't think even the US is that stupid. I think they know perfectly well that Crimea is heavily pro-Russian; they knew it before the referendum, after the referendum, and they know it now. They are punishing Crimeans precisely for that: for their desire to reunite with Russia, a.k.a. self-determination. A round of applause for our "democratic leader of the free world", please.


OldStickie Wolfsz 5 Mar 2015 16:16

Lebensraum was a component of Drang Nach Ost which describes what Nato is currently up to.

BorninUkraine -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:14

Because it's not Russians, it's the people of Donbass fighting for their freedom.

Before you ask, I grew up in Lugansk, I have lots of friends and relatives in Donbass. Every one of them knows that their cities are shelled and women and children are routinely killed by Kiev Nazis.

BunglyPete

A letter published from a NATO representative in the Guardian today disputes this articles assertions about NATO expansion

In an interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 15 October 2014, former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev said: "The topic of 'Nato expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years." As the man to whom the promise is said to have been given, his words carry weight.

This conviently misses out the rest of the interview

Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and Genscher talked about it.

"Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. ...

"The decision for the US and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed."

http://m.rbth.co.uk/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

While there was no written agreement the implication was that the US wouldnt take advantage,

Matlock recalled that Baker began his argument saying something like, "Assuming there is no expansion of NATO jurisdiction to the East, not one inch, what would you prefer, a Germany embedded in NATO, or one that can go independently in any direction it chooses." [emphasis added]

The implication was that Germany might just opt to acquire nuclear weapons, were it not anchored in NATO. Gorbachev answered that he took Baker's argument seriously, and wasted little time in agreeing to the deal.

Ambassador Matlock, one of the most widely respected experts on Russia, told me "the language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no 'taking advantage' by the U.S."

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/15/how-nato-jabs-russia-on-ukraine/

Barry Klinger

I agree that there's been a lot of knee-jerk propaganda against Russia, and that NATO should not have expanded into the former USSR, and that arming Ukraine is probably a bad idea. But...

Last spring President Putin said that the "green men" in unmarked green uniforms were not Russian soldiers. Then a few weeks later he admitted that they were. Now he says Russia is not helping Ukraine... except for some volunteers going on their own initiative. Press reports of Russian hardware rolling into Ukraine, circumstantial evidence of war-fighting capability surprising for a revolt that just started months ago... Balance of forces have consistently looked to be in rebels favor, especially if they have Russia literally at their back. So who is more likely to be breaking the cease-fire, the ones who stand to gain or the ones who stand to lose?

To me, all this points to Russian aggression to shrink the independence of neighboring countries, independence that the US foolishly encouraged to be too aggressive. It looks like Russia started and continues to stoke the war in Eastern Ukraine, which is not a minor offense compared to any complicity US had in unrest in Kiev last year.

PlatonKuzin -> Barry Klinger

I guess that the most appropriate answer to all the questions you have raised in your post are the words said more than 130 years ago by genious German politician Otto von Bismarck. They refer to the economic relations with Russia but the general principles stated there are universal and absolutely every word in it is of great significance. Please, read carefully what he said:

Do not expect that once taken advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come – they will not rely on the Jesuit agreement you signed, that supposedly justify your actions. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russians you should use fair play or no play.

Erik Lyng

Thank you. Is about time someone actually talked about this.

BorninUkraine -> Erik Lyng

Yes, it's the first sensible and balanced comment from the Guardian staff in a long time. It shows that not everyone in the media is blind (or paid enough to play blind). Thank you, Seumas Milne!

PlatonKuzin

I hope that shifting to a more balanced coverage of developments in Ukraine and Russia is caused both by the author's commitment to truth and change of the editorial policy in favor of truth.

PlatonKuzin

This is the first article written by a Western author in which he bona fide tries to provide the audience with a balanced and unbiased view on what happens in Ukraine, Russia and relations between Russia and the West. Bravo, Mr. Milne. For the first time ever I personally agree with major author's conclusions and ideas. A rare case for me with respect to the Guardian publications.

EugeneGur

Russia had been compliant with the West for far too long. And look where it got it? The fault line was, of course, the bombing of Yugoslavia. That was the first time Yeltsin opened his mouth and objected to anything the West did. Overnight he was transformed in the Western press from the glorious Russian leader into incompetent drunkard, which he undoubtedly was. Russians have been weary of NATO ever since.

That NATO operation is justified by many that it stopped genocide. Pardon me, but NATO killed people in Belgrade that weren't engaged in any genocide. It's like targeting civilians in a war or killing hostages. Both could be quite effective in a military or terrorist operation. But we wouldn't condone them, would we?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't recall a single defensive operation by NATO, although plenty of offensive ones. Beauty is as beauty does, isn't it?

Demi Boone

Putin is merely reacting to NATO expansionism that began with the Administration of Bill Clinton in 1993. He broke the promise of George Bush (I) who said he would not encroach on the boarders of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union by bringing Poland into NATO and arming them with missiles.

Then Clinton began talking about bringing in other countries as well as Ukraine. This was all done seeking little or no advice from experienced High ranking US Foreign Policy advisers and after it was done he received much criticism for doing it because it infuriated and alienated Russia's Western oriented politicians.

if NATO pushes into Ukraine then Putin will push back

this is what has been occurring (simmering) since the time of Clinton what the US is trying to tell the world is

if Putin pushes into Ukraine then NATO will push back

they are two completely different arguments......research the topic historically.

irishmand -> richard1

He's alienated Ukraine, EU and USA and strengthened NATO, meanwhile unleashing strong nationalist forces in Russia. He cannot win in Ukraine and if he's seen to loose Ukraine, in the Russian mind, (inevitable) these forces are going to "come for him" and his billions.

US/EU alienated Russia by sponsoring a nazi driven coup in Kiev and unleashing a wild russophobic propaganda campaign.

bokhar

Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

SEUMUS WAKE UP! If you care about Russia and its future you should recognize that Putin is bad for Russia - he has done nothing but suppress and kill political opposition, independent media, all the while maintaining an ever tightening noose around the necks of ordinary Russian citizens.

EugeneGur -> bokhar

Somehow, ordinary Russia citizens disagree with this appraisal - but, of course, you know better, being an enlightened European as opposed to them zombies. Do you people even read what you've written before you post or does it come straight from the heart?

irishmand -> bokhar

Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

How much? Give us numbers and maybe we will believe you. Or maybe we won't. Look how many people US/EU killed, are they sorry?

NaMorris

But we want war. It's our not so secret desire. We want to live, not watch, our favorite action and war movies. In war everyone can be a hero. In war there are only good and evil, nothing in between, no middle men. War is blissful simplicity. This is why we pave the way for war.

Eaglesson

Victoria Nuland just few days ago smiling shaking hands with Andriy Parubiy the same founder of Ukrainian Social National Party and also the founder of Joseph Goebbels Institute. The white supremacist was invited in US and he came back with promises that Pentagon will supply them with weapons very soon (as he declared)
Some people have no shame!!

SirHenryRawlins -> Eaglesson

Nuland is a neoconservative. Birds of a feather Parubiy and Nuland.

Danish5666 -> Hucker

"have a right as independent countries to choose who they see as their friends"

Russia is rank dilettantes when compared to the US. Covert United States foreign regime
change actions:

1949 Syrian coup d'état
1953 Iranian coup d'état
1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
1959 Tibetan uprising
1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
1963 South Vietnamese coup
1964 Brazilian coup d'état
1973 Chilean coup d'état
1976 Argentine coup d'état
1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
1980 Turkish coup d'état
1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

Smileyosborne12

Come ON the red arrows! I am an unashamed supporter of Vladimir Putin.

When one realises the severe problems,financial,military,politically,ecumenically and territorially the man faced when he took over I have a lot of time for him.Firstly he was preceded by a succession of Premiers who generally in succession just served to weaken the country.

Lenin,Stalin,Khruschev,Pavlov, Kosygin and the drunken megalomaniac Yeltsin, left Russia as weak as at any time in its modern history. Putin gave up the Muslim states which had weakened Russia since the days of Stalin and finally came to an understanding with Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya the most militant of them all. In spite of the best attempts of the UN,Nato, President Obama,Angela Merkel,David Cameron and Francois Hollande to ruffle and destabilise him he has almost twice the approval rating of any of them and survived a litany of attempts to tie him to murders of his "opponents" without any concrete evidence brought against him. Pretty good record I would suggest.

willpodmore

Matthew Parris wrote in The Times ('It's time we washed our hands of Ukraine', 28 February, p. 21) "Ukraine? With an inward groan, I write again what I wrote about Saddam's Iraq, about Gaddafi's Libya and about Assad's Syria. Intervention almost always makes things worse."

adoeli -> no_ref

Gas disputes are resolved in an international court of arbitration. Head of the Energy Commission of the European Union recognized the guilt of Ukraine in non-payment of supplies. Kiev just doesn't it, till won't come the Z-day. Russia itself depends on the supply of gas through Ukraine. The pipe goes through Ukraine to Europe. Moscow concerns about the reputation of the honest supplier. Moscow's role as an unscrupulous suppliers is profitable for US. Ukraine, that had become a puppet of the United States, is capable for any provocation. Moscow was glad to be rid of such an intermediary that it did in fact, has planned a new gas pipeline project with Turkey. Now are you happy? Neither Ukraine nor Bulgaria nor the other will depend on Russian gas supplies. What are the problems?

SHappens -> jezzam

Russia did not make a fuss on all those Eastern countries joining NATO even if, of course, it might not pleased them. The red line was passed with Ukraine. Crimea in particular.

In the past deals were made, promises were made, tacit agreements if you will and everybody was coping. But when the US decided to come and play in Russia's backyard with the intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia, well Putin said stop. Now the US dont want to listen thus the assault on everything Russian through the conciliatory mass media.

If you think about it all objectively you can only agree that without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already.

ToddPalant -> Andrew Baldwin

Fight for reform? With the dissolution of the USSR Yeltsin had a tabula rasa. They could start from the beginning by founding a truly democratic Russia. Unfortunately Mr. Nemtsov presided, along with other western proteges, over the looting of the Russian public wealth, virtually delivering it in the hands of the "chosen" few. Nemtsov although pro western, was no reformer. In his later years he was, to put it simplistically, a repeater of Mrs. Nuland's and her husband's aggressive narrative (the "f**k soft politics, bring in the troops" kinna thingy )

jezzam -> SHappens

No. I still don't get it. If Russia did not make a fuss about all the other countries joining NATO, why make a fuss about Ukraine?

What does your statement that the US "intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia," mean? In what way were the US intending to rob Ukraine? In what way would this have threatened Russia?

"without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already". I find it hard to agree with this statement as it is again difficult to understand. Do you mean that by now Putin would have imposed his will?

SHappens -> jezzam

I'll try to make it short, you know I can be prolific.

Crimea base lease, Fuck the EU coup using Maiden revolt, installation of a government chosen by her in Kiev.

Rob resources, gas Biden, cereals Monsanto, install NATO, control Russia and why not annihilate it + cheap human labour flooding in Germany and the EU for a more low leverage of EU wages.

By now there would have been the regular vote as planned in May 2014.

gnorblitz

This is Kiev and Moscow using centuries old blood feuds and nationalist fervor in a struggle over territory and its concomitant resources, infrastructure, tax revenue and political power. Washington is fueling it in order to widen its sphere of influence in the region, sell arms, entrench political back home and further contain Russia politically and economically. All three governments have the blood of the people in the region on their hands.

gnorblitz -> gnorblitz

That should read entrenching political support back home. Since the Second World War, standing up to Russia is guaranteed political currency in the U.S.

ToddPalant -> gnorblitz

If it were simply an isolated power play on the part of the US, although atrocious, it would not be as threatening as it is now. It seems like a culmination of a plan hatched in the late 40's.

It also looks like an act of desperation as the US having lost its economic "power house" status relies solely on its still impressive war machine, certainly a policy that has an expiry date.

When the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US will have reached the point of no return. All three have blood on their hands, true. But the instigator, the accessory before the fact, is draped in stars and stripes

EugeneGur

A reasonable article in the Guardian? Sounds like an oxymoron. Someone must be sick on the editorial board to allow this.

The alternative is a negotiated settlement which guarantees Ukraine's neutrality, pluralism and regional autonomy. It may well be too late for that.

This was an alternative more than a year ago but it is no longer on the table. Under no circumstances Donbass will be a part of the present day Ukraine no matter how many sanctions are applied to Russia. Besides, the US wants a conflict with Russia, which means Kiev will fight on. What the US will do when Kiev gets its ass kicked for the third time, which will undoubtedly happen, I don't know. But everything they've done so far is bringing us all closer to the real possibility of a war.

jezzam -> EugeneGur

If what you say is true, it is obvious what will happen. E. Ukraine will effectively become part of Russia. Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically and left to stew in their own juice. Is it worth it just to grab a useless piece of devastated territory?

EugeneGur -> jezzam

What I always admire is the "humanitarian" zeal of out western friends. They lecture us relentlessly on human right, European values, etc, but when it come to opposing Russia, all humanitarian concerns disappear like the smoke they really are.

This "useless piece of devastated territory" is populated by 8 millions of human beings, and it wasn't devastated by itself but by our Ukrainian brothers that claimed for some mysterious reason that land for itself. Russia didn't grab anything - Russia is helping these people to survive. Got something against it?

StanislavCh -> jezzam

Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically

It's the most amazing part of Western narrative. Isolated from whom ? The whole world wants to cooperate with Russia , does it and will continue. If US and EU do not - fine, nobody cares , just piss off, but it's so ridiculous to call it isolation!

bananasandsocks

There was no democratic outcome ebcause there was no democratic vote.

There was a vote. And objective evidence from polling indicates that Crimeans overwhelmingly consider it free and fair. So there is democratic confirmation of its validity.

No option to vote for the status quo.

According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

No independent oversight of vote counting.

According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

No campaigning allowed for the Ukrainian side.

According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

Voters intimidated by masked armed thugs.

Nonsense. But according to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

Roguing -> bananasandsocks

Do non-Russian populations currently living in Russia have the right to transfer sovereignty of their territory from Moscow to another state?

[Feb 10, 2015] Putin a brilliant strategist, a cunning tactician, or mad by John Kampfner

What a mad, incompetent neocon: "Western governments and banks know where he is vulnerable. But are they willing to take the financial hit to strike back at him? "
Feb 07, 2015 | Telegraph

At a recent conference held in the Baltic states, one word dominated the agenda: Putin. They could have discussed Russia and its foreign policy more generally, but all routes lead to a president whose 15 years in power have left him in total charge.

Amid increased fears of all-out war in Ukraine, governments and policy makers around Europe are anxiously analysing the motivation of the most dangerous politician on the continent since the end of the Cold War. In stark terms, three possibilities are considered: is he a brilliant strategist succeeding in a long-term plan to create a 21st century variant of the Soviet Union? Is he a cunning tactician who responds to events as they happen? Or is he mad?

No consensus was reached at that conference because the complexities of the human brain defy such simple assessment. Indeed, all three explanations could be said to be playing a part – to devastating effect.

A decade ago, Putin described the demise of the USSR as the greatest geo-strategic catastrophe of the 20th century. He is infused with the standard KGB mind-set of paranoia, vindictiveness and self-confidence. After seeking to engage the West in the early 2000s, attempting to be amenable on issues ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan (and, to a degree, justifiably feeling let down), he reverted to type, setting himself in contradistinction to Western enlightenment values. Soviet-era contempt for human rights and free speech were reinforced by a revived position for the ultra-conservative Orthodox Church.

When the people of Georgia and Ukraine (twice) sought a different path, he dismissed the popular movements as orchestrated by the CIA and NATO. The overthrow of Ukraine's corrupt pro-Moscow ruler, Viktor Yanukovych, gave him a new opportunity. He merged the immediate task of preventing the encroachment of democratic values onto his doorstep with his previously vague dream of a greater Russia. The seizure of Crimea was brazen, but straightforward. Many governments in the West were quietly reconciled, given that it had been Russia's until the 1950s.

The insurgency in eastern Ukraine was different. Even the most credulous dove struggled, after a while, to believe that the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic was anything but coordinating with and heavily armed by the Kremlin. Now Putin does not even bother to pretend.

The predicament, for all sides, is now alarming. Putin's cult of personality among "ordinary" Russians – many of the more urbanised middle-class have either quit the country or are keeping their heads down – revolves around the image of the bare-chested tough man fighting the good fight. The more Russia's economy contracts, the more its dependency on oil and gas exports is exposed, the more he knows he has only his machismo to fall back on. Compromise on Ukraine could easily be interpreted as retreat. In any case, nothing unites a populace (particularly one that is now deprived of news that is anything other than propaganda) more than a war against an outside enemy.

Boxed into a corner, he is playing a weak hand reasonably adeptly. His immediate aim is to drive a wedge among Western governments who have struggled even to agree on sanctions. If they provide weaponry to the Ukrainian government (as John Kerry, the US Secretary of State is proposing), they may redress the military balance in the short term. But, unless they really want to commit NATO to all-out war, Russia knows that if it wants to step up the pace, it can.

The next few weeks will be crucial. It was right for Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, the German and French leaders, to go to Moscow. So far they carried off their task well, displaying an openness to listen rather than a willingness to buckle.

Britain's marginal role is a reflection of the new reality of European politics. Merkel is fighting against a German political establishment that has long sought to accommodate Russia. Hollande's predicament is similar. Putin saw how easy it was during the 2003 Iraq war for George Bush to mischaracterise Europe into "new" and "old". But the core of that division remains, with Poland and most of Eastern Europe fearful of Russia and determined to be tough with Moscow, while others are keen to cut deals. The EU's new high representative for foreign affairs, the Italian Federica Mogherini, has a track record of being soft on Russia. Britain has lurched from weakness (the initial attempts to prevent a full inquiry into the polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko being the most abject example of appeasement) into a stronger position.

Putin will have to be convinced that it is not in his long-term interests to play with fire in Ukraine. The most effective counter-measures against Putin remain economic. So far the sanctions have been little more than pinpricks. Russian money laundering and thuggery are intertwined. Putin and his cronies are at the heart of the action.

Western governments and banks know where he is vulnerable. But are they willing to take the financial hit to strike back at him?

John Kampfner was the Telegraph's Moscow bureau chief 1991-94. His latest book, The Rich, a 2000-Year History, is published by Little, Brown

I've looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes - and he won't back down - Telegraph

[Feb 08, 2015] Remarks at the Congress of Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia

Russia revolt against neoliberal empire with the capital is Washington...
Notable quotes:
"... There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order. ..."
"... Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government. ..."
[Feb 07, 2015] President of Russia

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:

... ... ...

Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.

Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government.

... ... ...

Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible attitude to our job, we will succeed.

Thank you very much.

[Feb 08, 2015] I've looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes - and he won't back down By Tony Brenton, former British Ambassador

Feb 07, 2015 | Telegraph

Putin as president continues to display those same qualities which got him to the top. In a culture that prizes emotional excess, I have never seen him let himself go. He is always impeccably turned out, exudes a sort of aggressive fitness which cows the flabby middle-aged men around him, and is in impressive command of the facts of whatever he is discussing. I have seen him correct British ministers on the details of the UK gas market and stun British intelligence officials by responding to an exposition of our anti-terrorist policies with the blunt statement: "We kill them." His annual press conferences are tours de force – three hours without notes taking questions from all-comers on all subjects. Our politicians would never attempt it.

... ... ...

He deeply mistrusts the West. But he is not a risk taker. His pride in Russia was apparent every time I saw him, from lavish Kremlin receptions to celebrate Russia's artistic elite to his cold response at a Downing Street meeting to hearing that a gas project was going to cost Russia billions more than anticipated – eventually followed by Russian expropriation of the company concerned.

His caution has been much questioned since the annexation of Crimea last year – which took virtually all observers (including me) by surprise. But the Putin I knew was a man who judged situations very carefully, was very conscious of Russia's relative weakness vis-à-vis the West, and only took action if he was confident he had a decisive advantage, or felt himself unbearably provoked – as in Georgia in 2008.

There is simply no evidence for the Western hysteria about a revanchist Russia. The Putin I know is not going to take on Nato.

None the less, getting out of the mess in Ukraine is not going to be easy. Putin has nailed his flag to the mast of protecting the East Ukrainian dissidents. Nor will he let Ukraine abandon its neutral status and join Nato. He is not going to let economic pressures, or even the supply of arms, force him to accept a deal which damages what he views as vital Russian interests. He knows the Russian elite, and people, are firmly behind him on all this.

On the other hand, he certainly doesn't want war. And he doesn't want to add broken-backed East Ukraine, still less other parts of the former Soviet Union, to Russia's already substantial economic woes. Merkel and Hollande face a hideously difficult job. And Vladimir Putin is keen that it should be so. But the last thing he wants is to make it impossible.

[Feb 06, 2015] The Intellectual Bankruptcy of Russia's Neo-Liberal Critics by Mark Chapman

Jan 31, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
There's something awkwardly touching about Robert Coalson's enduring faith. Like a child closing her eyes and reciting "I do believe in fairies" three times, he is imbued with the certainty that Russia's collapse is just around the next corner. And he yearns for it: hard to say why, he must have his reasons, but he doggedly picks through the gimcrackery on show each month and weeds out the gems he believes showcase Russia's savagery, authoritarian despotism and unfitness to be part of the civilized world. Although it is clearly a labor of love, it must be a hard row to hoe these days, as the country folk say. Russia's stubborn refusal to collapse on schedule must be disappointing. But like a good zealot, he simply sighs and moves on to the next article of faith.

This post is only peripherally about Coalson, though, because it was his cautious excitement expressed in a Tweet – which I still think is about as mildly stupid a means of communication as writing simple messages on your naked buttocks with a Sharpie marker and bending over to display your intellectual bankruptcy to the world – over an article by certified paint-chip-eater Leonid Bershidsky (Thanks, Peter).

I don't mean to imply – by calling him a paint-chip eater – that Bershidsky is stupid: far from it. In fact, he is a gifted writer with an elegant, readable narrative style and a command of English that is nothing short of remarkable, assuming it is his second language and that Russian is his first. But like so many, perhaps all of the kreakly (for those not familiar with the term, it is a portmanteau of "creative class", but beginning with "k" to ensure the hard sound prevails), his creativity is hopelessly enslaved to saccharine liberal daydreams in which the prodding and jibing of the west against Russia are simply examples of tough love on the part of an exasperated parent who just wants Russia to get off its tookus and be all it can be. These dreamers often come from well-to-do and highly educated families with foreign connections, partially or wholly educated abroad; young Leonid, for example, was educated in California and received his MBA from Insead in Fontainebleu, France. He was the founding editor of Vedomosti, a joint project of The Financial Times and The Wall Street Journal, neither of them Putin fans by any stretch of the imagination. Young Leonid left his university studies to return to Moscow, driven by a dream that Russia would join the European Union, and seems to blame Putin because it never did; it is clear he has a hate on for Putin. But although Putin strove for closer integration with the European Union, highly-placed analysts were unambiguous that Russia would "never be ready", a view that is all the more comical now for western scrabbling to try to seize Ukraine for a prize for the EU despite its rampant corruption, ruined economy and recent appetite for Nazi displays of repressive power. Russia is too big, and not submissive enough, refusing to tug its forelock to the west.

Depressingly familiar also in Bershidsky's thinking is the reverence of the kreakly for the oligarchs, and their entirely unsubstantiated conviction that with great wealth comes a great desire to do good, exemplified in his article on Roman Abramovich extolling the good that rich businessmen are capable of – and that much is true – coupled to a naive conviction that they will; "But whatever the businessman's reasons for running in Chukotka, there is a certain justice in one of Russia's wealthiest people trying to win votes in one of the nation's poorest regions. One hopes Abramovich is not without his share of decency and some of the wealth will rub off on Chukotka." Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of Yulia Latynina's batty rant that only the wealthy should be allowed to vote, because only those who are not hungry can be trusted not to vote with their bellies? And is anyone else curious why wealthy businessmen are accorded the status of minor gods in Kreakletown, while Vladimir Putin – alleged by the same social demographic to be the wealthiest man in Russia – is a shitheel they can't wait to get rid of? Is it perhaps because they know he doesn't really have any money?

Yes, wealthy businessmen almost invariably lift up the poor around them to an ecstasy of prosperity. Like Kolomoisky did for Dnepropetrovsk. Or Akhmetov for the Donbass coal miners, many of whom are spitting out the window of Rolls-Royces right now, thanks to his munificence.

And so it was with weary resignation that I came upon the latest wild tangent of reasoning by Bershidsky; although he is a "Russian patriot" who was moved to see Russia "get up off its knees" (since 1991, a period that seems deliberately contrived to spread the process so as to make it appear Putin had nothing much to do with that resolution and repair, despite the fact that the late 90's nearly saw the complete collapse of Russia), he took his place in the "fifth wave of emigration" because it was fundamentally dishonest for him to contribute his Russian tax rubles to the theft of Crimea. Yes, folks, even though Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by the First Secretary of the Soviet Union which was accomplished without soliciting the opinion of anyone else in Russia, Ukraine's claim on it is the only legitimate one. Fuck what the people who live there think.

It's a pity I have tired myself out, and just feel disappointed and uninspired now that I have at last come to what I wanted to talk about – not Leonid Bershidsky at all, but an article written by him which overturns the silly story that Capo di tutti cappi Putin not only owned a massive, sprawling mansion in the Marbella Regione of Spain, but that he planned to occupy his twilight years in the sunny vineyards, growing grapes so rare and precious that if a bottle of their wine was stolen, Putin would burn local villages in reprisal. Okay, that's a little hyperbolic, but apparently these grapes are something else, very rare, just the sort of thing that would appeal to an it's all-about-me dictator like Putin.

And now it transpires that the ritzy complex has nothing to do with Putin. We know this because Alexey Navalny's anti-corruption scouts ferreted out the real owner, Zoya Ponomareva, daughter of Valery Ponomarev. Bershidsky spends the rest of the piece reframing "nothing at all to do with Putin" so that readers understand that really all expensive property owned by Russian political figures belongs to Putin, and they're just kind of holding it for him until he decides to take possession.

I don't know what's the more depressing – Bershidsky's flushed-face defense of all-or-nothing liberalism and its values, or the fact that the kreakly will only believe that a stinking-rich scam has nothing to do with the country's leader when they are so informed by a twice-convicted criminal who has no regard whatsoever for the rule of law, and picks and chooses those he will obey and those he will not.


Boris Jaruselski

VERY amusing reading, ...far, far better then the 'inspiration' of Bershidsky will EVER produce!

Jane > Boris Jaruselski

Russian liberal = traitor.

If these people agree with the surrounding if Russia with NATO bases then there is no other way to describe them.

They are like Gorbachev fooled by the west into sacrificing there rights to exist as a independent country with its own foreign and domestic policy.

Mark Chapman > Jane

I think you have hit upon it precisely: Russian liberals trust that NATO's intentions are honest and good, and that it really wants to see Russia succeed in its national aspirations, while Putin is holding it back from achieving them. There is no evidence at all in NATO's rhetoric over the years, nor in its constant misrepresentation of Russia as a nation of drunks and fools which is in a demographic nosedive, that it wishes anything of the kind for Russia, whereas a far more ideal solution to NATO's mind would be a country broken up into smaller national republics, all independent by ethnicity and without a central authority, and all suspicious of one another's motives so that conflict between them could be stoked easily by rumor and innuendo.

Mark Chapman > Boris Jaruselski

Thank you, Boris; you're very kind. However, I must point out once again that Bershidsky is writing in what must be a second language for him, and I am in fact an admirer of his writing. I just don't like what he says. He seems like a genuinely nice guy, and would probably be a lot more fun to have a beer with than George W. Bush, the fact that the latter is an alcoholic notwithstanding.

There can be no doubt that Bershidsky is very smart - he could not have succeeeded academically or in business as he has if he were a halfwit. But he thinks Crimea was "stolen" from Ukraine despite the clear discomfort expressed by its people with remaining dependent on Kiev, while the International Court of Justice opined that Crimea's acceptance into the Russian Federation was not illegal. None of that adds up to "stolen" for me. Similarly, Ukraine recognizes that it was once Russia's to give away, since they applaud the legitimacy of the order that gave it to Ukraine. But mysteriously, the only claim that is now legal is Ukraine's title to keep it, regardless what the people who live there think.

Boris Jaruselski > Mark Chapman

That Bershidsky is a intelligent fellow, goes without saying, ...but at least some PART of intelligence belongs also in recognizing realities and making peace with them! The other, ...perhaps equally important 'part' of intelligence, is recognizing historical facts, ...after all, most of what is termed 'Novorussia' today, was Russian since some 200 years ago, and only concluding this fact to it's ultimate end: a whole lot of the REST of Europe would be 'owned' by someone else, then are the current 'owners'!

And in my humble opinion, what the Bershidsky is having a problem with, is precisely that: not recognizing history, i.e. REVISIONIST!

Jack F. Trolls > Boris Jaruselski

See it this way : the western scheme is easily viewed as benevolent if you in your lifetime reaped lots of its benefits and became a rather respected guest among it's upper classes.

This is simply the way it is, take my word for it. Kaiser Maximilian of Mexico went to his future subjects convinced the "enlightened monarchy" was best for them and so himself as a bringer of paradise.

You know what happened - the ingrates executed him.

So that is what probably motivates the man, benevolent perspective.

One might also argue that, after the old insight "if you can't beat them, join them", Russia should eat humble pie and beg to join NATO, like Germany did. And aren't the Germans such very well off ?

Much better than when they tried to walk it alone.

Wasn't there that early Chinese king who devastated the country so as to end all wars among the Chinese and unite the Empire ? And he succeeded. So there.

This is the wisdom of the masochists, while the conquerors graciously smile upon them.

The Brits still pride themselves to have been "the best thing that ever happened to India". Some Indians agree. There was a Japanese guy who went to the US every couple of years to take part in the anniversaries of the"Enola Gay", the plane crew that annihilated Hiroshima, to THANK THEM, as he deeply felt they had done his country an incredible favour.

As the West is the cultural culmination of the best civilization in the known universe (only the West is indispensable and allowed to call itself "free"), many people find it hard to understand why Russia is constantly trying to evade their tough love, unwilling to have sex exactly their way, when that way is after all the best way.
I mean - don' the Russians GET IT ? When it's after all SELF-EVIDENT ?

You have to reach a certain level of intelligence to delude yourself PERFECTLY.

It works for awhile, some people use it as a substitute for religion.

This is why a part of western machinations are not just cynical, though lots are, but also simply and straightforwardly naive. They just refuse to grow up. Only losers ever go adult, the good guys stay forever young and indulge in game theory.

Mark Chapman > Jack F. Trolls

Russia did apply to join NATO, in 1954. Britain and France shot it down.

http://www.counterpunch.org/20...

The Warsaw Pact was formed the following year, as a counter to NATO. But it would never have happened if NATO had welcomed Russia the year prior.


[Feb 05, 2015] How Kremlin TV Covers America and Why It Matters by Lincoln Mitchell

Another signal from 2015 about forthcoming clump down on RT. RT is Russian propaganda site, but that does not exclude them providing high quality critical coverage of US and European events. In any case RT is preferable to BBC, although comparing two can get you at higher level of understanding, than watching just one
Notable quotes:
"... simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, ..."
"... at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news. ..."
"... Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter ..."
Feb 03, 2015 | Observer

At first glance, Lee Camp, Thom Hartmann and Larry King don't seem to have a lot in common. Mr. Camp is a comedian who seeks to fuse progressive politics with humor. He is perhaps best known for his "Moment of Clarity" rants, where he colorfully, and occasionally profanely, analyzes an issue from the news. Mr. Hartmann is a progressive radio host, author and pundit who has written numerous books, articles and blogs. Larry King is legendary talk show host and erstwhile Little League coach. He has interviewed presidents, actors, musicians and even Oprah.

All three of these media personalities, however, share a link to RT (formerly Russia Today), the English-language arm of the Russian government's media operation. In less diplomatic terms, it is a Kremlin propaganda machine. RT's coverage of Russia, the conflict in Ukraine and other issues having direct bearing on Moscow's role in the world, include headlines that sound like they could have been written by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Mother Russia is portrayed as a force for only good and peace in the world. It's anchors and "reporters" have enthusiasm for euphemisms such as "stabilizing force" ("invading army") and "humanitarian aid" ("military intervention"). RT's coverage of Russian politics is heavy-handed, unsubtle and, in the U.S., not particularly effective. Despite RT's best efforts to gin up sympathy for Russia in the current Ukraine conflict, most mainstream politicians and media outlets continue to compete with each other to see who can demonize Putin most.

RT's coverage of the U.S., however, is different. While it certainly has an political agenda, one that is not of the left or the right, but simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, RT covers news, and offers perspectives that are not often seen American broadcast television. RT touts itself as offering a "second opinion," through its American media campaign, described by Ronn Torossian recently here at the Observer. RT is certainly neither objective or balanced, but it is at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news.

Recent RT headlines such as "Police Brutality Activists Angry Obama Glossed Over Ferguson 'Events' in SOTU" and "Majority of America's Public School Children are Living in Poverty," span a reasonably broad ideological range, but seek to consistently to portray the U.S. in a negative light. These are also stories that much of the media overlooks. This approach, and similar language can also be found in RT America's busy Twitter feed. If RT were funded through advertising or the largesse of a quirky American billionaire and only covered domestic politics here in the U.S., it would be viewed by many as a useful component of a diverse media environment. For these reasons, RT is now the most watched foreign news outlet in the U.S., with an audience that is estimated to be 6.5 times as large as its closest rival, Al Jazeera America.

In addition to its news coverage, RT has also become a clearinghouse for the opinions of American dissidents, including those on the far left like Noam Chomsky, the far, if twisted, right like Pat Buchanan, and increasingly fringe Libertarians like Ron Paul. While opinions like these are provocative, unpopular and often a little wacky, RT gives American audiences access to ideas and opinions that are considerably beyond the narrow bandwidth in which most debate in the media usually occurs. Clearly, these opinions are more extreme than the more genial progressive politics of Mr. Camp or Mr. Hartmann or of the generally politically neutral work of Mr. King, but taken as a whole, RT provides a very broad range of political outlooks.

Somebody who only watched RT would have an image of the U.S. as a place of radical economic inequality, widespread civil unrest, corrupt politicians, racial animus and a collapsing economy, committed to expanding its global influence through military might. Of course, somebody who watched only Fox News, would understand the U.S. to be a country that is in the throws of a socialist takeover where an oppressed minority of white, heavily Christian citizens, are now losing the country that was given to them by the almighty, to hordes of illegal immigrants, non-whites, homosexuals and atheists. Both Fox and RT are propaganda organs espousing very biased views of American politics. The major difference may be that Fox represents one extreme of the domestic political spectrum while RT is the propaganda arm of a foreign government. While RT draws more viewers than other foreign news networks like CCTV from China, Al Jazeera America or even the BBC, its viewership is dwarfed by major American news stations like Fox; RT America has 194,000 Twitter followers compared with Fox News has 4.83 million Twitter followers.

But dismissing RT's coverage as simply a Russian propaganda, however, is a mistake. The insights of people like Mr. Camp and Mr. Hartmann, while not universally agreed upon, certainly resonate with many Americans. It is significant that it is only on a Moscow-funded station that voices like those can be heard, reflecting how the major media outlets still only present a relatively narrow range of views on most topics. Second, providing a critical and resonant portrayal of American politics to American viewers will eventually make those viewers more open to RT's dubious presentation of foreign affairs and Russian politics. The Kremlin hopes that the same people who watch RT's US programming and wonder why stories about, for example, why the US is classifying information about aid to Afghanistan, will soon begin to question why so few voices on American media are critical of the Ukrainian government.

Consider RT's coverage of American politics as a bait and switch, from critical insight about the US to dishonest propaganda regarding Russia.

Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter

Alfred Cossi Chodaton

RT does nothing different from what major media outlets do.

Ilya Nesterovich

Lie, lie and lie. That's all. RT show different opinion from official, and, of course, USA doesn't like it.

Mstislav Pavlov

In Russia there is no need for propaganda. Your media better than any propaganda. Kremlin even do not need anything :)

[Feb 04, 2015] Malice behind Putin misquotations Russia to respond with full disclosure - RT News

It's open season for Western media to bend the rules in their depiction of Russia. And with a little help from Western officials, they can quote President Putin speaking pretty aggressively – even when he actually said nothing of the kind.

In recent months, there have been two notable occasions when Vladimir Putin was misquoted. The first came when he apparently put on his conqueror's hat while speaking about Ukraine. In September, La Repubblica newspaper reported the Putin had told then-European Commission president, Jose Manual Barroso, that he "could take Kiev in weeks." The alleged bragging was revealed by the European official to a council meeting, but after Moscow said it would publish the transcript of the entire conversation, the EU admitted that the words were taken out of context.

READ: EU admits Putin's comment on 'storming Kiev' taken out of context

An arguably more scandalous incident was sparked by former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who told Politico magazine that he overheard Putin suggesting to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in 2008 that Ukraine be divided between the two nations. The official backpedalled on the accusations after a backlash both from Russia and at home, admitting that he never heard Putin actually voicing the Hitleresque plan. He also admitted that Putin and Tusk didn't actually meet at the time the conversation was supposed to have taken place.

Moscow suspects that both incidents may be part of a slander campaign against Russia.

"I have no doubt that the entire situation with pumping up passions and anti-Russian feelings among the Western public is well-coordinated," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the LifeNews channel.

"Was there malice in the actions of some of our Western colleagues, who started interpreting the content of confidential conversations in a way that turned interpretation into misinterpretation? Or have some folks simply decided to ride before the hounds or demonstrate their full loyalty to the campaign unfolding in Europe with a lot of input from their transatlantic allies?" the minister wondered.

READ: Russia ready to recognize Ukraine parliament election - Lavrov

Moscow will respond to similar incidents in the future in the way it tackled the Barroso disclosure.

"I believe we found the best antivenom – we at once state that we are ready to publish a full transcript of the conversation as was the case with Barroso and some others," Lavrov said.

"We have nothing to hide. Yes, some things are confidential. But on our part we never touch upon things meddling in someone's internal affairs," he added. "We are being philosophical on the issue."

The rebuke from the Russian minister comes days after a key speech by President Putin, who has accused the US of destabilizing the global political system through selfish and hypocritical policies after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Lavrov himself was the subject of a spectacular misquotation back in 2008, when Russia responded to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia and the killing of Russian peacekeepers stationed in the region.

At the time, the British newspaper, The Telegraph, reported that Lavrov used foul language in a telephone conversation with his British counterpart at the time, David Miliband, rhetorically asking the much-younger official: "Who are you to f****g lecture me?" The verbal abuse was denied by both the Foreign Office and the Russian Foreign Ministry.

[Jan 30, 2015] Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes by Paul Craig Roberts

Mar 06, 2014 | CounterPunch

Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.

Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired.

Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor.

I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times.

My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.

For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.

As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.

Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington.

It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.

They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea."

No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.

So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence.

What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?

The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: "There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened." Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here: http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's help.

The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.

[Jan 24, 2015] A typical pattern of behaviour of western MSM in Ukraine civil war coverage

Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization, or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Jan 24, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer , January 24, 2015 at 7:34 am

Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels.

Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that try to point of the media hypocrisy.

[Jan 15, 2015] The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs by By Mikhail Klikushin

OK. First WashPost. Now Observer. So much for State Department propaganda efforts...
Jan 14, 2015 | observer.com

Prominent Ukrainian MP denounces Obama's weakness, calls him a 'shot-down pilot'

By Mikhail Klikushin | 01/14/15 8:05am

There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors are even imaginable.

But that was then - a previous regime.

On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern, attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his government.

Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets. They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.

In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.

The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared. In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money from the European Bank and the IMF.

The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.

On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.

Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.

By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.

As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.

Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.

One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.

Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza. This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.

Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed 2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny. We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"

Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.

[Jan 09, 2015] Latvia proposes 'alternative' to Russian TV propaganda

Jan 07, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , January 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

euractiv: Latvia proposes 'alternative' to Russian TV propaganda

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/latvia-proposes-alternative-russian-tv-propaganda-311109

Latvia, which took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 January, intends to launch a Russian-language TV channel to counter Kremlin propaganda, with EU support, a high ranking government official told journalists in Riga

Some 40% of Latvians are native Russian speakers and regularly watch several Russian TV channels, including RBK Ren TV, RTR Planeta, NTV Mir .

Makarovs regretted that the majority of Russian channels broadcasting for Latvia were registered in the UK and in Sweden, and that the regulators of those countries paid no attention to the content and put no pressure whatsoever on the broadcaster. He also argued that the procedure should be that if a media is targeted toward a specific country, it should be registered in that particular country .
###

Firstly, the Balt states announced at various times over the last year or so that they would ban or block Russian channels. But they can't. They are EU member states, so this whole alternative programs is an actually an admission of defeat.

Secondly, if Russian propaganda is so absurd and unbelievable, then why would alternative programing be necessary? It is cognitive dissonance par excellence!

What is fairly clear is that the Pork Pie News Networks of 'Europe' and the US are facing much more skepticism than ever before, mostly through incompetence and simply repeating the same old tropes and propganda tactics they have been using for over twenty years now. It doesn't fool anyone any more.

As for Latvia's presidency of the EU, it is little more than spokesstate since the rotating Presidency was gutted a few years ago to make it much more efficient (i.e cheaper). With small countries, yes they choose certain aspects that they wish to promote for their six months of fame, but the logistics and heavy lifting is usually done (sponsored) by a larger EU state like UK, Nl, DE, Fr etc..). It's not that much different to Mogherini's job as spokeshole for the European External Action Service, aka the EU's foreign minister (and Katherine 'Gosh!' Ashton before her). They don't make policy, just vocalized the lowest common denominator position of 28 EU member states.

[Jan 06, 2015] Is the CIA Running a Defamation Campaign Against Putin?

Oct 24, 2014 | russia-insider.com

A major topic in the Russian media is mystification with how Putin is portrayed in the Western media.

Wildly popular at home, and seen as a decent, modest, an admirable person, and Russians don't understand how there can be such a disconnect with Western impressions.

Recently, leading Russian commentators and politicians have been suggesting that this can only be explained by a deliberate campaign to defame Putin, by governments or other groups.

Yesterday, at a briefing to foreign journalists, Sergey Ivanov, Putin's chief of staff, arguably the 2nd most powerful man in Russia, spoke of an "information war" consisting of "personal attacks" on Putin.

The western media hit a new low...

The day before another member of Putin's inner circle, Vyasheslav Volodin, made similar remarks, telling foreign journalists "an attack on Putin is an attack on Russia."

The logic, they argue, is that by defaming the leader of a country, you weaken his power domestically by undermining popular support for him, and internationally, by rallying popular opinion to support policies against that country. The ultimate goal, they argue, is to weaken the country itself. They also talk about regime change.

They argue that if one looks at the facts, that there is evidence of ongoing character assassination which cannot be explained by a vague popular zeitgeist in the West, but is more likely the result of a dedicated effort to introduce this defamation into the news flow.

Newsweek has been one of the most virulent Putin-bashers for years

The issue of manipulation of news by intelligence services has been in the news recently with revelations that the CIA and German Secret Service (GSS) have long-running programs to influence how media executives and top journalists convey and interpret the news, including direct cash payments.

Here are some examples they point to:

  • Portraying him as a scheming dictator trying to rebuild a repressive empire.
  • Claiming he personally ordered the murder of a number of journalists, and personally ordered a KGB defector to be murdered with radiation poisoning.
  • Frequently citing unsubstantiated rumors he is having an affair with a famous gymnast.
  • Allegations that he has stashed away billions for his personal benefit, without providing evidence.
  • Recent article in newsweek claiming he leads a luxurious and lazy lifestyle, sleeping late.
  • Recent article in NYT focusing on a supposed personal arrogance.
  • Hillary Clinton mentioning in speech after speech that he is a bad guy, a bully, that one must confront him forcefully.
  • Frequently using pejoratives to describe his person - "a jerk and a thug" (Thomas Friedman this week in the NYT)
  • Mis-quoting him on his regret about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • Articles about a supposed super-luxury villa built for him in southern Russia.
  • The over-the top headlines in the western media (they were worst of all in Germany) portraying him personally responsible for murdering the victims of MH17.
  • And soft stuff - magazine covers making him look sinister, monstrous, etc.

RI sat down with The Saker, a leading analyst of Russia in international affairs, and asked him what he thinks:

-----------------------------------

So, is there any credence to this line of thinking, or is this conspiracy theorists running wild?

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the US is waging a major psyop war against Russia, although not a shooting war, for now, and that what we are seeing is a targeted campaign to discredit Putin and achieve "regime change" in Russia or, should that fail, at the very least "regime weakening" and "Russia weakening".

And the Economist has been the very worst of them all...

So this is a US government program?

Yes, Putin is absolutely hated by certain factions in the US government two main reasons:

1. He partially, but not fully, restored Russia's sovereignty which under Gorbachev and Yeltsin had been totally lost … Russia then was a US colony like Ukraine is today … and,

2. He dared to openly defy the USA and its civilizational model.

… a free and sovereign Russia is perceived by the US "deep state" as an existential threat which has to be crushed. … this is a full-scale political assault on Russia and Putin personally.

So what the Russians are saying, that the constant personal attacks against Putin in the global media are partly the result of deliberate efforts by US intelligence services, … basically, planted stories…

Yes, absolutely

It seems like "Operation Mockingbird" all over again… Are you aware of other instances aimed at Putin?

(Editors Note: Operation Mockingbird was a CIA program started in the 1950s to influence the US media, which was gradually exposed by investigative journalists starting in the late 60s, culminating in sensational televised congressional hearings in 1975 which shocked the nation, forcing the program's termination. Critics maintain that the same tactics have continued since, under different programs. Wikipedia)

Yes, of course. Since this defamation has very little traction with the Russian public … Putin's popularity is higher than ever before .., there is an organized campaign to convince them that Putin is "selling out" Novorussia, that he is a puppet of oligarchs who are making deals with Ukrainian oligarchs to back-stab the Novorussian resistance…

… So far, Putin's policies in the Ukraine have enjoyed very strong support from the Russian people who still oppose an overt military intervention…

… but if Kiev attacks Novorussia again - which appears very likely - and if such an attack is successful - which is less likely but always possible - then Putin will be blamed for having given the Ukrainians the time to regroup and reorganize.

Warm and fuzzy...

So you are saying that if the Ukrainian military strengthens its position enough to deliver a serious blow to the East Ukrainians, the US can use this as a method to strike at Putin's support base…

Yes, that's right ... there are a lot of "fake patriots" in Russia and abroad who will reject any negotiated solution and who will present any compromise as a "betrayal". They are the "useful idiots" used by western special services to smear and undermine Putin.

Is it limited to government special ops, or are there other groups who might have an interest in doing this?

Yes, well here is something that most people in the west don't appreciate… there is a major behind-the scenes struggle among Russian elites between what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" (basically, those who support Putin) and what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" (those whom Putin refers to as the "5th column).

The western media talks about this as the struggle between Russian liberals and conservatives, reformers and reactionaries, right?

Well its sort of like that, but not exactly…

The former see Russia's future in the Russian North and East and want to turn Russia towards Asia, Latin America and the rest of the world, while the latter want Russia to become part of the "North Atlantic" power configuration.

The Atlantic Integrationists are now too weak to openly challenge Putin - whose real power base is his immense popular support - but they are quietly sabotaging his efforts to reform Russia while supporting anti-Putin campaigns.

Regarding the revelations of CIA activities in Germany, do you think this is going on in other countries, in the US?

I am sure that this is happening in most countries worldwide. The very nature of the modern corporate media is such that it makes journalists corrupt.

As the French philosopher Alain Soral says "nowadays a reporter is either unemployed or a prostitute". There are, of course, a few exceptions, but by and large this is true.

This is not to say that most journalists are on the take. In the West this is mostly done in a more subtle way - by making it clear which ideas do or do not pass the editorial control, by lavishly rewarding those journalists who 'get it' and by quietly turning away those who don't.

If a journalist or reporter commits the crime of "crimethink" he or she will be sidelined and soon out of work.

There is no real pluralism in the West where the boundaries of what can be said or not are very strictly fixed.

Ok, but is it like what has been revealed in Germany, …similar specific operational programs in France, the UK, Italy, Latin America, etc.

Yes, one has to assume so – it is in their interests to have them and there is no reason for them not to.

As for the CIA, it de-facto controls enough of the corporate media to "set the tone". As somebody who in the past used to read the Soviet press for a living, I can sincerely say that it was far more honest and more pluralistic than the press in the USA or EU today.

Joseph Goebbels or Edward Bernays could not have imagined the degree of sophistication of modern propaganda machines.

If the US is doing it, can't one assume other governments are too? Are the Russians doing it against western leaders?

I think that all governments try to do that kind of stuff. However, what makes the US so unique it a combination of truly phenomenal arrogance and multi-billion dollar budgets.

The US "deep state" owns the western corporate media which is by far the most powerful media on the planet. Most governments can only do that inside their own country ... to smear a political opponent or discredit a public figure, but they simply do not have the resources to mount an international strategic psyop campaign. This is something only the US can do.

So foreign governments are at a great disadvantage in this arena vis-a-vis the US?

Absolutely.

[Jan 05, 2015] US and Russia in danger of returning to era of nuclear rivalry by Julian Borger

Sign of emergence of this anti-Russian witch hunt from 2015...
Notable quotes:
"... This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress. ..."
Jan 01, 2015 | The Guardian
A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.

Tensions have been taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in Europe after a 23-year absence.

On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander, General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.

Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying nuclear warheads.

The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually increased last year, and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals. Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his country's nuclear arsenal and declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".

The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato", which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.

"The Americans are well aware of this," the commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too late."

Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military doctrine, published on 25 December, left its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which "would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike, as some in the military had proposed.

However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.

The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month Russia announced it would re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.

There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking shipping container until the moment it is fired.

However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.

At a contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for continuing to observe the INF treaty.

Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.

The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.

McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.

"We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one option to explore."

Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the Russian missile.

The US military has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in 2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily rebounding and reasserting its global reach.

There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.

"They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically designed to deliver cruise missiles," Jacoby told Congress.

Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at least once or twice a year.

"The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.

Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland, which triggered a Nato submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.

He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].

"It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."

The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".

A Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.

The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile numbers.

Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].

Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com, believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack submarines with nuclear weapons.

"For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.

The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on an adversary.

Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.

"The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion, you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.

With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening military competition".

He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both sides."

InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53

Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century? Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.

For instance:

US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
06.07.2013 10:03

A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.

InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41

Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in perspective.

"All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]

Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb, which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."

And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.

NATO

"The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16, and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and Tornado aircraft."

Source: Arms Control Association

VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25

To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."

"Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet production during WarII".

During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.

Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.

So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
1) The Russian Army
2) THE American Air Force
3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
4) Hitler's Stupidity

Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03

Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.

Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.

Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy" boast and similar bizarre claims.

Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you don't, see the original post

irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59

" increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "

What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "

Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
not to do.


Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55

This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress. I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.


Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05

p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'

"Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)

"what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]

Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations (economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the mobilisation of military architecture.

MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05

Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.

afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00

That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't read.

moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00

Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will it Barry ? When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .

Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58

"Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

Sites



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: February, 09, 2021