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, 2020

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 ;-)

[Sep 29, 2020] Perhaps the Skripals 'disappeared' because the British government was unsure how to present them after a supposedly-deadly poisoning attempt which they plainly are said to have survived.

Sep 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN September 28, 2020 at 4:48 am

Yes, those are all good and sound arguments. The point I was trying to make, though, is that American toxicologists and field experts are astounded that anyone might survive exposure to VX; it is unaccountable not only that they could be alive, but that there is not a trail of death following the assassins as well until it kills them, too. But nobody seems surprised for Navalny to make a complete recovery and be sitting up in bed making demands and strolling around the stairwells, after exposure to a much more toxic agent that should have killed him, while nobody noticed anyone sneaking into his room dressed in a full hazmat suit with breathing apparatus and apparently others could come and go from the scene of the alleged exposure with no protection.

Perhaps the Skripals 'disappeared' because the British government was unsure how to present them after a supposedly-deadly poisoning attempt which they plainly are said to have survived. Perhaps also it is the judgment of similar authorities that the public will accept the dichotomy without demur; hence, the agent can still be nefarious beyond belief because it is so insidious and deadly, but Navalny can be alive and making noise after exposure to it.

MARK CHAPMAN September 27, 2020 at 6:26 pm

I'd like to look at the Navalny 'poisoning" from a slightly different angle, one which I think bears scrutiny. I've said several times that nobody – to the best of my knowledge – has ever survived poisoning by VX. But that's not quite accurate – the two women who thrust what was always believed to be VX in some form into the face of Kim Jong Nam (Kim Jong-Un's half-brother) at an airport in Kuala Lumpur killed him stone dead. But they themselves apparently survived with no ill effects except that one of them allegedly may have vomited.

The major difference in the way the stories are treated, then, is the incredulity with which the apparent survival of the alleged poisoners is regarded by the western press. Consider;

An amount of VX, we are told, that weighs as much as two pennies would kill 500 people. I assume that's what he meant, as he is strikingly un-eloquent for a scientist and the 'penny' is not a weight of measure. Is that a British penny, or an American one? Big difference in weight.

''The other chemical agents like sarin, tabun, those kinds of things, they're way below this. They're toxic, yes, but this is the king,'' said John Trestrail, a U.S. forensic toxicologist who has examined more than 1,000 poisoning crimes.

He said an amount of VX weighing two pennies could kill 500 people through skin exposure. It's also hard to acquire and would likely have come from a chemical weapons laboratory, making it more likely that the attack was executed by a government."

Yes, you read that right – VX is the King of vicious toxicological agents. Except for Novichok, which is ten times as deadly, and the would-be killers dusted Navalny's bottle with enough of it that the bottle was liberally covered with the dust, and his clothes apparently were as well, or so Team Navalny suspects. Say – that's a handy little timeline right there, innit? When did Navalny put those clothes on? Presumably he had a shower before going to bed; did he dress in fresh clothes before leaving for the airport, or wear the same stuff from the day before? Either way, the poisoner must have accessed Navalny's room between the time he got up and the time the plane took off – if he still had Novichok on his clothes from the day before, he'd be dead, plus would have contaminated God knows how many surfaces.

Anyway, remember – Novichok is ten times as deadly as the King of nerve agents, VX. But it has killed – according to western yarns – only one of six people exposed to it; Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Detective Nick Bailey, Navalny and Charles Rowley all survived and have apparently achieved full recovery, Navalny in only a week after emerging from an alleged coma.

Western incredulity? None. Nothing to see here, old chap.

Listen to the awful consequences of poisoning with VX, and remember the assassins only pushed some quantity of VX into Kim Jong-Nam's face; a second's contact, them they ran away, not wearing gloves or any protective gear at all.

"VX is an amber-colored, tasteless, odorless chemical weapon first produced in the 1950s. When inhaled or absorbed through the skin, it disrupts the nervous system and causes constriction and increased secretions in the throat, leading to difficulty breathing. Fluids pour from the body, including sweat, spontaneous urination and defecation, often followed by convulsions, paralysis and death. Kim Jong Nam sought help at the airport clinic and died en route to a hospital within two hours of being attacked, police said."

I don't think anyone has reported what Navalny was roaring and screaming, but perhaps it was"Get back!!! I'm shitting myself!! Jesus, I can't stop pissing!!! Help me!!" although you would think if his symptoms included spontaneous defecation and urination, someone would have said – it could be important. Different agent, I know, but the symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning are quite similar across the type. Navalny's symptoms were nothing like nerve-agent poisoning, no matter how energetically the defector Mirzayanov and his fan club try to backstop Navalny's story. The intense sweating and the obvious gross irritation of the mucous membranes would have been unmistakable to the doctors in Omsk, considering Navalny had already passed the onset of whatever symptoms he did have and was unconscious.

Kim Jong-Nam died within two hours of being attacked with a nerve agent ten times less toxic than Novichok. Navalny was definitely poisoned with a substance ten times more toxic than VX, according to the Germans and the French and whoever else swears to that ludicrous story, but was to all appearances normal at least an hour after having been poisoned, since he showed no symptoms until at least 40 minutes after the plane took off with no obvious GRU agents on board, and hung around the airport before the flight was called at least long enough to drink a cup of tea, plus however long it took for him to get from the hotel to the airport.

"The two women -- one Vietnamese, one Indonesian -- recorded on surveillance cameras thrusting a substance into Kim Jong Nam's face as he was about to check in for a flight home to Macau, apparently did not suffer serious health problems. Malaysian police have said they were not wearing gloves or protective gear and that they washed their hands afterward as they were trained to do. However, authorities said Friday that one of them vomited afterward.

Both have been arrested along with another man. Authorities are also seeking several others, including an employee of North Korea's state-owned airline, Air Koryo.

''If they used their bare hands, there's just no possible way that they would have exposed him to VX unless they took some sort of precaution,'' Goldberger said. ''The only precaution I know of would be administration of the antidote before this went down.''

Perhaps that's it; perhaps immediately after swigging from his water-bottle – which he left in the hotel room, obviously – Navalny rang room service for some Novichok antidote. Just in case. Can't be too careful, when you are the main opposition leader.

"No areas were cordoned off and protective measures were not taken. When asked about it a day after the attack, airport spokesman Shah Rahim said there was no risk to travelers and the airport was regularly and properly cleaned. But officials announced Friday that the facility would be decontaminated.

''It's as persistent as motor oil. It's going to stay there for a long time. A long time, which means anyone coming in contact with this could be intoxicated from it,'' Trestrail said. ''If this truly is VX, they ought to be calling in a hazmat team and looking at any place these women or the victim traveled after the exposure.''

A hazmat team, and looking at any place the assassin or anyone potentially exposed might have traveled. For an agent ten times less toxic than Novichok.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2017/02/24/banned-chemical-weapon-potent-killer-that-lingers/5bTFjBz6tJVouk4tnyaERK/story.html

[Sep 29, 2020] Any rich Russian, Iranian, Chinese at this point who persists in keeping money abroad really are fools.

Sep 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

JAMES LAKE September 21, 2020 at 4:12 am

Any rich Russian, Iranian, Chinese at this point who persists in keeping money abroad – really are fools.

ET AL September 20, 2020 at 12:56 pm

FIGHT! Via MoonofAlabama.org :*

Matt Taibbi is a cancel culture hypocrite
https://yasha.substack.com/p/matt-taibbi-is-a-cancel-culture-hypocrite-b78

Here's what Matt hopes you don't remember: When the cancel mob came for him, he was the "upper class Twitter Robespierre" ratting on his colleagues.

Yasha Levine Sep 18

Between the pandemic, the economic collapse, the fires and the toxic fumes, and the fact that I'm currently fighting an eviction, I know there are much more pressing issues to get worked up about these days. But as someone who got his start in journalism at The eXile and who has been on the receiving end of our "cancel culture" so many times I lost count, I can't let it go.
####

Plenty more at the link.

There's very much 'don't put one's head above the parapet unnecessarily' about all this so no wonder Levine feels betrayed. Yes, people change and see things differently later in life and deal with it in their own ways. Maybe we all live too long .

The eXile also reflected closely what I myself saw and heard first hand while I was studying in Russia in the mid-1990s, that it bore no resemblance to what the western journalists were reporting. This on the back of all their lies and willful ignorance during the break up of Yugoslavia and the subsequent civil wars. It put me off being a journalist (which was a good thing)!

There's other interesting stuff including by Anatole Lieven in Prospect Magazine which is stuff familiar and oft discussed by us already.

* https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/09/the-moa-week-in-review-open-thread-2020-75.html#more

MOSCOWEXILE September 20, 2020 at 10:40 pm

BBC

Huge banking scandal in London.

Squeaky clean, transparent, honest, true and trusted Western way of doing business -- European values and all that -- exposed as a crock of shite:

FinCEN Files: HSBC moved Ponzi scheme millions despite warning
By FinCEN Files reporting team
BBC Panorama
20 September 2020

HSBC allowed fraudsters to transfer millions of dollars around the world even after it had learned of their scam, leaked secret files show.

Britain's biggest bank moved the money through its US business to HSBC accounts in Hong Kong in 2013 and 2014.

Its role in the $80m (£62m) fraud is detailed in a leak of documents – banks' "suspicious activity reports" – that have been called the FinCEN Files.

HSBC says it has always met its legal duties on reporting such activity.

Why is it that the "Free World" has so many corrupt institutions, especially when it comes to dealing with loadsa lolly?

The West has so many internal financial traitors, who, essentially, are traitors and deceivers to whole populations of Western free society, and who make it too easy for enemies of the "Free World" to use the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy of Western financial institutions as a glaring example of Western perfidy.

95% of Russians think that all Western financiers are thieves. Just walk around any hell hole of a Russian shitsville town out in the sticks and you will find that to be true!

And get this!

Clearly distraught about the enormity of this financial swindle perpetrated by HSBC, the BBC feels it duty bound to point out a Putin connection with this ginormous financial scam:

FinCEN Files: Sanctioned Putin associate 'laundered millions' through Barclays
By FinCEN Files reporting team
BBC Panorama
20 September 2020

Note the headline!

He definitely did it! Past tense: completed in the past -- "laundered"

However, in the first line of the body of the article, enter the modal auxiliary verb "may" in order to indicate probability, and slight probability at that:

One of Vladimir Putin's closest friends may have used Barclays Bank in London to launder money and dodge sanctions, leaked documents suggest.

And Putin has known this bloke since childhood!

I rest my case, m'lud!

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 4:43 am

And Deutsche Bank was well in on the money laundering scam as well:

FinCEN Files: Deutsche Bank tops list of suspicious transactions

Leaked documents shed a light on Deutsche Bank's central role in facilitating financial transactions deemed suspicious. Many of these could have enabled the circumvention of sanctions on Iran and Russia.

https://p.dw.com/p/3ilHd

European values.

MARK CHAPMAN September 21, 2020 at 8:44 am

He was probably saving up to buy his closest friend another palace. Now Putin will have him killed. Shame. Well, nothing lasts forever.

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 12:16 am

Why are there so many corrupt Russian businessmen and politicians?

Russia has so many corrupt public figures that it makes too easy for Russia's enemies to use them against Russia.

95% of Europeans think all Russians are corrupt!

RIA NOVOSTI

Опубликованы данные финразведки о счетах россиян в американских банках
08:46 21.09.2020 (обновлено: 09:04 21.09.2020)

Financial intelligence data about the accounts of Russians in American banks has been published
08:46 21.09.2020 (updated: 09:04 21.09.2020)

MOSCOW, September 21 – RIA Novosti. Cassandra, an international consortium of investigative journalists, has released classified data from the US Treasury Department for Combating Financial Crimes (FinCEN) regarding suspicious banking transactions.

According to media reports, the beneficiaries of some transactions are, amongst others, Russian politicians and businessmen.

The consortium declined to comment on how it got the secret documents. At the same time, the investigators themselves noted that suspicious transactions do not always indicate a violation of the law.

An "international consortium", eh?

No explanation of how the data was acquired, eh?

And in any case, big transfers of dough don't necessarily mean that such transfers are illegal.

So why make an issue out of it?

I wonder if this International Consortium has ever taken a peek at poroshenko's money transactions and offshore subterfuges?

Oh look!

The address of "Cassandra":

1710 Rhode Island Ave NW | 11th floor
Washington DC 20036 USA

See: International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 12:43 am

As regards Putin's pal since childhood who "may have used Barclays Bank in London to launder money and dodge sanctions", Vedomosti reports this morning:

14 минут назад
Ротенберг назвал бредом данные СМИ о транзакциях через лондонский банк

14 minutes ago
Rotenberg has called the media data on transactions through a London bank nonsense

Aha! A denial from a Russian -- and a Russian 4×2 to boot!

That can only mean he is guilty as accused.

The data on suspicious transactions carried out by Russian businessmen Arkady and Boris Rotenberg through the London bank Barclays is nothing more than nonsense, RBC reports with reference to a representative of Arkady Rotenberg.

"The data on suspicious transactions that Russian businessmen Arkady and Boris Rotenberg carried out through the London bank Barclays, published by the international investigative project Cassandra, is nothing more than delusion", the message says. Representatives of other members of the Rotenberg family said that they did not settle through British banks and did not directly or indirectly own Ayrton, which is mentioned in the Cassandra report, the newspaper reports.

Earlier, experts of the international investigation project "Cassandra" published a report on the results of a study of the documents of the US financial intelligence (FinCEN) that came at their disposal. Amongst the financial transactions that the banks reporting to FinCEN found suspicious, in particular, were those of Ayrton Development Limited. The company, according to the BBC, was deemed by Barclays to be owned by the sanctioned Arkady Rotenberg. According to the report, 26 transactions carried out in the interests of the Rotenbergs were classified as suspicious.

Leningrader Arkady Rotenberg was a sambo pal of Putin. He has clearly enjoyed considerable enrichment during the Putin tyranny.

In 2000, the Evil One created Rosspirtprom, a state-owned enterprise controlling 30% of Russia's vodka market, and put Rotenberg in control.

In 2001, Rotenberg and his brother founded the SMP bank, which operates in 40 Russian cities with over 100 branches, more than half of them in the Moscow area. SMP oversees the operation of more than 900 ATM-machines. SMP bank also became a leading large-diameter gas pipe supplier.

In 2007, Gazprom rejected an earlier plan to build a 350-mile pipeline and instead paid Rotenberg $45 billion to lay a 1,500 mile pipeline to the Arctic Circle.

O'Bummer signed an executive order instructing his government to impose sanctions on the Rotenberg brothers and other close friends of President Putin because of the Russian "annexation" of the Crimea.

For all his wealth, though, Arkady Rotenberg is not that smart at everything he does: In 2005, Rotenberg married his second wife Natalia Rotenberg, who is about 30 years his junior. Their two children, Varvara and Arkady, live in the United Kingdom with Natalia. They divorced in 2015 in the U.K. While the financial details of the divorce are private, the agreement includes division of the use of a £35 million Surrey mansion and a £8 million apartment in London. The couple's lawyers obtained a secrecy order preventing media in the U.K. from reporting on the divorce, but the order was overturned on appeal.

MARK CHAPMAN September 21, 2020 at 8:51 am

That time it was your fault. You used the same code to close your italics as you did to open them, with no slash.

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 1:38 am

Strange reaction indeed:

And only then, after having assured everyone and everything that the dose of the terrible poison Novichok was received precisely at home, Mr. Navalny, a dissenting person, was for some reason not at all afraid of this "irrefutable fact", and barely having opened his eyelids from a cloudy "comatose" slumber, was already prepared -- almost in his hospital robe -- to rush back.

To Moscow.

His home country.

Where allegedly, he was almost wiped off the face of the earth by "insidious poison murderers".

All part of the Bullshitter's repertoire.

source

MARK CHAPMAN September 21, 2020 at 8:54 am

Mercy, what a hero. Fair inspires me, he does.

[Sep 29, 2020] Some excellently timed next level trolling of the USA from Putin.

Sep 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL September 27, 2020 at 9:17 am

Neuters via Antiwar.com : Putin Calls For Mutual Ban on Election Meddling With US
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/09/25/putin-calls-for-mutual-ban-on-election-meddling-with-us/

US intel agencies claim Russia, China, and Iran are meddling in 2020 election

On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the US and Russia should sign an agreement promising not to meddle in each other's elections. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-putin/putin-says-russia-and-u-s-should-agree-not-to-meddle-in-each-others-elections-idUSKCN26G1LJ

Putin proposed, "exchanging guarantees of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, including electoral processes, including using information and communication technologies and high-tech methods."..

####

That is some excellently timed next level trolling from Pootie-McPoot-Face.

MARK CHAPMAN September 27, 2020 at 12:19 pm

Of course the USA will never agree to such a proposal, because (a) it does not regard its meddling as 'interference' but as the bringing of the gift of freedom, (b) it stands on its absolute right of judgment as to what is a situation that requires more democracy and what is not, and (c) it probably knows at some level that Russia did not meddle in the US elections, and that it would therefore in that case be constraining its own behavior in exchange for nothing.

But then, when refused – I imagine the US will try to extract something from the offer, such as "A-HA!! So you ADMIT to meddling in our elections!! – Russia can obviously claim, "Well, we tried."

[Sep 29, 2020] The Near-Global Collapse of Critical Thinking – The New Kremlin Stooge

Notable quotes:
"... Maybe Navalny had allegedly been assisted by his apparent drug of choice, cocaine? ..."
"... On the Navalny poisoning. Interesting to see that Vladimir Ashurkov is in the inner core of the Integrity Initiative. Suggesting another media-led provocation. ..."
"... Apparently, Pevchikh was given a bogus interview on the BBC and was presented as an uninteresting, nothing special sort of person, about whom rumours and innuendo were amassing for no reason whatsoever. ..."
"... The interviewer never pressed her on how long she had lived in the UK, what her business interests there were (claims have been made that she runs a book store), why she visits Russia so frequently, what indeed isher present citizenship, how she became involved with Navalny's "fund" -- she says she answered an ad., but where? In the UK? Hardly! And on and on . ..."
"... On Thursday (24 September), Christian Gramm, the president of Germany's Military Intelligence Service (MAD), was forced to resign. To many, the shake-up doesn't come as a surprise given the recent criticism over how the agency handled investigations into right-wing extremism in the German Special Forces (KSK). Gramm's term as MAD president will come to an end next month ..."
"... Verzilov is supposedly – according to one source I read – the force behind having Navalny evacuated to Germany. It will be funny now if he cannot return to Russia. ..."
"... That guy is a self-important prick with delusions of grandeur. If he is representative of the non-systemic opposition in Russia then, assuming that Putin is even aware of this guy, it would only provide a good laugh after a hard day at the office ..."
"... Verzilov is an attention junkie. He set himself up as the 'spokesman' of Pussy Riot because they were getting a lot of attention and he wanted to be part of it. He has no visible talent of his own – except perhaps a facility for languages, his English is pretty good ..."
"... His English is good because he went to school in Toronto until his somehow landing a place at MGU Philosophy Faculty, which is one of the greatest riddles of the Cosmos, in my opinion. ..."
"... I'd like to look at the Navalny 'poisoning" from a slightly different angle, one which I think bears scrutiny. I've said several times that nobody – to the best of my knowledge – has ever survived poisoning by VX. But that's not quite accurate – the two women who thrust what was always believed to be VX in some form into the face of Kim Jong Nam (Kim Jong-Un's half-brother) at an airport in Kuala Lumpur killed him stone dead. But they themselves apparently survived with no ill effects except that one of them allegedly may have vomited. ..."
"... The major difference in the way the stories are treated, then, is the incredulity with which the apparent survival of the alleged poisoners is regarded by the western press. Consider; ..."
"... It's hard to imagine the Germans poisoned his samples, although I suppose it is possible. But if Pevchik had poisoned him with something intended to incapacitate but not kill him, you'd think the doctors in Omsk would have detected it. ..."
"... It might be interesting to see what kind of deal would result from a process in which Russia has given up trying to be liked by the west, and consequently examines each negotiation on its merits alone. ..."
Sep 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

, "When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false."
Uncle Volodya

"Every ounce of my cynicism is supported by historical precedent."

– Glen Cook, Shadow Games

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it."

– George Bernard Shaw

I'm lazy. But vanity constrains me from admitting that, so I call it 'busy'. However I choose to label it, I haven't written anything new in a long time. It's not writer's block, because I had a couple of topics in mind; if I had to blame it on anything, I'd blame it on the comments section. We don't really have any rules here, or not many (there are a couple of people who can't comment, but that's because they cannot be trusted to not instantly return to old habits as soon as they are allowed), and things routinely drift off-topic to whatever is going on at the time. Current events; yes, that's the term I was looking for. So when new things are happening, we tend to discuss them in the comments section, instead of my writing a new post dedicated specifically to that issue. It's the primary cause, I'm afraid, of important comments you would like to be able to locate because they contain hard-to-find sources or just the information you need to settle an argument, because they are not linked by subject. Obviously I prefer the unregulated format, or I wouldn't use it, but it does have its disadvantages.

Anyway, the silver lining that comes with being late to discuss a particular current event is that you get to talk about the filtered version, after the ferment has settled down and often new facts have presented. So it is with the teapot tempest of Alexei Navalny, vaulted to international fame virtually overnight by becoming the latest victim poisoned by nefarious Soviet-era deadly nerve agents that, in their known application, have a success rate of 16.67%. A funny statistic has emerged from the absurd times we are living in – a viral infection, the 'novel coronavirus', more commonly called COVID-19, has the world shivering with terror like frogs in a glass cage with a big snake, even though its Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) compares with the annual influenza bouts we have lived with all our years. Yet an engineered nerve agent reputed to be ten times as deadly as the most toxic poison the west could come up with – one which, I might add, has a known survivor list among the exposed of zero point zero – has never killed the individual it was intended to kill, and managed to incidentally slay one innocent bystander who was also an alcoholic and drug abuser . As John Lennon remarked in "Nobody Told Me"; strange days indeed. Most peculiar, Mama.

I meant to do a post on Navalny – more correctly, my patience with the ridiculous statements made about his latest adventure finally evaporated – after reading this amazingly cheeky tapestry of fabrication; "The Kremlin, predictably, says it didn't poison Alexey Navalny. So what can the West do?"

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD

I looked it up so as to have an electronic link, so readers could get the full effect. But I initially saw it in the newspaper, the Canadian Globe & Mail (British Columbia edition), in which it was headlined a little differently – "Why nobody has power to make Kremlin come clean on poisoning" . So far as I can make out on initial examination, the body of the article is unchanged. Both pieces – well, the same piece with two different headlines – are by Mark MacKinnon, who is The Globe & Mail 's senior international correspondent, based in London, UK. He's quite highly-regarded by his employers , is a seven-time winner of the National Newspaper Awards (for creativity, perhaps, although they don't say), and the author of " The New Cold War: Revolutions, Rigged Elections and Pipeline Politics ". Gee, that sounds like it might be about a particular country; let's have a dekko at the writeup .

"When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed two years later, liberal democracy was supposed to fill the void left by Soviet Communism. Poland and Czechoslovakia made the best of reforms, but the citizens of the "Evil Empire" itself saw little of the promised freedom, and more of the same old despots and corruption. Recently, a second wave of reforms -- Serbia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and Ukraine in 2004, as well as Kyrgyzstan's regime change in 2005 -- have proven almost as monumental as those in Berlin and Moscow. The people of the Eastern bloc, aided in no small part by Western money and advice, are again rising up and demanding an end to autocracy. And once more, the Kremlin is battling the White House every step of the way. Mark MacKinnon spent these years working in Moscow, and his view of the story and access to those involved remains unparalleled. With The New Cold War, he reveals the links between these democratic revolutions -- and George Soros, the idealistic American billionaire behind them -- in a major investigation into the forces that are quietly reshaping the post-Soviet world."

Because western-imposed liberal democracy has been such a star-speckled success in so many places – Libya. Iraq, Venezuela anyway, the above author information is offered to sort of set the tone for the type of worldview you might expect. And to introduce a premonition, before you even read his material, that Mark MacKinnon just might be exactly the sort of guy who would smirk with revulsion at the mention of Putin's name, and have a big ol' man-crush on Alexei Navalny. I'm not implying anything untoward, here; Mr. MacKinnon is a realist. An ideologue, yes, but a realist.

And as with others of his ideological type, I marvel that he apparently sees some sort of inspirational leader in Navalny. I'm cautiously optimistic, of course, because until international busybodies have a vote in Russian elections – as they have in other places, except it's called 'regime change' – there is about as much chance of Alexei Navalny being elected to a position of influence by a broad Russian vote as there is of you dying from coronavirus. Which you have about a 99.6% chance of surviving, if you should get it. Anyway, I'm optimistic, as I have suggested many times before, because for so long as western liberal meddlers choose to put all their eggs in the Navalny basket, for that long leaders elected by Russian votes will rule more or less unmolested. You could probably persuade Russians to dress up as Obama on Hallowe'en (well, first you would have to persuade them to celebrate it, which The Moscow Times almost reduced itself to tears trying to bring about) as you could to persuade them to vote for Navalny. And this latest escapade, which – perversely – has put him in the western hall of political fame has probably actually cost him votes in Russia, which is remarkable considering he already was about as popular as vomit air-freshener.

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD

Mr. MacKinnon starts off his excoriation of the Kremlin, and his apparent poignant appeal for someone to rid us of this troublesome autocratic dictator, with some lighthearted snark about how predictable it is that the Kremlin would deny poisoning Alexei Navalny. Uh huh; of course they would. Real men would immediately own up – yeah, I poisoned that motherfucker. Teach him to talk smack about me. What are you gonna do about it? You might be repulsed by the implicit evil there, but at least you could respect Putin for telling the truth.

Let's look at it a little differently. Suppose I said "Mark MacKinnon is a wife-beater". For the record, I don't even know if he is married. Or straight. But that's beside the point, which is that to the best of my knowledge, it is not true. Doesn't matter. Predictably, he would deny it. Now suppose I repeated that allegation regularly for twenty years. Might I be able to say, wearily, "the only predictable thing about MacKinnon's latest wife-beating incident is his denial of having had anything to do with it"? I think I could. But denying it is exactly the predictable occurrence if he had not done it.

How about we take a quick recap of some of the things Russia has been accused of just in the last few years. A state-sponsored doping program for its Olympic athletes, in which they were fed performance-enhancing cocktails that powered them all the way to the podium. The special investigatory body put together to look into it, headed by Canadian Richard McLaren, claimed there was so much proof that it was embarrassing. When we got down to where the rubber meets the road, said investigatory body could not prove fuck-all, their star witness fell apart in testimony , and 28 Russian athletes had their Olympic bans reversed while 7 medals were reinstated. The Nation recapped it thus ;

"How the Times could provide such minimal coverage of these important April 2018 reasoned CAS decisions on matters on which the Times had extensively reported is inexplicable. By allowing the Russian athletes, for the very first time, to confront their accusers with cross-examination, the CAS was in a position to make startling revelations about Rodchenkov and McLaren. Rodchenkov, for example, admitted that he never personally witnessed any accused Russian athlete committing doping violations themselves, including taking the illegal drug cocktail, giving a clean urine sample out of competition, tampering with a urine sample, or transmitting information to co-conspirators about the coding on the drug sample after it had been given.

Furthermore, several of Rodchenkov's explanations of events were simply not believable. For example, Rodchenkov had stated that the swapping of urine samples occurred after 1 am, but his own diary entries confirmed his bedtime by midnight each night, with two or three exceptions. When confronted with this contradiction, he made the incredible claim that he had lied to his diary."

Were the Russians guilty? Apparently not. What is the appropriate response when you are accused of something but did not do it? Denial? Damn straight. But there's another key takeaway in there – the testimonial hearing in which the athletes and their representatives dismantled Rodchenkov's self-important blathering was the very first time they had been able to confront their accuser . Uncorroborated denials are easy to brush off, which would seem to summarize Mr, MacKinnon's style.

One more. Russia was accused by the United States – whose allies quickly picked it up as one more example of the reprehensible Russian conduct that just makes you shake your head in helpless wonder – of paying the Taliban in Afghanistan a bounty to kill American soldiers.

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD

For starters, it would not be difficult to imagine the US Army as being so loathed in Afghanistan – considering American military operations have devastated the country for 19 years now – that jihadis in Afghanistan would be happy to kill them for free; might even pay for the opportunity, if they had any money. Some might say well, if not for the democracy-promotion efforts of America, the Taliban might still be in charge! Yeah, ha, ha; funny story about that. President Trump announced this past Spring that it was time to turn over law and order in Afghanistan to the Taliban.

He said US troops had been killing terrorists in Afghanistan "by the thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries".

Personally, I think it's a hell of a cheek of the Taliban to accept money from the Russians to kill Americans who just cut them such an exceptional deal – you would think they would be so happy that they would dance into the streets with their arms full of flowers and candy. Oh, wait – different democracy-promotion operation.

And I'd just like to point out to anyone who is forming the opinion that I am a sarcastic prick that the main piece of 'evidence' on which the Americans based the assessment that a mysterious Russian GRU (military intelligence) unit was paying bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers was the discovery of 'a large amount of American cash from a raid on a Taliban outpost'.

Jesus, God of our fathers – please tell me they had more than that. Quite apart from the patent rudeness of carrying out a raid on the 'outposts' of your new Afghanistan caretakers, the US dollar is the most common and widely-circulated currency in the world. Instead of leaping to the conclusion that it had to have come from the Russians – whose currency was still the ruble the last time I looked – why was the King Arthur Flour Company not immediately a suspect? After all, sourdough baking has lunged to a quivering peak during 'COVID times' (as I heard one imbecile describe the peyote cartoon we are all living); King Arthur offers a very popular sourdough starter , and the Afghans are great bakers. Maybe they were saving up to buy a couple of truckloads, give the people something to raise their morale! Get it? 'Raise' their morale? It's not funny if I have to explain it. But it makes as much sense as assuming the Russians want to accelerate the killing of American forces just as they are arranging terms for a pullout, which would surely make them stay longer.

Well, let's get back to Mr. MacKinnon's story, before we wander too far off the path. But I hope that addresses the issue of the Kremlin denying western accusations. Deny is what you do when you really had nothing to do with whatever it was you are being accused of, instead of 'manning up' and saying "Yeah; it was me". Gaddafi did that, in the hope of making peace with the Americans, and look where it got him. And America is not put off by lack of evidence – obviously.

So we're back where Russia might be believed today, if the past 20 years had never happened. At that, I would suggest he's casting too wide a net; the USA and Russia were getting along fairly well between the time the Harvard Boys were invited in to remake Russia in 1991, and the presidential candidacy of American Idiot and Venture Capitalist Mitt Romney, during which candidacy he identified Russia – for no apparent reason than that it sometimes caused headaches for the United States at the UN – as the USA's Number One Geopolitical Enemy. That was in 2012, which was only 8 years ago, and in fact the great majority of western accusations against Russia have taken place since 2014 and the US State Department's successful second run at taking over Ukraine to Make It Safe For Democracy. It's pretty hard to restore your 'credibility' when the international press whose language is foreign to your own continues to insist it has mountains of evidence that you are lying, but cannot reveal any of it because of national security. On the occasions it does publish some of its substantiation, the alternate-narrative element of the public is so scathing in its scorn – as happened when the British tried going public with their Skripals Case – that the storytellers are sent back to the drawing-board to make up something different. Otherwise they might have to explain why a poison so virulent that Sergei Skripal's house had to have its roof removed because Novichok was daubed on the front doorknob, but the same poison failed to kill not only the Skripals times two, Detective Nick Bailey, Charles Rowley and now Navalny. The Skripals came into direct contact with it while the family's roof did not, unless they had a sixteen-foot diameter doorknob, and Navalny actually drank it. So the story goes. I don't think 'absurd' is too strong a word.

Russia, we hear, denied that its soldiers were in Crimea before Russia 'annexed' the territory in 2014. Where? Russia was permitted by international agreement to base sufficient forces at Sevastopol to easily take the region away from a Ukrainian Army so useless that initial attempts to stop the unraveling were made by civilian militias. Oh, and my favourite; Russia denied shooting down MH-17 "even after the anti-aircraft system involved in the attack was detected leaving Russia then returning short one missile." Is that a fact? Well, no; it's not. That accusation was made by Bellingcat, the brain trust of former underwear-company accountant Eliot Higgins, and there was never any 'detection' of any such anti-air system "leaving Russia and returning short one missile". Bellingcat offered a potential route such a system might have taken to and from a launch site, in an animation, which was itself never substantiated by evidence – a route which took the system many vulnerable kilometers out of its way on the alleged return – and the photograph that made the cover of Paris Match is so obviously a Photoshop mosaic . And the inclusion of Ukraine, who was automatically a suspect considering the incident occurred in Ukrainian airspace, in the investigation to establish Russian guilt, together with its unsupervised access to the collected evidence, renders the whole issue farcical.

"And on it went. The official RIA Novosti newswire quoted chemical-weapon experts who said that had Novichok been used, Mr. Navalny would already be dead. It's a line Russian state media have used before, after Mr. Skripal and his daughter survived the 2018 attack, but one they dropped after 44-year-old Dawn Sturgess died after coming into contact with an unused vial of Novichok in a Salisbury park three months later."

Is that what happened, Mr. seven-times-recipient-of-the-National-Newspapers-Award? Dawn Sturgess was given the perfume bottle as a gift from her boyfriend, Charles Rowley, at his home in Amesbury, 8 miles from Salisbury. She allegedly 'immediately sprayed some on her wrists and rubbed them together' according to Rowley .

"Charlie Rowley claimed his partner, mother-of-three Dawn Sturgess, fell ill within 15 minutes of spraying the bottle, which he said he had found, on to her wrists at his home in Amesbury, Wiltshire."

Couldn't ask for much more of an eyewitness than Rowley – he's kind of at the center of the story, albeit he is a heroin addict himself, according to a previously-cited reference. He claims that within 15 minutes she was stricken, claimed to have a headache, and disappeared to the bathroom, where he found her fully clothed and lying in the bath, 'in a very ill state'.

That's funny; according to Sky News, she was not so ill that she could not admit herself to hospital, which she is alleged to have done at 11 AM on Saturday, after being poisoned with a nerve agent ten times as deadly as VX, exposure to which nobody has survived.

"During their trip to Salisbury on Friday, the pair visited a number of shops during the afternoon and evening with their friend Sam Hobson.

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD

The following day, Ms Sturgess admitted herself to hospital at 11am. Mr Hobson, 29, and Mr Rowley went on to visit a number of places in the town centre."

Mr. Rowley, the poor man who 'lost so much', was so affected by his beloved's condition that he and his friend Sam Hobson went on – after she admitted herself to hospital – to see the sights of downtown Amesbury. We know they were in Amesbury because one of the locations they visited, Boots the Chemist in Amesbury, was soon thereafter closed by police as part of the investigation.

Perhaps they were looking around for the hospital. Because there isn't one in Amesbury . The closest is in Salisbury, 8 miles away, and the next-closest is in Andover, even further. So the poor woman, having passed out in a very ill state after spraying a deadly nerve agent directly on her skin, somehow roused herself for the 8-mile drive to Salisbury and then proceeded with the admittance process, while the cretins in Emergency let the two who had dropped her off head back to Amesbury for some window-shopping. The alternative is that they were not even with her, and she drove herself. Say, do you know what one of the symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning is? Blurred vision due to excessive watering of the eyes.

The 'only predictable part of the drama', to borrow from Mr. MacKinnon's introduction, is that Ms. Sturgess did not "die after coming into contact with an unused vial of Novichok in a Salisbury park", or anything close to it. Sloppy, or loyal? Which is it?

Anyway, back to Navalny; for some reason I seem to be incapable of staying on his dramatic story. So, 'predictably', there are some pretty big holes in his story. For one, he was supposedly – initially – exposed to a near-unimaginably-toxic nerve agent which he drank in tea at the airport, prior to departure. Then the same Novichok which laid out Dawn Sturgess within 15 minutes did not affect Lyosha until 40 minutes after the plane took off. Team Navalny and its backers have attempted to explain that away by suggesting this was a specially-engineered 'slow-acting' Novichok.

What use would a slow-acting military-grade nerve agent be? Want to give the enemy a fair chance before killing him stone dead? And while we're on the subject: note to the GRU, or the FSB or whoever – stop engineering Novichok to be slow-acting just to attack Navalny, and impervious to rain (like no other nerve agent ever, the immediate countermeasure is to flush the area with water and take atropine) to attack Sergei Skripal, and WORK ON MAKING IT KILL PEOPLE!!! Jesus Christ, do I have to think of everything myself?

So, obviously, the tea narrative was not going to work. Enter The Water Bottle Of Death. Allegedly, the GRU or FSB, or maybe Putin himself poisoned a water bottle and left it in Navalny's hotel room in Tomsk, where there were always people in and out and they had no clue whether it would kill Navalny or someone else. Maybe that's why they engineered it to be slow-acting and non-fatal. Then, after Navalny checked out and headed to the airport, where he hung around for at least long enough to drink a cup of tea before his flight was called, and then after takeoff and 40 minutes into the flight, suddenly, Lyosha is poisoned!! He begins to roar and scream with pain, and members of his entourage immediately go to get a lawyer to accompany them, and go to Navalny's hotel, and – wonder of wonders – not only has it not been cleaned, it is still completely undisturbed!! Fucking hotel service in Tomsk, unbelievable, I hope they don't pay them much.

So, what do we deduce from that? Not only did Navalny show no ill effects after being poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent for approximately an hour – rolling back the moment of his poisoning to his drinking tea in the airport before his flight was called – he survived it for significantly longer than that, because in the end the tea was just tea. He did not take the Water Bottle Of Death with him, instead leaving it in his hotel room, so he must have drunk from it before he left the room. How long was that? How far was his hotel from the airport? Well, let's see – he stayed at the Xander (four stars, not too shabby), which is 24 km from the Bogashevo Airport . I feel safe in suggesting Navalny survived direct contact with a military-grade nerve agent for at least two hours before he even showed any symptoms, and perhaps for considerably longer than that. Which sounds quite a bit like the Skripal saga, in which they were poisoned by their front doorknob – the approximately sixteen-foot-diameter one which reaches to the roof, it's a two-level home – but still managed to drive to the town center, feed the duckies in the park and then go on to a restaurant and finish dinner, before throwing a poison wobbler on a nearby bench outside. Where they happened to be discovered by the senior medical officer in the British Army. Quite by chance, she was just passing by.

So contact with the American VX agent means near-instantaneous death, but contact with a substance ten times more toxic means nothing at all for at least an hour and perhaps twice that, then an unpleasant bout of coma, then presto! 90% recovery of mental faculties – admittedly, not a high threshold for Navalny – and maybe 50% recovery of physical capability, with a cautiously-optimistic prognosis of a full recovery. Lawdy Jeebus; a miracle!

Back to MacKinnon's story for a moment. "His transfer to Berlin's specialist Charité hospital was delayed for 24 crucial hours while Russian officials floated wildly different versions of what might have happened to him." Actually, they did no such thing; the doctors in Omsk are acknowledged to have probably saved his life, there actually was something wrong with him. They stabilized him for transport rather than immediately saying "Here you go, Krauts, it's your show", so his transfer was delayed for a not-at-all-excessive 24 hours, and it was the Germans who 'floated wildly different versions of what might have happened to him', initially claiming he had been poisoned with a cholinesterase inhibitor, and only changing the story to Novichok after the Water Bottle Of Death was delivered to Berlin by Navalny's wife. And unless Lyosha had a water bottle secretly hidden on his person, they did not establish nerve-agent poisoning from his samples, either, unless the German doctors are incredibly incompetent. It would be pretty hard for a skilled medical technician to confuse a cholinesterase inhibitor with a nerve agent, and the doctors in Berlin initially had no clue what was wrong with him. They became confident after the water bottle was delivered.

Navalny's aide is shown delivering his tea to him at the airport. No gloves, no Personal Protective Equipment whatsoever. But Lyosha was already crawling with Novicok – he must have been poisoned in his room. Was the hotel closed? The airport? Was the plane impounded and destroyed? Why is Navalny's aide still alive, and not just waking up from a coma?

And now I am afraid I have some questions about Chain of Custody of important evidence in a criminal investigation. Because according to the timeline of the 'Navalny poisoning', Team Navalny back on the ground in Tomsk did not announce the discovery of a poisoned water bottle from his hotel room until September 17th – two days after the fact. Right up until then, Navalny's 'press agent' stuck with the story that he was poisoned with tea at the airport. What kind of four-star hotel does not clean the room of a guest who has checked out for two days afterward? Alternatively, what kind of political team allows a narrative to persist that their leader was poisoned with tea at the airport for two whole days before they clue the world in that they have discovered important evidence to the contrary? So far as we know, nobody had analyzed the alleged traces on the bottle while it was still in Russia – the Germans allegedly established it was Novichok. Or else Team Navalny already knew, but didn't bother to tell anyone, just assuming everyone who handled it would take deadly-nerve-agent precautions. Who else might have been inside that hotel room in two days? According to the NewsTimes , an Instagram post by Navalny claimed members of his 'team' tossed his hotel room looking for evidence only an hour after he collapsed, which is pretty impressive considering they had no real reason at that point to suspect a crime had been committed; he probably had just reached the hospital in Omsk by that point, if even that, and there had been no announcement as to his condition, But they waited until September 17th to announce they had discovered a bottle contaminated with Novichok? nearly a month later? Excuse me – some state-sponsored nerve agent – the bottle had not been tested yet.

According to the certifiable inbreeders in the European Parliament, Novichok and its family of poisons can only be made in state-owned military laboratories, and there is no way civilians could have gotten hold of it.

"MEPs have called for sanctions against Russia, saying on September 17, "The poison used, belonging to the 'Novichok group', can only be developed in state-owned military laboratories and cannot be acquired by private individuals, which strongly implies that Russian authorities were behind the attack."

Huh. That's odd. Because Alistair Hay – a toxicologist at the University of Leeds, a leading expert in the toxic properties of chemical warfare agents and a member of the British government's advisory group on chemical warfare – assessed that it could be made by "any competent chemist" . I'm pretty sure they're not all in the military, and obviously they do not need to be Russian. The principal developmental engineer of Novichok, Vil Marzayanov, published a book which contained the formula, and which sells on Amazon for less than 30 bucks. But what does Hay know, right?

"The Kremlin's latest denials should and will fall flat with Western governments. It was already clear that Mr. Putin's inner circle had ample reasons to wish Mr. Navalny harm. (The Kremlin's feelings about the anti-corruption campaigner have long been obvious. Mr. Putin has repeatedly refused to use Mr. Navalny's name, even when asked direct questions about him. On Thursday, Mr. Peskov continued that practice, referring only to "the Berlin patient.")

Ha, ha!! Oh, my God. It is clear that the Kremlin has ample reasons to wish Mr. Navalny harm, because they don't talk about him. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it. That's some award-winning journalism right there.

I think we're done here; what is supposed to be a straightforward tale of the unrepentant state poisoning of a political opponent is in fact so confusing and contradictory that I cannot make any sense of it. I suspect even closer examination of it is only going to reveal further inconsistencies.

"The notion of carefully wrought bullshit involves, then, a certain inner strain. Thoughtful attention to detail requires discipline and objectivity. It entails accepting standards and limitations that forbid the indulgence of impulse or whim. It is this selflessness that, in connection with bullshit, strikes us as inapposite. But in fact it is not out of the question at all. The realms of advertising and of public relations, and the nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept. And in these realms there are exquisitely sophisticated craftsmen who – with the help of advanced and demanding techniques of market research, of public opinion polling, of psychological testing, and so forth – dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly right."

Harry G. Frankfurt, from " On Bullshit ".

How many of you would describe the western media as " exquisitely sophisticated craftsmen who dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly right" ? Count me out. They're not even good at it. Fortunately for them, critical thinking is at an all-time low.

Posted on September 18, 2020 by Mark Chapman Posted in Politics , Propaganda , Russia Tagged Media manipulation , Nord Stream II , Propaganda , Russia .


TIMOTHY HAGIOS September 19, 2020 at 3:34 am

In the aftermath of 9/11, I never could have imagined that the US government would ever openly side with the perpetrators, much less that the public at large would be OK with it. And yet that is precisely what happened in Libya and Syria. When Trump showed signs of disengaging from Syria, some of the people protesting were themselves survivors of 9/11 or families of the victims. If they can get away with that, what can't they do? It seems like the media can claim whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous, and the public will believe them without question. Some of the things I've seen in the media look to me like experiments being undertaken to probe the gullibility of the public.

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 19, 2020 at 7:36 am

In the spirit of going off topic

I see what you just did there – inferred that 19 Arabs representing al-Qaeda were responsible for '911'.

• On the Morning of 9/11 – The Truth In 5 Minutes – James Corbett

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgrunnLcG9Q

This is what weakens the sincerity of people like Tulsi Gabbard and retired Colonel, Senator Richard Black despite all the good that they have said and done.

Exactly – WHY would the US aid and abet in Iraq, Libya and Syria the group that 'allegedly' perpetrated the worst act of diabolical terrorism against American citizens in its history it wouldn't – unless of course the official narrative was just not true.

You only have to listen to very clumsy performance by Ehud Barak in the BBC studios on the very day, or Jane Standley declaring the collapse of WT7 23 minutes before it happened (an honest mistake according to official BBC response) or the very fact that WT7 collapsed at all to know that the 'official narrative' is Bullshit.

• 9/11 Revisited, Uncovered & Exposed – Barrett, Gage and Bollyn

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MZQKZhSPWM0

(particularly Bollyn from 54:20)

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 19, 2020 at 7:38 am

**"Tyranny requires that the truth be silenced, that real history be erased and rewritten, that speech be restricted, and that individual thought be silenced."**

*Erasing History and Erasing Truth: Censorship and Destroying Records Is the Cornerstone of Tyrants* by Gary D. Barnett

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/09/gary-d-barnett/erasing-history-and-erasing-truth-censorship-and-destroying-records-is-the-cornerstone-of-tyrants/

I have not seen it expressed better than in this short article by Gary D Barnett.

MARK CHAPMAN September 19, 2020 at 10:21 am

We have always been at war with Eastasia. It is hard to believe that Orwell almost predated television (he died in 1950), and '1984' certainly did.

American – and, in fact, western in general – manipulation of public perception almost invariably relies on values and the public's impression of what is 'the right thing to do'. Consequently, the choice is always a Manichean one; this guy is trampling on democratic values. He's killing his own people. Peaceful protests are being forcibly dispersed with machine-gun fire. An entire people cries out for freedom. Are we gonna let him get away with it? Who's with me??? Slightly more subtle is the implication of, "If you're not with us, you're against us". There is no possibility of detachment. Thus it is with the coronavirus crisis now – you and everyone else have a responsibility to public safety. If you don't do as the government says is necessary for public safety, then you are an enemy of public safety, and deserve the scorn of your fellow man. Come on; who's with me??

You simply have to make it clear that everyone must make a choice; there is no such thing as 'sitting this one out'. Then you frame the choice in such a way that choosing for the majority is easy – do you want to make the world a better place? If you say 'No', then obviously you want to make it a worse place.

Like taking candy from a baby. In Trump's case, though, he's on the wrong side of the equation, and rather than he and his administration steering the narrative, others both for him and against him are framing the choice and he is having to react to it. Those who are against him want to destroy and cast him out, and those for him want to use him as a global influence.

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 19, 2020 at 4:27 am

Thank you Mark; I'm glad to have found your blog site.

I find the format just fine- I learn a heck of a lot from the diversion onto 'off topic' topical events.

I wandered into one of my favourite bookstores a couple of times over the last week (I am in Australia). Really, the only reason for doing so is to check out the classics section (which remains authentic) or to follow up on a special order – there is nothing on the shelves these days, especially the 'latest/best sellers', that is worth burning the paper it is printed on. I get most of my books directly from the author's site or as free pdf downloads from such places as archive-dot-org. I have never, and never would utilise Amazon.

You will see books glorifying Greta, Jacinda, Hillary, Michael (sic), the Walrus, the latest ['Rage'] by Woodward or the latest obligatory 'testimony' from a 100-year-old 'survivor'.

They then have the array of trash talk vilifying, demonising and assassinating anyone with integrity who has something worthwhile to say and who cares about humanity:

"The Doctor Who Fooled the World: Andrew Wakefield's War on Vaccines"
– "Award-winning investigative journalist Brian Deer reveals the shocking truth blah "

But the centrepiece at the moment is

"The Rodchenkov Affair: How I Brought Down Putin's/Russia's Secret Doping Empire" by Grigory Rodchenkov. [Oh dear!!]

Great lines:

"exquisitely sophisticated craftsmen who dedicate themselves tirelessly to getting every word and image they produce exactly wrong [sic]"

"When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false."

This is what so impresses me – that they can produce so much bullshit that some (?many/most) people actually find credible – but when what is left of the world and humanity is based entirely on exquisitely crafted lies – then what?

PS. I see that Russia and/or China meddled in the RBG's respiratory system overnight. One commenter wrote "Weekend at Bernie's" is FINALLY over.

PPS. Russia has also denied bombing schools and hospital in Syria. Boris Johnson would know – here he is admitting that the UK openly funds terrorists – he forgot that people would actually realise who and what the 'White Helmets' are as he proudly boasts of another Ł65 million going the way of these "fantastically brave people".

not to mention the despicable practice of 'double tapping' by Russia and the [Assad] 'regime' – rotten bastards!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/J2mWdvgCOqs?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

featured here
https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/07/05/white-helmets-the-eton-mess/

And not one word in your article on Magnitsky and Browder, you sarcastic prick – you're slipping!

Great writing – much appreciated.

MARK CHAPMAN September 19, 2020 at 10:29 am

Ha, ha! Thanks, Julius; I thought the post just went on and on as it was, and each avenue seemed to lead into another, so that I despaired of ever finishing it. If I had brought Browder into it, I'd still be writing. But if you are a devotee of Browder and his mendacious machinations, here's a post from my old blog on 'that individual'. Get it? I'm showing how much he disturbs me by refusing to mention him by name.

https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/its-not-what-you-know-its-who-you-know-deconstructing-william-browder/

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 19, 2020 at 5:32 pm

Yes, I was being flippant re Browder.

Thank you for that link – a great dossier which I had already bookmarked and recommend to all.

MOSCOWEXILE September 19, 2020 at 7:05 am

Навальный симулирует – разбираем по пунктам

Navalny is simulating – we go through this point by point

Navalny came to his senses and immediately started having photos published on Instagram. Indeed, what else is there to to do in hospital? But it would have been better, of course, if he had not do this, because the public has raised many questions.

Journalist Alexander Sosnovsky has analyzed Navalny's photos and posts on social networks, coming to a rather simple and logical conclusion -- Alexey is simulating. This is hardly surprising, given Navalny and his associate's love for exaggeration, lies and fraudulent schemes.

Sosnovsky highlighted several points by which it is quite easy to realize that the blogger is lying about his "terrible" state. There is no tracheostomy mark on Navalny's neck, which means that he did not have such a serious violation of the respiratory system. And it means that there is no talk of any kind of poisoning with combat poison.

In the photo, he is walking down stairs -- after a few weeks in a coma, muscles can hardly recover so quickly. The knee joints literally "freeze", and it is simply impossible to use stairs so easily.

The same applies to sitting in the lotus position, and this is how the blogger is sitting in the earlier photo. Again, this is absolutely impossible after such a severe poisoning, as all Navalny's hamsters and his family talk about.

By the way, In the message, Navalny thanks the doctor, but he did not write about his family under any of the photos. But when a person is on the verge of death, relatives are the first ones he thinks of when he comes to his senses. And his daughter had flown from the USA, but not a word about Yulia, Dasha and Zakhara, although usually Navalny now and then shows photos and videos of his family, posing as a loving family man.

Next, we pay attention to Navalny's trainers, and they are rather heavy, not of cloth. Such footwear is not worn in an intensive care unit. It is used by patients undergoing normal treatment and who can walk about on the street, but the blogger has not been outside, otherwise his photos would have already appeared on the Web, because there are a lot of paparazzi around. By the way, the fact that he is in the "Charité" has not been in any way confirmed.

In general, there are a lot of questions about Navalny. It remains only to wait for answers from him, although he probably will not bother to devote time to this, because the blogger usually does not comment on any of his type of fraud.

JAMES LAKE September 19, 2020 at 8:55 am

By simulating do they mean lying

ET AL September 19, 2020 at 11:08 am

s t imulating? Maybe Navalny had allegedly been assisted by his apparent drug of choice, cocaine? Or, he was actually out of a coma a few days earlier (to plan how to spin things) and had access to a rowing machine

ET AL September 19, 2020 at 11:57 am

My point is that we are given a narrative but there really is absolutely nothing but his/team/Charite's word about any of this. It's annoying that we have to question everything but even then we often accept much of what is said and look at the most obvious inconsistencies rather than the much more subtle sleights of hand or sideways misdirections. It is non-stop.

What we can do is if we know the conclusion sic 'Navalny poisoned', then the narrative has to (mostly) fit in to that box/framework. So work backwards and see if the public claims fit that narrative, short of deliberate traps to to mop up the conspiracy crowd.

MARK CHAPMAN September 19, 2020 at 12:35 pm

Yes, I had to laugh when MacKinnon ridiculed the notion that Navalny might have been poisoned by samagon by invoking the image of Navalny – as painted by his 'press agent' and his 'team' – as a "near teetolaler". What are they going to say? That he is a lush who drowns kittens? Mark MacKinnon, Stenographer to the Stars, all gossip repeated.

MARK CHAPMAN September 19, 2020 at 10:36 am

What is far more likely is that he will consult with his handlers, and together they will come up with a reply stinging in its scorn, revolving around the theme, "Can you believe they are saying this??", inviting all readers to have a hearty laugh at the squalling of the conspiracy theorists. It's worked before – no reason to change the formula until it stops working.

JENNIFER HOR September 19, 2020 at 1:46 pm

In that photo, Navalny looks as if he is walking through a fire escape area. Would hospitals really allow patients to walk unassisted and unprotected through the fire escape area? Once the door into the fire escape closes, if you're in the fire escape, you cannot open it again. You'd have to walk all the way down to the exit and out into the open air – fire escapes are designed to get you out of a burning building. Once out, Navalny would be exposed to all kinds of aerosols including air pollutants, let alone the odd coronavirus spike-ball, that could sicken him in his recently recovered state.

This makes you wonder whether Navalny even set foot into any hospital in Berlin at all, and not just a medical clinic or some place where discharged patients go to recuperate after a hospital stay. (I forget the term used for such places where people receive care after being discharged from hospital.)

ET AL September 19, 2020 at 2:12 pm

Which I would say support my suposition that Berlin's Charite hospital has been rather conservative with it is press release (patient confidentialty) that has afforded FC Nav alny's PR team sufficient time to create a nice visual story fit for western consumption, nyam nyam nyam copy copy copy, snore.

JENNIFER HOR September 19, 2020 at 1:30 pm

Perhaps the category and grade of Novichok used to poison Navalny are the same as for the Novichok used on Julia Skripal. Recall that during her May 2018 interview with the Reuters reporter at USAF Fairford base in Gloucestershire or wherever, Julis Skripal looked slim and radiant and her skin was in good condition. She was able to walk unassisted to the interview as well. It seems clear to me that that Novichok stuff must actually be some Fountain of Youth elixir, that it puts its victims into temporary Snow White repose and then, without warning, not only awakens them but restores them to a better state of health and physical condition better than what they had before they were poisoned. Next thing you know, Navalny will be training for the marathon in next year's Olympic Games.

MOSCOWEXILE September 19, 2020 at 7:37 am

Блогеры отреагировали на второй после "отравления" пост Навального
19 сентября 2020

Bloggers have reacted to Navalny's second post after the "poisoning"
19 September 2020

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFUAPu8llSO/embed/captioned/

Rise, take up thy bed and walk!

OLD97POLARCAT September 19, 2020 at 8:16 am

Oh, man. New reader here. The "peyote cartoon" line made me laugh so damn hard. Thanks you for that. Nothing beats this cult-like world like a good long laugh at the cult's expense.

MOSCOWEXILE September 19, 2020 at 8:29 am

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice!

Aleksei Venediktov, touchy, feely boss of Libtard Ekho Moskvy:

Maria Pevchikh did not fly from Omsk on an ambulance flight with Aleksei Navalny.

Radio Freedom:

Maria Pevchikh: I flew in a medical aeroplane with Navalny.

GARY JACKSON September 19, 2020 at 8:33 am

That Sneaky Putin

While the western world(read fascist) was going ape over novichok-you know the Russian bio-weapon that is the most dangerous chemical known to man except it fails to kill anyone-Putin had developed and infected the entire political and mass media leaders of the west with a new bio-weapon that he created himself. It's called Notajoke and it makes those infected become babbling idiots and anyone can see that it has worked. Trump got his dose from some Las Vegas hookers who the FSB infected and they in turn pissed on him. Even worse, it eventually gives every infected person a Hitler mustache that cannot be gotten rid of. These babbling idiots are aware something is wrong but they are not sure of whats happening and they have developed a strategum. They are going to emulate certain successful comics from the past and make their adversaries die laughing. Trump becomes Moe, Boris becomes Larry and Angela becomes Curly-wise guy eh? They plan to resort to slapstick, where upon they slap you with sanctions and then stick it to you, bomb your country and everyone is in stitches(in the hospital) "Yeah that' what we'll do eh Moe?". As part of the plan the G7 mental 7 dwarfs are on board with Moe(Trump-coc) as their leader followed by Larry(Boris-sleezy) and Curly(Angela-frumpy) with those idiots True-dough(dopey) Canada, Cunte(bashful) Italy, Macaroon(creepy) France and the Jap chap Ape Abe(jappy). What a team folks- I may die of laughter before I'm finished this tirade. Their latest brilliant stroke is to put an end to Nordstream 2 so that their citizens can pay double thereby aiding Moe and getting rid of their excess money. The Baltic states are on board as well. They are afraid that Russia will steal their technology- ooops they don't have any, their natural resources- ooops ditto, their dirt-ya that's it, their dirt. Poland is worried about the theft of their telecommunications technology developed by Alexander Graham Kowalski better known as "The Telephone Pole". Ukraine got on board and has now elevated itself to the poorest country in Europe. Moe thought Putin may be behind all this so he offered a challenge. Putin responded with chess?, judo?, hockey?, Moe had in mind a pie throwing contest. "wise guy eh?"

Pompeo and Abrahms not to be outdone have become Ollie and Stan as Ollie admonishes Stan-"this is another fine mess you've gotten me into" over Venezuela and proceed to bump into one another. To add a little "stiff" competition in comes Joe "the stiff" Biden to out stupid them all.

ET AL September 19, 2020 at 11:26 am

MacKinnon is a follower. No relation to autistic hacker Gary MacKinnon.* This MacKinnon is a member of the Ford Estate, not the Fourth Estate. It's the appearance of journalism. Just because some thing is long (lots of words) doesn't make it fact. Never mistake quantity for quality, but that is the strategic propaganda goal against Russia. Bombard the public with endless long, big, stronger, higher, faster, deeper/whatever reports/investigations/studies etc. which when you actually look for the source is either anonymous/highly likely/judged to be /whatever, but you never get to read the actual source material. NEVER.

Vis the poison in the hot tea. What got me was that no-one commented that using a poison in 70c+ tea would dramatically reduce its effect (chemically break down very quickly) which is directly contrary to the claimed goal of killing Navalny). It would also have to be specifically designed to be heat resistant which is a whole other level of chemical weapons development more suitable for a sci-fi future of scorching global temperatures where the human race dwell below ground like Morlocks.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

ET AL September 19, 2020 at 2:01 pm

Tass: Press review: EU plots own bloc-wide Magnitsky Act and Moscow, Minsk bolster defense ties
https://tass.com/pressreview/1201793

Top stories in the Russian press on Thursday, September 17

Vedomosti: Rostec to shell out $1.7 bln on creating new Sukhoi Superjet aircraft

By 2023, the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) plans to create the Sukhoi SuperJet New, an import-substituted version of the short-haul Sukhoi SuperJet 100, the only civilian jet built by the Russian aviation industry. The development of the new Sukhoi Superjet New aircraft, which UAC plans to create by 2023, will cost 120 bln-130 bln rubles ($1.6-1.7 bln), Vedomosti writes, citing sources close to the corporate leadership of Rostec and UAC.

According to the newspaper, the United Engine Corporation (UEC) is developing a domestic PD-8 engine, which the aircraft will use. ..UAC will allocate at least 50 bln rubles ($664 mln) for the development of SSJ New.
####

Plenty of stuff, but as usual, put up or shut up. Russia puts up.

Vis the u-Ropean 'Magnitsky Act' no unanimity required. Russia would do well to say in advance that it would counter-act against certain senior EU officials/member states for complicity in genocide in Libya, Yemen etc.

The problem with u-Rope is that is that Brussels is a balm for the crimes of its member states. On the one hand the EU is the collective consciousness of its member states but is not responsible for their individual actions. It is yet again 'cake and eat it.' Brussels needs to be rudely disabused that it can continue to play this game without consequence (f/y European Parliament second hand, seat warming pols who are only waiting until their party wins elections back home again). Take away this option. I don't see Russia taking this new act lying down though and are deliberately playing their cards close to their chest.

Now on reflection, this act has taken a remarkably long time to come to this point. This in itself tells us that there are clearly significant misgivings behind closed doors. The fact that it has now reached his stage also tells us that Brussels/Paris/Berlin think they have come up with a cunning plan aka 'squared the circle', but it is also a significant sign of weakness. Maybe the timing is related to the almost completed NordStream 2 but that is irrelevant. This is about consequence. u-Rope is currently at its weakest (politically and economically) for a long time but for some reason it thinks now is the time for a EU Magnitsky It's really poor thinking.

So, I declare 2020 as the year of Hail Marys. The last throw of the dice. Desparation of maybe a final win, however fleeting to go out in a blaze of heavenly glory before the EU turns inward to deal with its US sponsored saboage attempts, sic the PiS run lo-land of Po-land that runs out of substantial cash on 31 December 2020 and the wheels of the bus start coming off.

The only other tidbit I've seen is about Byelorussia. In particular only Latvia has STFU about and avoided the ire of Lucky-shenko. The Brits would say that Riga is 'Boxing Clever.' Still, is it setting itself up as an EU interlocutor. Yet again, this is a story of omisson. Lucky shouldn't trust any of them. And speaking of f/kers who won't let go, Borissov in Bulgaria is still refusing to resign (who cares, they're in the EU) and Djukanovic in pro-EU Montengro remains presient despite losing parliament. But, if you are in Da Klub, however korrupt or faked (hello Romania too!), it's just not news.

MOSCOWEXILE September 19, 2020 at 10:25 pm

RBK

So it must be true! "Novichok" was used to murder the "Leader of the opposition"! Soviet developer of "Novichok" makes an apology to Navalny:

Отравление Навального , 20 сен, 00:23 179 058

Разработчик "Новичка" извинился перед Навальным
Он назвал разработку боевого яда "преступным бизнесом" и пояснил, что посвятил всю свою последующую жизнь борьбе против применения отравляющих веществ


Vil Sultanovich Mirzayanov, a Tatar now living happily in the USA, where he likes to dish the dirt on Russia as regards chemical weapons

Novichok developer has apologized to Navalny
He called the development of combat poison "a criminal business" and explained that he had devoted his entire subsequent life to the fight against the use of toxic substances

A chemist and one of the developers of the Novichok chemical warfare agent Vil Mirzayanov has apologized to opposition leader Alexei Navalny on the Dozhd TV channel.

"I sincerely apologize to Navalny for being involved in this criminal business -- the development of this substance, which he was poisoned with", said the chemist who has lived in the United States since 1995.

He noted that he had devoted himself all his subsequent life to the fight against the use of combat poisons.

In an interview with Dozhd, Mirzayanov explained that in 1993 he met a man who had survived poisoning by "Novichok". He stated that the symptoms he described were similar to those mentioned by Navalny on Instagram on September 19.

"All the symptoms are similar. He overcame, survived. Apparently, Navalny will have to be patient. But, ultimately, he must be healthy, "said the scientist. The restoration of full health to the Russian politician, Mirzayan said, could take up to a year.

In his opinion, the situation as regards the impossibility of writing words on a blackboard, which Navalny described, is associated with problems of signal transmission from the brain to functional organs -- "Novichok" molecules prevent the breakdown of the protein responsible for the transmission of such signals.

RBK calls Navalny a "politician".

"Dozhd" gave the interview.

Both are libturd organs.

Mirzayanov was not a developer of "Novichok". At one time he worked at the State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology in the department for counteracting foreign technical intelligence, where he rose to the rank of head of department. That is, he was familiar with what they do in laboratories, but he himself did not "invent" Novichok.

He started blowing the whistle as regards the Soviet Union allegedly working around compliancy with the proposed 1990 Chemical Weapons Accord and In 1992 published an article about the USSR and Russian development of extremely potent fourth-generation chemical weapons from the 1970s until the early 1990s. The publication appeared just on the eve of Russia signing the 1990 Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mirzayanov was arrested on treason charges but the trial collapsed. He was released, but kept under house arrest and observation. In 1995 he relocated to the United States where he presently resides, taking a position at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Mirzayanov is a professional Tatar: On October 26, 2008, was elected to the Presidium of the Milli Mejlis of the Tartar People in exile. On January 17, 2009, in an article on CNN, he published the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF TATARSTAN, adopted at a Special Meeting of the Milli Mejlis of the Tatar People on December 20, 2008] At a conference on the separation of Tatarstan from Russia, held in Ankara in the same year, Mirzayanov was elected "Prime Minister" of the "government in exile". In March 2010, Mirzayanov signed the "Putin Must Go" campaign.

In March 2018, after the alleged poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal by "Novichok", Mirzayanov spoke about how Russia had maintained tight control over its "Novichok" stockpile and that the agent is too complicated for a non-state actor to have weaponized.

"It's torture. It's absolutely incurable."

"I never imagined even in my bad dreams that this chemical weapon, developed with my participation, would be used as terrorist weapons."

Mirzayanov said only the Russians could be behind the use of the weapon and said he was convinced Russia carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.

Singing for his supper in the USA?

MARK CHAPMAN September 19, 2020 at 10:47 pm

All part of Washington's momentum campaign – keep it rolling, a new atrocity by Russia every day. Mirzayanov is an American now, well established and apparently happy, and doubtless he will be well-rewarded for his storytelling. But I doubt the 'apology' to Navalny was his idea. Washington just wants to keep Navalny in the news, in the hope that the more people learn who he is and what he is all about, the greater will be his influence in Russia.

MOSCOWEXILE September 20, 2020 at 9:37 am

Кто такой Мирзаянов и почему он извинялся перед Навальным?

Who is Mirzayanov and why did he apologize to Navalny?

The mass media, which in general few people trust, continue to increase false publications about the poisoning of blogger Navalny. So, absurd information has appeared on the Web about the fact that one of the creators of "Novichok", Vil Mirzayanov, who lives in the States, has apologized to Alexei Navalny.

But the fact is that Mirzayanov is not a developer of Novichok, he has nothing to do with this poisonous substance. He was involved in some kind of indirect way with the creation of the poison, as were many others, but to call him a developer is like calling a woodworker who made a stretcher for a canvas the artist who created the oil painting that is on it.

So in general, complete nonsense. One of the direct participants in the process of creating the toxin, Leonid Rink, stated that Mirzayanov was only one of the workers on "Novichok", but did not participate in the direct creation of the poison.

He also commented on Navalny's symptoms, saying that they are in no way similar to those that should have been in the case of Novchik poisoning. Rink stressed that his "colleague" also cannot know what the real symptoms are when this toxin enters the human body. So Mirzayanov's statement is completely unfounded, and may apparently be explained as having been made because he was ordered by someone to make it.

Finally, Rink said that if Navalny had been poisoned with this particular poison, he would not have been saved.

KARL1HAUSHOFER September 20, 2020 at 10:42 am

Russia has so many internal traitors (Navalny, Rodchenko and this Mirzayanov for example) that it makes too easy for Russia's enemies to use them against Russia.

MARK CHAPMAN September 20, 2020 at 11:38 am

And is it working? Is the west achieving the goals it set for itself by co-opting these traitors? Maybe in the short term; the west was successful – using Rodchenkov – of keeping Russia largely out of a couple of Olympics series. But the overall effect, it seems to me, is that the west is increasingly revealed as a partisan liar, and consequently untrustworthy.

Why do you say, "So many"? Does Russia have more 'internal traitors' than other countries? From the point of view that they are willing to help other countries overthrow their own government, perhaps. But otherwise they are simply people who disagree with the way their country is run, by the people who run it. The rest is support offered by the west for them to air their views. Do you think Russia could make good use of Edward Snowden to bring down the United States government by starting a movement in the USA of discontented people? I do; it wouldn't even be difficult – it is a fragmented and angry country already, with several anti-government movements the government can barely keep in check. Are there any signs Russia plans to use that approach? I mean, for real, not the hysterical cries that Russia is behind Black Lives Matter and other obviously-American groups that are fed up with their lives as they are.

KARL1HAUSHOFER September 20, 2020 at 11:57 am

It is working because 95% of the people in Finland or the United States or Germany believe that Russian state poisoned Navalny. The facts don't matter as much as what people believe in.

And those who want more sanctions against Russia and isolate Russia also benefit, because they can point to Navalny "poisoning" and say that Russia must be punished.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 20, 2020 at 1:37 pm

In the US, virtually everyone has an opinion regardless of the level of familiarity with the topic. But, the willingness to suffer for those opinions is ZERO, nada, ništa.

I would appreciate a link to the information indicating 95% of the US population "believe[s] that Russian state poisoned Navalny".

Like I said before, so much US propaganda is being dispensed that its value, like an overprinted currency, is diminishing. When the US economic system collapses, as it surely will, all those opinions will be forgotten as quickly as last year's "America's Got Talent" runner-up.

JEN September 20, 2020 at 9:14 pm

I should think 95% of the population in most countries will go, "Navalny, who's he? Anyone I should know?"

MOSCOWEXILE September 20, 2020 at 10:00 pm

Where do you get the figure 95% from? Off the top of your head or, in the opposite direction, a gut feeling?

MARK CHAPMAN September 20, 2020 at 10:07 pm

And so they apply more sanctions. Has that had any measurable negative effect on Russia? What will they do, ban it from the Council of Europe again?

Look at it this way – the sanctions and the regime-change operations in neighbouring countries and the serial-lying campaigns have all been part of a plan, a plan to drive Putin from power and put a western bobblehead in his place. How many years have they been trying this, now – since 2014? Is it working? Is Russia in worse shape now than it was then, or better? Is it more independent, or less? More assertive, or less? Does it have a more diversified economy, or less?

If I had put this plan together, and poured it on as hard as I could for six straight years now and had as little to show for it as the west has, I'd be expecting to be called into the office any day now to get fired.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 21, 2020 at 3:25 am

95% of the regular commentators on this blog believe Karl is wrong.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 20, 2020 at 1:28 pm

Russia has so many internal traitors (Navalny, Rodchenko and this Mirzayanov for example) that it makes too easy for Russia's enemies to use them against Russia.

The US government/deep state leadership is traitorous to its own population. The steadily decreasing standard of living over the past 3-4 decades combined with a rapidly growing wealth inequity tell us that,

Having traitors fighting the national leadership is to be much preferred to a national leadership in the hands of traitors. More simply, the US does not have many traitors because the traitors are running the show.

Got it?

When all is said and done, the countries with the most fit population will generally prevail if left alone. The West knows that hence the continuous pressure on Russia. Still got it?

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 3:53 am

The Great Leader?


Guide us, O thou great redeemer, pilgrims through this barren land!


Follow me to the sweet summer pastures!


I shall lead you all to the Shining City on the Hill


Yay!!!! Follow the Wizard of Oz! Мы -- власть!

JEN September 20, 2020 at 9:25 pm

Mirzayanov lives in the US where he apparently was made Prime Minister in the "government in exile" for Tatarstan in 2010 . I wonder how that's been working out for him for the past 10 years.

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 6:05 am


The last photo of Alexei Navalny before boarding the Moscow bound aeroplane plane in Tomsk / Twitter

Taken after Navalny had allegedly drunk poisoned tea, they all at first howled in unison, but now they say he drank from a Novichok contaminated bottle in his hotel room, which the Navalnyites later so fortuitously recovered from Navalny's long vacated hotel room and sent to Berlin.

95% of people in the West believe this story, namely that Navalny was poisoned by Novichok?

And not only do 95% of Westerners believe that Navalny had ingested Novichok, but also, that it was a specially developed delayed action Novichok that would only take effect some 40 minutes after that photo above had been taken.

Furthermore, 95% of Westerners believe that Navalny recovered from his poisoning by specially developed, delayed-action Novichok.

Now if the story were subsequently changed and it were claimed that Navalny had been poisoned by, say, special, delayed action strychnine, AND had recovered from its effects, would 95% of Westerners believe that as well?

Well, maybe, if it were alleged that such special, delayed action Strychnine could only have been developed by evil Russian scientists, and one of those who partook in its development now showed remorse for his nefarious activities ands made a public apology to Navalny for all the bother said strychnine had caused him.

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 7:10 am

Libtard Kommersant:

21.09.2020, 14:39

Навальный потребовал вернуть изъятую в омской больнице одежду

Navalny has demanded that his clothes removed in the Omsk hospital be returned

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFZWwwdlinq/embed/captioned

Greetings from Berlin! The happy couple enjoying deutsche Gemütlichkeit . It's a miracle, I tell ya!

The above Instagram text reads:

Julia and I had our anniversary on August 26 -- 20 years of being wed, but I'm even glad that I missed it and I can write this today, when I know a little more about love than I did a month ago.

You, of course, have seen this a hundred times in films and read about it in books: one loving person lies in a coma, and the other brings him back to life with her love and incessant care. Of course, we also acted in this way. According to the canons of classic films about love and coma. I slept and slept and slept. Julia came, talked to me, sang songs to me, turned on music. I won't lie – I don't remember anything.

But I'll tell you what I remember exactly. Rather, it can hardly be called a "memory", rather, a bundle of my very first sensations and emotions. However, it was so important to me that it has been forever imprinted in my mind. I'm lying there. I have already been brought out of the coma, but I don't recognize anyone, I don't understand what is happening. I don't speak and I don't know what to say. And the whole of the time that I was there was spent waiting for her arrival. Who she is is unclear. I don't know what she looks like either. Even if I manage to see something with a defocused gaze, then I simply cannot remember the picture. But She is different, I understand that, so I lie and wait for her all the time. She comes and becomes the head of the ward. She adjusts my pillow very comfortably. She doesn't have a quiet, sympathetic tone. She talks cheerfully and laughs. She tells me something. When she is around, idiotic hallucinations recede. It's very good with her. Then she leaves, I feel sad, and I start waiting for her again.

I don't doubt for a second that there is a scientific explanation for this. Well, like, I caught the timbre of my wife's voice, my brain secreted dopamines, it became easier for me. Each visit literally became healing, and the expectation effect increased the dopamine reward. But no matter how cool scientific and medical explanation sounds, now I know for sure just from my own experience: love heals and brings you back to life. Julia, you saved me, and let it be written in the textbooks on neuroscience😍

[Wipes tear from eye .]

The body of the Kommersant article text:

Opposition leader Alexei Navalny has published a blog post in which he is outraged by the lack of a criminal investigation into his poisoning. He has also demanded the return of his clothes, which may be important evidence. Mr. Navalny noted that two independent laboratories in France and Sweden, as well as a German special laboratory in the Bundeswehr, had confirmed the presence of Novichok in his body. "However, in Russian political and legal reality, none of this exists In Russia there is no criminal case, but there is a "pre-investigation check on the fact of hospitalization ". It seems that I didn't fall into a coma on the aeroplane, but slipped in a supermarket and broke my leg", wrote Mr. Navalny. He also demanded that the clothes he wore on August 20 be returned to him -- the day he felt sick. According to the politician, he was "sent absolutely naked" to Germany. "Considering that a Novichok was found on my body and a contact method of infection is very likely, my clothes are a very important piece of evidence. 30 days allotted by law for pre-investigation

Listen, arsehole: you threw a wobbler on the aircraft, howled and screamed and rolled around on the deck and then, allegedly, went into a coma. On admission to hospital, you were put into a coma and remained in an induced comatose state until your miraculous recovery in the Charité, Berlin

The reason why no criminal case has been made in the country where you were allegedly dosed with Novichock, is that there is no evidence of this being the case. Furthermore, there was no evidence of poisoning in the analyses of your body fluids and tissue done in Omsk.

German doctors say that they have such evidence, but they wont show it; likewise the Bundeswehr laboratories.

And there will be no traces of Novichok on your clothing in the Omsk hospital either. If there had been, there would have been a lot of dead people at that hospital last month.

So fuck off!

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 7:11 am

Oh, and his Instagram message above is entitled "Post about Love".

Navalny for president!!!!!

MARK CHAPMAN September 21, 2020 at 11:51 am

I think I love him best when he shows his softer side. 'Oo's just a big teddy-bear, then?

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 12:35 pm

By the way, is that an ashtray I see, tucked away on the floor near the sliding glass-door jamb?

A Russian ashtray, forsooth -- namely and old food can. Not a genuine Russkie ashtray, though, which are usually fashioned out of empty sprat cans.

Whatever, those nice Fritz doctors must have bent the rules so that the hero can go to the balcony for a quick drag between ward rounds.

Hope Mutti Merkel doesn't find out!

MARK CHAPMAN September 21, 2020 at 11:50 am

Never fear – I expect there will be plenty more idiotic hallucinations to come.

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 12:25 pm

21 сентября 2020
Стали известны результаты исследований одежды Навального

September 21, 2020
The results of investigations of Navalny's clothing have become known

Russian experts did not find traces of poison or hazardous substances on the belongings of Alexei Navalny, in which he was on the day of hospitalization. The results of the research have been made known to the TASS agency.

"In his personal belongings, no dangerous, prohibited, poisonous, other substances or their traces were found", said a source in law enforcement agencies.

Earlier, the Ministry of Health of the Omsk region told Interfax that Navalny's clothes were seized from doctors by the investigating authorities during an inspection.

On Monday, September 21, the blogger demanded that the things that were removed from him in the Omsk hospital be returned to him. According to him, these clothes could become important evidence, since there were traces of a poisonous substance on his body. "30 days of a 'pre-investigation check' were used to hide this vital piece of evidence. I demand that my clothes be carefully packed in a plastic bag and returned to me", the oppositionist said.

Yeah, deny, deny, deny! That's all that Russians do. However, 95% of Finnish people think he was Novichocked and there were traces of the most deadly nerve agent known to man on his clothes.

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 7:13 am

Call me a hard-hearted cynic if you will, for I am!

MOSCOWEXILE September 21, 2020 at 10:11 am

У РОССИИ НЕТ БУДУЩЕГО: ЛИКВИДИРОВАЛИ ПАРТИЮ НАВАЛЬНОГО
21.09.2020

RUSSIA HAS NO FUTURE: NAVALNY'S PARTY LIQUIDATED
09/21/2020

Today, September 21, the RF Supreme Court liquidated Navalny's party "Russia of the Future".

In mid-May 2019, Alexey Navalny's assistants submitted documents to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for registration of the "Russia of the Future" party. True, the ministry re-registered the "Party of Free Citizens" under a new name, but refused to register Navalny's associates, owing to the fact that a party with this name had already been registered.

Alexei Navalny filed a lawsuit trying to challenge the registration refusal. Ultimately, both the Zamoskvoretsky Court and the Moscow City Court were on the side of the Ministry of Justice.

Navalny's aide, Ivan Zhdanov, said they currently do not plan to reapply for party registration.

"Our case has been communicated to the ECHR and we are not planning new filings in the near future", Zhdanov said.

Since 2012, politician Navalny has been trying to register his party under the names "People's Alliance", "Party of Progress" or "Russia of the Future". However, all attempts to do so have been in vain.

In other words, as I have said before: "Fuck off, arsehole!"

The "politician" without a party and with statistically zilch public support in Russia.

No mass protests or civil unrest anywhere in Russia since Navalny's alleged poisoning: nothing like the massive popular protests held week in week out in support for Furgal in Khabarovsk. Sweet FA in support of the "leader of the Russian opposition" whom Putin tried to murder with Novichok!

However, I hear that 95% of people in the West believe there was indeed an assassination attempt made against the US agent using the most deadly nerve agent (weapons grade, modified) known to man and undertaken on Putin's direct order.

MARK CHAPMAN September 21, 2020 at 11:55 am

Here's a possible solution – call it "The Party of Crooks and Thieves". Subtle, innit? Then The Kremlin will think Navalny is calling himself and his fellow party members crooks and thieves, when all along he is simply planning – cunningly, as he and the US Department of State do everything – to give his signature phrase the publicity boost it deserves! Fookin' ELEGANT!

CORTES September 22, 2020 at 12:34 am

Reminds me of the faultless logic of George Armstrong Custer:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kpbq6nGbs50?feature=oembed

JAMES LAKE September 21, 2020 at 2:49 pm

Navalny would have been better off staying silent.

He just confirms by his words and behaviour what a fake this all is.

What a traitor

PATIENT OBSERVER September 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm

I wonder if the several gallons of acid will be spilled accidentally on the flight logs.

https://www.rt.com/usa/501323-epstein-flights-passengers-list-subpoena/

Bill Clinton made 24 flights on the Lolita Express to Rape Island. Hilary apparent partook of the girls as well as reported elsewhere.

Stranger things have happened:

https://www.rt.com/usa/500411-mueller-team-wiped-phones/

Over a dozen members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russiagate-investigating team "accidentally" wiped their phones before they could be inspected and "lost" the phone of disgraced FBI lawyer Lisa Page with anti-Trump texts.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 21, 2020 at 5:59 pm

Musing during an evening work break – the reason why mass rape of children by our vaunted leaders draw so little attention from the MSM has nothing to do with "protecting" those in power either due to fear or reward. Rather, Bill and Hilary do what comes natural to sociopaths. As such, their behavior is accepted, if not condoned, as normal for those in power. Us deplorables just don't get it.

CORTES September 22, 2020 at 6:24 am

He's not the Messiah – he's a very naughty boy:

https://www.rt.com/russia/501367-siberian-cult-leader-arrested/

Hopefully a US support group can negotiate for him to be freed and allowed to spread his Gospel in North America.

MOSCOWEXILE September 22, 2020 at 9:55 am

Посетивший "Шарите" журналист показал признаки отсутствия там Навального
14:55 22 Сентября 2020, Берлин, Германия

Journalist who has visited Charité has pointed out signs of Navalny's absence there
14:55 22 September 2020, Berlin, Germany

Alexei Navalny is not at the Charité clinic in Berlin. This is the conclusion reached by journalist Alexander Sosnovsky, who has visited the place.


A journalist from Berlin has shown why Navalny cannot be at the "Charité" / Collage: FBA "Economics Today"

According to the journalist, the photo of Navalny with his wife on a balcony makes one think about his whereabouts. Sosnovsky, who is familiar with the architecture of Berlin, drew attention to the strange urban landscape in the corner of the picture. He pointed out that the Charité building does not have balconies with a similar view, as it is located in the central part of Berlin with a completely different architecture.

To confirm his words in practical way, Sosnovsky personally went to the Charité and walked around the building with a camera. He drew attention to the construction work near the clinic (this would probably have got into the blogger's photo), as well as the complete absence of journalists and security. All this confirmed Sosnovsky's suspicions about Navalny's absence from Charité.

In addition to the cityscape, the journalist had questions about the can with cigarette butts on Navalny's balcony. Sosnovsky called such an object impossible in an élite medical institution in Germany with patients of this level. If Navalny himself smoked all the cigarettes in the frame, this raises even more questions about his "diagnosis" and the conclusions of German doctors.

The journalist notes that all the shots of Navalny taken after he had emerged from the coma are static and "inanimate." Sosnovsky, a person with a medical education and a practicing doctor, calls this understandable, pointing to the possibility of identifying the signs of specific diseases and influences based on movements, speech and other dynamic manifestations. For example, after a tracheostomy (artificial windpipe), a person often has voice problems.

"Any video and audio makes it possible with a high degree of probability to calculate where and how it was made. It is much more difficult from a photo. And if they hide from us the opportunity to determine the location and diagnosis, this is very significant", Sosnovsky said on the air of Soloviev Live.

Earlier, Navalny demanded that Russia return the clothes in which the blogger was hospitalized in Omsk. However, Navalny's own associates previously wrote that all his belongings were transferred to his wife, and some of the items that the blogger touched and used could have been taken out by Maria Pevchikh, a suspect in his poisoning.

JEN September 22, 2020 at 4:54 pm

Bingo! I had said a few days earlier:

" This makes you wonder whether Navalny even set foot into any hospital in Berlin at all, and not just a medical clinic or some place where discharged patients go to recuperate after a hospital stay "

– even before that photo of the Navalnys being lovey-dovey on a balcony appeared. Do hospital floor plans normally include balconies attached to patient wards? I am sure hospitals are not designed like hotels or even like educational institutions, to include balconies for individual patients or groups of patients, for possible security and liability reasons among others. (You don't want patients sneaking out at night and possibly getting run over in traffic when they are supposed to be under hospital supervision; and you also don't want to make entry easy for people looking for drugs and entering hospitals through patient wards to get drugs.)

ArchDaily.com has 50 examples of floor plans of hospitals and health clinics at this link if anyone is interested enough in scrolling through them all.

And since when do hospitals allow patients or even their visitors to smoke on their premises? Not only are they a health hazard (to smokers and non-smokers alike in sealed air-conditioned environments such as hospitals provide) but they are also a fire hazard.

MARK CHAPMAN September 22, 2020 at 11:18 pm

Navalny was supposedly on oxygen until just a couple of days ago, and firing up a lung dart around oxygen is as good a way as any to blow yourself up.

Mind you, when you have survived poisoning with enough nerve agent to kill an elephant, you're invincible.

Speaking of hospitals, how's the missus getting on?

MARK CHAPMAN September 22, 2020 at 11:59 am

It looks as if the day when the poor will no longer be needed has come.

https://www.anti-empire.com/now-for-the-real-killer-lockdown-hunger/

ET AL September 23, 2020 at 8:51 am

They've now dropped him. The S&D were upset with the EPP as they didn't do their homework.

ET AL September 22, 2020 at 1:21 pm

I can't remember where I read it (Euractiv?), but apparently the current NordStream II plan is to complete it and then apply restrictive measures such as capacity caps etc. This I can believe. A) it get's Brussels off the hook for wildly violating its own Energy Charter (private investor protections), something which you may all recall Brussels has been trying to use against Russia even though the latter did not ratify it but is technically supposed to be bound by the rules or a period; b) it looks like it has taken action; c) it can reverse at any point not to mention all the exemptions Brussels allowed for 'Field Pipes', TAP etc. and retro-actively trying to redefine its rule to be ex-territoria – i.e. apply to out pipline that are not end-to-end EU pipelines but cross outside of the EU. And finally to threaten and blackmail Gazprom in public to agree Privately mutually beneficial terms that do not contravene the Energy Charter, i.e. if Gazprom voluntarliy goes along with the new rules. Very Brussels 'squaring the circle'/presenting weakness/compromise as VICTORY!

We know from the past that Brussels imposed a 50% capacity cap on Russian gas though NS I until demand picked up and the restriction would have driven up prices for EU industry and private customers and thus magically lifted the cap, subject to 'market conditions' of course!

In other news, a PiS (Polish government) spokesman said that they didn't need coalition partners which turned out to mean that 'The PiS-led coalition would lose its parliamentary majority without United Poland, which has 17 seats. The coalition crisis came after simmering tensions spilled into open conflict when the junior members refused to support an animal rights bill. .' 'Hanging by a thread' anal-cyst looks more like projection to me.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/italy-slashes-number-of-politicians-by-a-third/

MARK CHAPMAN September 22, 2020 at 11:13 pm

Oh, what a stupid fucking plan. They're not serious, or don't realize they are not, but ENI and Uniper and Wintershall are not going to put up with that shit for a minute. They invested to make money, not lose it, and they are not remotely interested in making room for American LNG. I sometimes wonder what passes for political nous in Europe these days – it doesn't look like you have to have too many synapses firing.

ET AL September 23, 2020 at 1:22 am

Therefore it is very much a political figleaf. Something they can tell themselves and others knowing full well that they won't do it. More importantly they think it buys them time for example if t-Rump is not re-elected even though the Dems are onboard with the 'f/k NSII' plans.

I think this actually shows that they looked down the barrel of the gun (i.e. spoke to their own Legal Service) and didn't like what they saw, that Brussels would be unequivocaly on the hook for NSII not being completed. This is just like earlier when the EU Legal Services told them that they couldn't apply the Third Energy Package retroactively (as previously posted on this blog – or was it the old one?). The article below has a pdf upload of the actual EU Legal Services opinion & the German.* Bundesnetzagentur.

* https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/nord-stream-2-official-we-see-a-lot-of-smokescreens-thrown-around/

MARK CHAPMAN September 22, 2020 at 11:24 pm

Oh, look at that – Mr. Less-than-5% has been 'discharged' from the hospital he probably was never in, so you journalists can stop hanging about picking the western storyline apart; he ain't here no more.

Poisoned with the deadliest nerve agent known to man, and in less than a week he's ready to hit the road (less than a week after coming out of a coma where he had to have a ventilator breathe for him, I mean). Day one, he wakes up. Day two, he's recovered 90% of his brain function and nearly all his mobility. And only a couple of days after that, he's demanding his clothes back from Russia and making plans for his glorious return, perhaps riding an Abrams main battle tank. Wasn't Detective Bailey in the hospital for weeks, with death hovering over his pillow the whole time? And HE had gloves on! Navalny is Superman. Remarkable.

https://www.rt.com/russia/501448-navalny-discharged-berlin-hospital/

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 12:58 am

Fully recovered, the Fritz miracle worker doctors say.


A golden Guinea to the swab who first spies a balcony on yon white monster! Aaaaarrr!!!

As it happens, I lived in Berlin for a while in 1988 -- in both the capitalist showcase of "West Berlin" and in "East Berlin", the capital of the former German Democratic Republic or "sowjetische Besatzungszone" as "West German" politicians liked to label the place without going into details about why exactly a large chunk of the so=called "Thousand Year Reich" was indeed occupied by the Soviet Union, and I agree with other critics: no way was that balcony shot of Bullshitter and his wife taken at the Charité, which is situated right slap bang in the middle of Berlin.

Berlin's Charité Hospital -- "Bettenhochhaus" -- was completed in 1982 and was cleaned and renovated in 2016-2017. It is around 87m tall and is Germany's largest hospital. It dominates the skyline at the Mitte Campus, nestled right in the middle of the city near the Parliament and Central Station.

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 1:18 am

The opinion of a Russian blogger who clearly isn't a Navalny kiddie:

Навальному не стоит возвращается в Россию.
Yesterday

Navalny really shouldn't return home to Russia.

Not because he is in trouble with the law here. Although a trial awaits him in order to establish the truth as regards another criminal case. Not because he can be poisoned (but who needs him), although no one poisoned him. He is either a pawn in someone's dirty game that was used on the quiet, or the initiator of this whole bad story.

If he had really been poisoned with a chemical warfare agent, then everyone who had contact with him would be in the hospital bed. And the aeroplane in which they brought the bottle on which the traces of "Novichok" were allegedly found, would have been burnt long ago. As in the case with the Skripals, the British demolished the house where they had found traces of the poison. Somehow everything turns out awkwardly.

What is it all for? By and large, Navalny does not play any role in Russian politics. An ordinary blogger who positions himself as an opposition politician, fighter against corruption. True, it is worth recalling that this fighter against corruption has himself been a defendant in a criminal case of embezzlement in Kirovles. And he received a five-year suspended sentence for embezzlement and yet more embezzlement.

Scandals are his bread and butter. The forgotten blogger decided to remind everyone about himself in this way, let's say for the sake of hype. True, it all went too far. And if the truth is revealed, and someday it will definitely come out, then Navalny will really have to worry about his health . . .

Most likely, the fugitive blogger will disappear like Skripal. It will be better for everyone. So stay there in Germany or go to the states.

And the above opinion, in my opinion, is what the vast majority of Russians think.

I live with Russians -- real Russians: I don't sit in flash cafés or bars, chinwagging with the Russian bourgeois "élite", who are ever willing to spill forth to me their tales of woe and suffering in the "regime" and their yearning for the establishment of a "liberal" Western "democracy" here, as do the likes of Independent Moscow correspondent Carroll, and Shaun "don't-give-me-no-dill" Walker, the BBC correspondent Rainsford, so full of negative spin on all things Russian, and her slimy git of a BBC colleague Rosenberg.

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 1:34 am

And now the ever truthful Frog rag "Le Monde" reports that in conversation with Macron, Putin suggested that the Bullshitter may have poisoned himself. Signal immediate heart-rending response from team Navalny -- read "Washington":

"Сварил на кухне „Новичок". Тихо отхлебнул из фляжки в самолете"
Навальный ответил на предположение Путина о том, что оппозиционер сам выпил яд

"I cooked 'Novichok' in the kitchen. I took a soft sip from a flask on the plane "
Navalny has responded to Putin's suggestion that the oppositionist himself drank poison

Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny has responded to the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, published in the French newspaper "Le Monde", that he poisoned himself with a substance from the "Novichok" group. "Good version. I believe that it deserves the closest study. Cooked "Novichok" in the kitchen. Took a soft sip from a flask on the plane. I fell into a coma. Prior to that, I agreed with my wife, friends and colleagues that if the Ministry of Health insists that they take me to Germany for treatment, they would not allow it to be done. To die in the Omsk hospital and end up in the Omsk morgue, where the cause of death would be established: "had lived enough" – this is the ultimate goal of my cunning plan. But Putin outplayed me. You just can't fool him. As a result, I, like a fool, lay in a coma for 18 days, but did not achieve my goal. The provocation failed! " – ironically Navalny on his page on the social network Instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFcys39FhFC/embed/captioned

Who could not feel sympathy for that bullshitting twat?

Hey, arsehole, who keeps you funded so that you may live according to the style you are accustomed?

What's your real source of income?

How do you earn your daily bread?

There are already appearing on the Russian web suspicions that the "Le Monde" story is fake.

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 1:40 am

I wonder why the silence from the usual mouthy Doctor Vaselinovaya?

The otherwise mouthy at gobshite level Sobol is keeping stumm as well.

Wonder why?

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 2:18 am

23 сентября 2020, 08:39
Заявление Макрона по Навальному и громкая публикация Le Monde

23 September 2020, 08:39
Macron's statement on Navalny and the resonating publication of "Le Monde"

The French President said that what happened to the Russian oppositionist was an "assassination attempt." Le Monde wrote about the conversation between Macron and Putin, and the Russian ambassador to Germany has said that Berlin does not want to cooperate with Moscow over the Navalny situation.

Updated at 10:07

French President Emmanuel Macron called on Russia to shed light on the situation with Navalny. Speaking at a session of the UN General Assembly, the French President called the incident an "assassination attempt": "We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in Europe, Russia or Syria. We need to clarify quickly and flawlessly as we will make sure that the red lines are respected. "

His video message to the UN coincided with a high-profile publication of the French newspaper "Le Monde" about a telephone conversation between Macron and Putin. Sources of the publication retell their conversation about the situation with Navalny.

According to Le Monde, it was "a conversation not intended to be heard". According to sources, Macron said that since it would be impossible for a private organization to use "Novichok" [Why? Peddling another "Novichok" myth yet again! -- ME] , an official Russian explanation is needed [Why? Presumption of Russian guilt? -- ME] . In response, Putin allegedly called Alexei Navalny "a simple internet brawler who committed illegal actions in the past and used the Anti-Corruption Fund to blackmail deputies and officials". According to the newspaper, the Russian president noted that Navalny had previously simulated various diseases and could have swallowed the poison himself. Why the politician did this, Putin did not explain, writes "Le Monde".

According to the newspaper, Vladimir Putin also noted that "Novichok" is a much less complex substance than it is believed. The lack of an official investigation was explained by the fact that the results of the French and German tests were not transferred to Russia. In addition, the Russian president, according to "Le Monde's" sources, suggested investigating other versions, leading, in particular, to Latvia, where the inventor of "Novichk" lives. As the newspaper noted, in fact, several Soviet scientists took part in the creation of "Novichk" at once, and the fact that one of them lives abroad says nothing, especially in the absence of any plausible motive. According to the newspaper, Macron rejected the Latvian trace and the version of an attempt to poison himself.

How should one feel about the publication of "Le Monde" and will it have any impact in Europe? Commentary by political scientist Georgy Bovt:

– First of all, Le Monde has just thrown shit at the Russian president, because, first of all, we do not know in what context this was said. It could have been said in such a sarcastic tone, for example, and in the context of other spoken phrases, it would have sounded different from what it sounds like now, when such a position seems rather too strange to many. This happens quite often when retelling rather frank conversations of politicians, which are then presented without understanding the tone and context. So, of course, this post will make a difference. And secondly, the fact that the Elysée Palace itself considered it possible to leak this information to the press makes it problematic in the future to communicate with Macron at the level at which it happened before.

– During his speech at the session, he also called on Russia to shed light on, as he put it, the attempt to assassinate Navalny.

– It doesn't matter much now, since it is obvious that the conversation with Putin, which took place in confidence, was leaked to the press. Usually this is not done after all. And if it is done, then the relationship that was before is cancelled out. This probably means that Macron also decided to cross out his relationship with Putin, which had developed before.

– Couldn't Putin have thus, on the contrary, been try to improve relations by recounting all Navalny's "ideas" and attempts to blackmail people close to the authorities during his investigations?

– The Kremlin's attitude towards Navalny can hardly be called exalted, and to say that the Kremlin loves Navalny would be a strong exaggeration. Therefore, the attitude to this politician there is supercritical, dismissive. Nevertheless, to seriously talk about the fact that he poisoned himself -- well, the general public will not understand this: this requires at least some additional clarification about the basis on which such statements are made, if they are made seriously, and not in such a manner as a cynical joke.

[You must be kidding, Bovt! Navalny critics -- and most Russians are! -- think he's lower than a snake's belly, that he's a TRAITOR, a FOREIGN AGENT!!!!! If the Pindosi tell him to give one for the Gipper, he'll fucking well do it! That's his nature. He's in it for the moolah!!!! Nothing else! -- ME]

Late at night, Navalny himself reacted to the publication. On social media, he wrote: "Good version. I cooked "Novichok" in the kitchen. I took a soft sip from a flask on the aeroplane. To die in an Omsk hospital and end up in an Omsk morgue, where the cause of death would be established "had lived enough" -- that was the ultimate goal of my cunning plan. But Putin outplayed me. You just can't fool him. As a result, I, like a fool, lay in a coma for 18 days, but did not achieve my goal. The provocation failed! "

Russian Ambassador to Germany Sergei Nechaev said that Berlin does not want to cooperate with Moscow on the situation with Navalny. According to him, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office sent requests for legal assistance to France, Sweden and twice to Germany, but did not receive a single answer.

According to the diplomat, without these samples from foreign laboratories, law enforcement agencies cannot start a criminal investigation into the incident. He said that a preliminary investigation of the situation had already begun on the part of Russia: many objects were examined, the staff of the hotel, hospital and airport were interviewed.

According to the latest data, Navalny's condition improved and he was discharged from the hospital. This was told in the Berlin clinic Charite. Doctors consider it possible that he will recover completely.

Which all begs the question that he was poisoned with "Novichok", which he clearly wasn't!

Why?

Because he is not dead!

It matters not who administered the poison or whether the bullshitting bastard took it himself: the dose wasn't lethal.

The bastard took some salts in the aircraft toilet, then put on a show for the passengers, none of whom suffered any ill effects from their having been in close proximity with a person covered with the most deadly poison known to man.

Russian doctors at Omsk know that the lying traitorous bastard wasn't poisoned.

So do German doctors in Berlin, but they have political agenda to follow.

Macron is a French excuse for a politician.

JEREMN September 23, 2020 at 1:45 am

On the Navalny poisoning. Interesting to see that Vladimir Ashurkov is in the inner core of the Integrity Initiative. Suggesting another media-led provocation.

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 3:37 am

Given "asylum' in the UK in 2015. Russian dissident Vladimir Ashurkov given UK asylum 1 April 2015

April Fool?

More fool you BBC for believing the story of such a cnut!

Ashurkov is Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. A former banker, Ashurkov was rolling the lolly in as the Director of Group Portfolio Management and Control at Alfa Group Consortium from 2006 to 2012, when he was asked to step down because of his political involvement with Alexei Navalny. So he has an axe trto grind.

As usual, the rich and privileged Ashurkov is so typical of the millions of Russians who love and adore Bullshitter Navalny.

From the Russian Wiki entry on Ashurkov, which is far more revealing than the sparse English Wiki on the thieving twat:

In April 2014, Ashurkov left Russia. On July 30, 2014, he was put on the federal wanted list in the case of fraud with the financing of Navalny's election campaign as mayor of Moscow.

In July 2014, he applied for political asylum in the UK in connection with persecution in the Russian Federation. In February 2015, he received asylum, at the same time his common-law wife Alexandrina Markvo was arrested in absentia by the Basmanny Court, whose firm Bureau 17 of the RF IC was accused of stealing several million budget funds during literary events.

In the UK, he was engaged in investment projects in the field of venture and angel investments dedicated to e-commerce. At the same time, he continued to work with Alexei Navalny. In December 2015, he launched the Sanation Law project, which analyzes the adopted scandalous bills and the process of their further cancellation, "which will become relevant when the political system is liberalized and the new government takes a course to dismantle the authoritarian regime". According to his own statements, he changed his libertarian beliefs to more leftist ones.

He gave, along with several others, testimony to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons of the British Parliament in connection with the preparation of the latter's report "Russian corruption and the UK inquiry", which was presented in May 2018 year.

In November 2018, hackers of the Anonymous group published documents of the British project Integrity Initiative; amongst others, Ashurkov's surname appeared in the lists of participants. Ashurkov suggested that the hackers stole the Institute of Statecraft (one of the founders of the Integrity Initiative) mailing address database, which actually contains his email address. According to him, he had not heard of the Integrity Initiative.

Yes, of course he hadn't!

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 3:49 am

BBC on Navalny's discharge from hospital:

Western politicians are still undecided over their response to the poisoning , says the BBC's Jenny Hill in Berlin.

However, Mr Navalny's discharge from hospital will intensify pressure on German Chancellor Angela Merkel who has demanded – so far in vain – a full explanation from the Kremlin, she adds.

A nerve agent from the Novichok group was also used to poison Russian ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England in 2018. They both survived, but a local woman, Dawn Sturgess, died after coming into contact with the poison.

Britain accused Russia's military intelligence of carrying out that attack . Twenty countries expelled more than 100 Russian diplomats and spies. Moscow denied any involvement.

And no evidence presented whatsoever for the above highlighted accusations.

But Russia, as ever, is presented as denying a fully proven fact -- a "slam dunk" accusation, as I believe Pindosi are sometimes wont to say.

ET AL September 23, 2020 at 4:10 am

Dances with Bears: NAVALNY, PEVCHIKH ARE BARKING DOGS; MERKEL AND NORD STREAM-2 ARE THE CARAVAN WHICH MOVES ON
http://johnhelmer.net/navalny-pevchikh-are-barking-dogs-merkel-and-nord-stream-2-are-the-caravan-which-moves-on/

What with all the noise of the dogs and camels, a swan song can be easily missed. But not Maria Pevchikh's (lead image, right) broadcast by the BBC's Russian Service.

For the first time, the British state propaganda organ has said too much too loudly in defence of one of its Russian assets, and confirmed the combination of celebrity, political ambition, and money which has made the poisoning of Alexei Navalny a faulty fabrication; and Navalny's attempt to make political capital out of it, a modest success for the British secret services; an immodest failure for the German Foreign Ministry, Defence Ministry, German Army, and the Berlin medical clinic which goes by the name of Charity

German sources close to the thinking of the Chancellery in Berlin and of Chancellor Angela Merkel believe that whatever she has been told by her subordinates and experts, her intention is to let the Navalny poisoning narrative fade away for lack of evidence of a crime the Germans are willing to publish
####

More at the link.

I concur with the conclusion. I think at some point Merkel realized she was being bumped in to action and rather than just saying 'No' against a mass of pressure and liability for her, she moved sideways and insisted on the full processes to be followed. That way she could not be accused of blocking, and secondly it affects the time frame for actions which is the whole critical point of the whole affair. Outside a certain window, proposed actions lose much of their force, are obsolete or ultimately become pointless.

As for les grenouilles, le coq is all about puffing up its chest and looking much bigger than ite really is. Maybe they've given up on their 'special relationship' with Russia. It's certainly backwards from when Putin allowed Sarkozy to dig the EU/NATO and the west out of its self-made hole of backing Saakashiti's 2008 'war of liberation.' Exactly what 'other tools' does Clément Beaune think the EU can bring to bear on Russia that would have any more effect than the current sanction etc.?* Unless he is talking about sorcery

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-hard-power-russia-turkey-france-minister/

But we were so bad at dealing with power that we just delegated it, if I may put it like that, to NATO, to the U.S., to national states, armies and so on," Beaune said.

"The EU was not about this. So the EU is learning that, hello, there are some powers on the doorstep -- Russia, Turkey, just to mention two of them, the main ones -- and they are not so nice. So we have to unite and we have to develop tools, and we don't have them at this stage," he said

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 5:09 am

Apparently, Pevchikh was given a bogus interview on the BBC and was presented as an uninteresting, nothing special sort of person, about whom rumours and innuendo were amassing for no reason whatsoever.

The interviewer never pressed her on how long she had lived in the UK, what her business interests there were (claims have been made that she runs a book store), why she visits Russia so frequently, what indeed isher present citizenship, how she became involved with Navalny's "fund" -- she says she answered an ad., but where? In the UK? Hardly! And on and on .

It was a "nothing to see here, now move along!" interview undertaken by the free of state control BBC under the auspices of the State Intelligence Service, for whom, I am sure, Pevchikh is a most willing helper, if not in its employ.

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 6:51 am

I bet 95% of Finns believe Pevchikh's version of events though!

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 7:09 am

Zakharova:

"In response to the actions of the European Union, Russia has decided to expand the list of representatives of EU member states and institutions that are prohibited from entering the Russian Federation".

She stressed that the number of people in the list is equal to a similar list compiled by the European Union, adding that the bloc has taken multiple unfriendly steps towards Russian citizens, using sanctions as an "absurd" excuse

See:

Moscow Expands Bans on EU From Entering Russia in Response to Unfriendly Gestures .
13:24 GMT 23.09.2020(updated 14:41 GMT 23.09.2020)

Fuck 'em all off!

We don't need them!

And tell the Polish and Baltic US arse-licking embassies to get the fuck out of here as well.

CORTES September 23, 2020 at 10:41 am

With his receding hairline and rapidly thinning mop Navalny has exceeded his shelf life for attracting naďve youngsters. He looks like the Russian equivalent of Rigsby, the seedy rackrent landlord in Rising Damp.

Perhaps Pevchikh is the replacement.

CORTES September 23, 2020 at 10:47 am

The Russian blogger in London:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1tO99eYWE54?feature=oembed

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 1:04 pm

Rigsby was a great snidey, lecherous, creep of a landlord

Poor old Leonard Rossiter was a good actor as well. I was rather saddened when he died unexpectedly.

One of my old workmates could take Rigsby off to a "T". He used to chat up girls using Rigsby-style creepy flattery and strangely enough, he used to hit it off with them when performing his chatting-up of them in this fashion.

MARK CHAPMAN September 23, 2020 at 11:36 am

Oh, I doubt it – Pevchikh is the exact opposite of a media personality, apparently doing her best to remain in a blurry background and not get noticed. And owing to the suspicion now surrounding her, she would never have Navalny's freedom of movement in Russia, where he is watched only by the newbies who need the training and the guys who showed up to work hung-over and are being punished.

WARREN September 23, 2020 at 4:20 pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9ow9-w8nvJM

Did Russia really poison opposition politician Navalny? And NATO wants a color revolution in Belarus
708 views•23 Sep 2020

Moderate Rebels
20.9K subscribers
Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton start off with an exclusive, bombshell intercepted recording we were leaked of Russian President Vladimir Putin's phone calls.

Then we speak with journalist Bryan MacDonald, who lives in Russia, about the very suspicious alleged poisoning of opposition candidate Alexei Navalny, and what his real, xenophobic politics are.

We also discuss the NATO/EU attempt to orchestrate a so-called color revolution in Belarus and install a pro-Western neoliberal regime.

SECTIONS
0:00 Exclusive, bombshell intercepted recording
8:33 Poisoning of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny
45:00 Belarus color revolution attempt
1:21:30 Outro

PART 1 OF 2

Follow Bryan MacDonald on Twitter: https://twitter.com/27khv

(Episode recorded on September 22, 2020)

||| Moderate Rebels |||

Please consider supporting us on PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/ModerateRebels

Website: https://moderaterebels.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/moderate_rebels
Facebook: https://facebook.com/moderaterebelsradio
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/moderaterebels
Minds: https://minds.com/moderaterebels
Steemit: https://steemit.com/@moderaterebels

#ModerateRebels

MARK CHAPMAN September 23, 2020 at 7:44 pm

Over at OffGuardian, a frequent contributor argues compellingly that information which supports questions as to whether face masks have any beneficial effect against an airborne viral infection is being systematically purged from the internet.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/23/is-evidence-masks-dont-work-being-purged-from-the-internet/

Furthermore, the comments carry on the discussion of the extent to which not only well-known corporate-friendly browsers and search engines like Google censor searches and limit access to critical information through down-ranking algorithms, but even 'independent' browsers like DuckDuckGo.

Often people who narrate tech talks seem chosen for their preoccupied monotone delivery, so that reading the phone book seems a viable alternative to listening, and this one is no exception – nonetheless, a very interesting demo of a fairly-new website known as 'Censored Search'.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/o5BDZRWRvpYs/

I think most people realize the internet is slowly but surely being taken over by corporate and one-world interests that want to shape your thinking by controlling what you read – apparently monitoring was not enough. But I would wager few grasp just how blatant and invasive it is. The internet is lost, and it is past time for an alternative that gets back to its maverick early days while maintaining its present versatility. The secret to the success of advertising – which after all, is mostly propaganda – is to prevent your ability to turn it off and not be exposed to it.

MARK CHAPMAN September 25, 2020 at 9:56 am

Which is the modern version that stands today, then? The one with balconies, or without?

According to Wiki, the Charite has four campuses, all in Berlin – the main building in Mitte (which appears to be the one in which the honoured guest was allegedly quartered and allowed to smoke and wander about the stairwells at will). the Benjamin Franklin in Lichterfelde , the Virchow Klinikum in Wedding and the Berlin Buch, in Buch. Of those pictured, only the main building appears to have balconies like a hotel. The Buch is not pictured, but was apparently acquired in 2001 by the Helios clinics Group; the Charite now uses it only for research facilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charit%C3%A9

It's hard to know which side you're looking at, but one side appears flat right across while the sections that are balconied protrude slightly at each side. It would obviously be much easier to build them on than to blast them off, so it appears the version with the balconies is current.

MARK CHAPMAN September 25, 2020 at 10:12 am

Well, you know the official global language now is Innuendo. Russia is just late to the party.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 25, 2020 at 4:26 pm

At least they did not say "highly likely".

A doctor makes house calls? My god, Russia is backwards! That practice disappeared decades ago in the US.

Good to hear that your temperatures is back to normal. I wonder if having the virus eliminates the need for a vaccination.

ET AL September 25, 2020 at 7:05 am

Euractiv: BERLIN – Head of Military Intelligence Service to resign
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/berlin-head-of-military-intelligence-service-to-resign/

On Thursday (24 September), Christian Gramm, the president of Germany's Military Intelligence Service (MAD), was forced to resign. To many, the shake-up doesn't come as a surprise given the recent criticism over how the agency handled investigations into right-wing extremism in the German Special Forces (KSK). Gramm's term as MAD president will come to an end next month
####

Curious timing no? Surely completely unrelated to the recent likely faked Navalny 'poisoning.'

MARK CHAPMAN September 25, 2020 at 10:13 am

I'll be damned. That IS an astonishing coincidence, and they apparently felt it was enough of a glaring coincidence that a red-herring excuse was supplied. If your guess is accurate, it likely suggests there will be no flinching from Germany on supplying Navalny's samples to Russia, and no apology; the issue will just be allowed to fade away, while a few selective firings is supposed to send its own message. We'll see. Good catch!

ET AL September 25, 2020 at 12:25 pm

Well keep an eye on the follow up or far more likely the almost total absence of it.

When it is embarassing to oneself, suddenly it becomes like classic 'straight facts' reporting. When it can cause trouble for your enemies, speculation runs wild, pure Rosenford (Rosenberg/Rainsford), They can peddle all kinds of ropey speculative s/t and opinon as proper journalism because it is Russia where we all know that everything is possible.

ET AL September 25, 2020 at 7:59 am

Russia Observer: RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 24 SEPTEMBER 2020
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2020/09/24/russian-federation-sitrep-24-september-2020/

RUSSIA AND COVID. As far as I can see it's pretty much under control in Russia. CNN has a (surprisingly) intelligent discussion; counting is everything (vide: with or from?) and the Russians are stricter on their counting. They also treat early with an effective drug. Meanwhile in the USA and UK, supposedly the best prepared I recommend Stephen Walt's essay again: The Death of American Competence. And I reiterate: 2020 will go down as the year the West lost its mojo .
####

The rest at the link as usual.

MOSCOWEXILE September 25, 2020 at 9:24 am

dp.ru
24 сентября 2020, 16:49 1522
Квартиру Навального в Москве арестовали по иску Пригожина

Navalny's apartment in Moscow has been seized following a lawsuit by Prigozhin

Bailiffs have seized the apartment of opposition politician Alexei Navalny in Moscow, FBK press secretary Kira Yarmysh said on Twitter.

According to her, Federal Bailiff Service officers announced a ban on registration actions at the end of August, a week after Navalny had been poisoned on board a Tomsk-Moscow flight.

"This means that the apartment cannot be sold, donated or mortgaged. At the same time, Alexey's accounts have been seized", Yarmysh explained.

She also added that the seizure was connected with a lawsuit filed by the St. Petersburg businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin, who bought out the FBK debt of 88 million rubles from "Moskovskiy Shkolnik". 30 million rubles have already been collected from the fund's accounts.

In October, the Moscow Arbitration Court took the side of "Moskovskiy Shkolnik" in a dispute with FBK. The company demanded compensation for damages received as a result of the fund's investigation of poor quality food in the capital's schools.

From RIA Novosti :

Data from an extract of the Unified State Register of Real Estate, which is at the disposal of RIA Novosti, confirms that the bailiffs imposed encumbrances on Navalny's apartment, in which he owns one third of the living space.

In addition, as follows from the database of enforcement proceedings on the Federal Bailiff Service website, Navalny must pay almost 29 million rubles under a writ of execution on "other foreclosures of a property nature" in favour of individuals and legal entities, as well as pay off an enforcement fee of more than two million rubles.

Commenting on the situation with Navalny's apartment, Yevgeny Prigozhin, director of "Concord Management and Consulting", said that he would be able to give shelter the blogger for a small fee.
"As for Navalny's apartment, if he does not find shelter with his comrades-in-arms, like Lenin, then I will make him an inexpensive in the hallway", the Concord press service quotes him.

In 2019, a court in Moscow found 17 statements in a video clip and a publication on catering in Moscow schools and kindergartens as untrue and defamatory to the business reputation of "Moskovskiy Shkolnik" and ordered that there be recovered from FBK, as well as Navalny and Lyubov Sobol, in total 88 million rubles. They were also ordered to remove the subject and articles containing inaccurate information from their websites and social media accounts, as well as publish a refutation in the form of the operative part of the court decision.

In July this year, Navalny announced the closure of the Anti-Corruption Fund. In August, Prigozhine bought out the debt of Navalny, Lyubov Sobol and FBK to the Moscow Schoolboy company. After that, the right to claim passed to the businessman.

What you gonna do now, Yogi?

You should know: both you and Sobol are lawyers -- aren't you?

MARK CHAPMAN September 25, 2020 at 3:16 pm

It sounds as if 'the Kremlin' is finally going to get serious about punishing that toad. He's so used to piling up suspended sentences hat he perhaps expected another. But I suspect the purpose of the legal actions against him this time around is to prevent his return to Russia. Moscow is likely quite comfortable with the idea of him becoming another 'president in exile' like Khodorkovsky.

And Navalny has access to the finest legal minds in the west – surely they will take his case pro bono, and show up where 'the Kremlin' is acting illegally. If they cannot do that, well then what must be our conclusion?

I suspect the days of money-for-nothing for Lyosha may be over.

CORTES September 25, 2020 at 4:57 pm

It sounds like a lien or inhibition on dealing with the property – standard practice in seeking to recover monies owed in the western legal systems so admired by the blogger. A bog-standard remedy in private law disputes – i.e. NOT involving the state other than through its position to adjudicate between non-state parties in duly conducted court proceedings.

The purchase of the assignation of rights in the school services defamation case was pure genius.

"Rule of law".

MOSCOWEXILE September 26, 2020 at 1:18 pm

typos above:

Commenting on the situation with Navalny's apartment, Yevgeny Prigozhin, director of "Concord Management and Consulting", said that he would be able to give shelter to the blogger for a small fee.

"As for Navalny's apartment, if he does not find shelter with his comrades-in-arms, like Lenin, then I will fashion him an inexpensive bed in the hallway", the Concord press service quotes him.

MOSCOWEXILE September 25, 2020 at 10:44 am

Bullshit baffles brains!


Daria Alekseevna Navalnaya

Dasha studied English language in-depth at Moscow Gymnasium No. 45, one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the Russian capital,

However, after graduating from high school, the girl did not want to stay in her native Moscow. Dasha has frankly admitted in her blog: she is going to study at Stanford University, one of the top universities in America, located in sunny California.

According to Daria, she will study at Stanford free of charge, since her parents' income is below one hundred thousand dollars. However, this has caused more surprise among Russians – the fact is that only US citizens on a low income have the opportunity of studying at this university without paying fees, and In any case, her parents must pay considerable expenses for her living and studying in America

source

MARK CHAPMAN September 25, 2020 at 3:24 pm

"Undergraduate admissions [at Stanford] is the most selective of any college in the United States, with an acceptance rate of 4.3% [of applicants]."

More selective, that is to say, than Harvard or Yale.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/acceptance-rates-at-harvard-other-ivy-league-schools-edge-up-11585311985

I daresay Moscow is starting a dossier on Darya, with relevant information such as this, against the day she will want to return to Russia as a celebrated dissident like Daddy.

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 26, 2020 at 2:19 am

An amusing anecdote from the past

*Pussy Riot Activist May Have Been Poisoned, German Doctors Say*

Sept. 18, 2018

BERLIN -- German doctors treating a Pussy Riot activist who lost his sight, speech and mobility after spending time in a court in Moscow said on Tuesday that it was "highly plausible" that he had been poisoned, as their tests had found no evidence that he was suffering from a long-term illness.

The activist, Pyotr Verzilov, 30, was treated for several days in the toxicology wards of two hospitals in Moscow after falling ill. On Saturday, he was flown to Berlin and admitted to the Charité hospital. His doctors in the German capital told reporters at a news conference that he was in an intensive care unit but was not in life-threatening condition.

"We are working on the assumption of a poisoning that has lasted about a week," Dr. Kai-Uwe Eckardt, director of the hospital's medical center, said. "Test results indicate certain active ingredients, but the exact substance has not yet been determined."

Suffer more

https://www.nytimes.com/svc/oembed/html/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F09%2F18%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Fpussy-riot-activist-poisoning.html

Every – Single – Time.

MARK CHAPMAN September 26, 2020 at 3:28 am

Verzilov is supposedly – according to one source I read – the force behind having Navalny evacuated to Germany. It will be funny now if he cannot return to Russia.

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 26, 2020 at 3:38 am

How uncanny – I was not even aware of that

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ynq-3SZFmtA?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

PATIENT OBSERVER September 26, 2020 at 10:41 am

That guy is a self-important prick with delusions of grandeur. If he is representative of the non-systemic opposition in Russia then, assuming that Putin is even aware of this guy, it would only provide a good laugh after a hard day at the office

MARK CHAPMAN September 26, 2020 at 1:51 pm

Verzilov is an attention junkie. He set himself up as the 'spokesman' of Pussy Riot because they were getting a lot of attention and he wanted to be part of it. He has no visible talent of his own – except perhaps a facility for languages, his English is pretty good – and so he must attach himself to those who either are talented, or who fancy they are and who are supported in that belief by the English-speaking media.

https://www.thelocal.de/20200822/whos-behind-the-berlin-ngo-which-rescued-russias-opposition-leader

MOSCOWEXILE September 26, 2020 at 2:38 pm

His English is good because he went to school in Toronto until his somehow landing a place at MGU Philosophy Faculty, which is one of the greatest riddles of the Cosmos, in my opinion.

I think he was at least 12 when he began to live in Canada. He lived there with his "philosopher" first wife as well. What exactly their status in Canada is, I can never clearly find out.

She dropped out of the MGU Philosophy Faculty after he had humped her when she was 18. A couple of weeks before she had the baby, he was shagging her in public -- or simulating the act -- in a Moscow zoological museum. He and his ex-wife had other fornicating accomplices during the "event".

Ars gratia artis, as they say.

MOSCOWEXILE September 26, 2020 at 9:57 am

Coming home to roost . . .?

Пора платить: на банковском счету Албурова заблокировали более трёх млн рублей
Сегодня, 18:17

Time to pay up! More than three million rubles have been blocked on Alburov's bank account
Today, 18:17


Georgy Alburov, who had previously called himself the head of the FBK investigation department, suddenly revealed his real boss to the world, when the activities of Maria Pevchikh were exposed Photo: http://www.instagram.com/alburov

It is time to pay the bills. The hand of justice has also reached out to the liberalist Georgy Alburov from the so-called Anti-Corruption Fund, recognized as a foreign agent. More than three million rubles have been blocked on his bank account. The money will go towards losses incurred by government services during last year's rallies in Moscow. Navalnyist Alburov was one of the main agitators of the disorder there.

Unlike adequate people, Navalnyists do not recognize the obvious illegality of their actions, as well as the right of representatives of the authorities to impose completely justified punishment against them. They start screaming on all their Twitter, Facebook, Telegram etc. accounts about alleged blatant injustice and, as it happens, every time, they ask for donations. Thus, they manage, of course, by manipulating the hamsters a little, to avoid financial responsibility by dumping it on their lop-eared biomass.

This method is used not only by Alburov, it is a common feature of FBK foreign agent members. First, they fuck everything up and then cry onto ther subscribers' shoulders

Tough shit, arsehole!

PATIENT OBSERVER September 26, 2020 at 10:27 am

Sabine Hossenfelder is one intelligent and charismatic physicist. She takes on established science for its tendency to pursue projects simply to create job openings for scientists as well as presenting lucid explanations of various scientific phenomenon. Here, she rants about science being used to justify political decisions.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nGVIJSW0Y3k?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

PATIENT OBSERVER September 26, 2020 at 12:33 pm

She also does music videos deserving of a Nobel prize IMHO:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5gmtAeqRs14?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

PATIENT OBSERVER September 26, 2020 at 12:36 pm

OK, the last one. She has a disdain for pompous academics:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/T_ckiLhppik?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

MARK CHAPMAN September 26, 2020 at 2:46 pm

Navalny is 'a ray of light emerging from the darkness'. Remarkable. Like Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show in "Cover of the Rolling Stone", Navalny will want to buy five copies for his mother.

https://emerging-europe.com/voices/navalny-must-be-the-turning-point-for-greater-consequences-for-kremlin-actions/

Ross Burley, co-founder of the 'Centre for Information Resilience', gives Navalny a slow tongue bath. Those splashing sounds are me throwing up.

Of course the message is that There Must Be Consequences. Like canning Nord Stream II.

MARK CHAPMAN September 26, 2020 at 2:57 pm

Well, well; look at that. Shale oil and gas production in the USA continues to fall, and according to BP's 2020 Energy Outlook Report, oil demand 'may never return to pre-pandemic levels'. Which would suggest we saw the peak in global consumption last year.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/US-Shale-Production-Continues-To-Decline.html

And which, I am bound to suggest, is not the desirable state of affairs if you fancy yourself the World's Biggest Energy Exporter.

International Banker agrees, adding the gloomy forecast – depending on your point of view – that according to IATA, airline companies will require 25% fewer planes in the sky over the next 5 years. That's hardly good news for Boeing, and might mean the end of production for the 737 MAX. But it's quite a few gallons less of avgas, as well.

https://internationalbanker.com/brokerage/is-there-any-way-back-for-the-us-shale-industry/

"Can US shale bounce back quickly from this crisis? It seems unlikely. According to Ramanan Krishnamoorti, professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston's Cullen College of Engineering, the industry is in serious trouble. "You're going to see a lot of bankruptcies, a lot of furloughs, more than furloughs. You're going to see layoffs. You're going to see people leave this entire industry because there aren't going to be jobs," he told Houston's ABC13 news outlet."

JRKRIDEAU September 27, 2020 at 10:05 am

The US fracking industry has been basically a Ponzi scheme since the first well was drilled. It seems to have become the darling of the investment class who never quite seemed to realize that they were really not making much as a return on investment.

Combine that with what seems to be very short life spans for wells, and I think we probably have seen a decimation or destruction of the industry. I'm not sure but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see that the US will not have oil " self-sufficiency" how much longer. (We will not mention the Russian and Canadian oil that is being imported.)

For Canadian readers here's an interesting essay on Jason Kenney and his delusional world of oil. Jason Kenney can't see what's right in front of him .

After putting up with Doug Ford for the last while, I have rather given up on expecting modern-day Conservatives to actually have a grasp on reality that Kenny is really a worry. It really sounds like he thinks did Alberta is going to go back to the boom days of 1970s or at least of the 1990s. He is nuts.

I was just reading about city of Shenzhan, the new 12 million inhabitant city just over the border from Hong Kong. As of this year there's 16,000+ city buses and God knows how many taxis that have all gone electric. This is just a hint of what's going to be happening around the world from the look of it. Heck, my small city has 3 electric buses on order.

The oil market is not going to disappear anytime soon but even BP is reported as saying they don't expect oil demand to come back to what it was before the pandemic

MARK CHAPMAN September 27, 2020 at 1:35 pm

Our lease ran out a couple of weeks ago on the RX-350, and we traded it in for a hybrid, the UX-250H . Below 40 kph it's all-electric, like if you are cruising around a neighbourhood looking for a particular house number. Above that the gas engine kicks in, but it is supported by the electric motor and gets more than 700 km on a tank of gas. Teslas used to be a bit of an oddity around here as recently as 5 years ago, but now they're everywhere. The Nissan Leaf is very popular as well, and the buyer base for electrics has expanded rapidly as soon as drivers realized electric vehicles do not have to be nerdy, and at the high end (Tesla) they can leave conventionally-powered cars in the dust. The Tesla is very fast and the acceleration is instant, with no throttle lag.

Losing the economic clout of the energy industry would be a blow – potentially a fatal one – to the USA. A few years ago, not many, oil and gas companies would have made up nearly half of the top ten US companies for both revenue and profit. Only one makes both listings now – Exxon-Mobil – but the industry remains tremendously influential in politics and, more importantly, is into the government for so much money in loans and investments that its collapse would imperil the government itself.

Some would be quite happy to see America with its shoulders pinned to the mat, after enduring decades of its arrogance and swaggering; I wouldn't be too sorry to see it myself. But it maintains -somehow – the world's biggest and best-outfitted military by a long shot, and when it sees itself on an irreversible downward trend, it is going to want to take its enemies with it.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 27, 2020 at 4:11 pm

It may seem like a small matter but China seems to have electrified its entire scooter fleet. Scooters often pump out more pollution than a car. Multiply that by tens of millions and you have a major pollution source. The battery powered scooters are quiet and likely maintenance-free. Compare and contrast with India and its tens of millions of two-cycle oil smoke/unburnt gasoline pollution generators a.k.a. scooters.

JRKRIDEAU September 27, 2020 at 6:37 pm

I have not heard if it is 100% but it should be close. IIRC, I have read that Shanghai is full of them and there seems to be pretty decent recharge facilities.

Given the combination of global warming and the often atrocious air quality in major cities, the Communist Gov't seems to be really pushing to get away from fossil fuels.

India might be a good market for Chinese scooters and might spur some Indian companies to get going -- well after this latest border war calms down.

Even canny Afghan opium farmers are moving to solar power. What the heroin industry can teach us about solar power

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 26, 2020 at 9:41 pm

I have not been worried about you ME. I am sure your prognosis is excellent – and would be even better if you actually had 'Rona.

Yolande Norris-Clark – Are You Done Yet?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7-vy-qPAxmI?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

ET AL September 27, 2020 at 3:00 am

And you won't find the u-Ropean Parliament harping much or even loudly about the authoritarian regime in Azerbaidjan because its produces good gas and it is run by our kind of dictator. That's their 'Human Rights' bulls/t in a can for you. Myanmar has also got of remarkably lightly from the west too.

JRKRIDEAU September 27, 2020 at 9:41 am

Leaving Europe behind, I have always been amazed that President Duterte of the Philippines is`not not a pariah. Declaring open season on one's citizens and letting encouraging the police to shoot anyone they want strikes me as a bit dubious for a head of state.

ET AL September 27, 2020 at 9:17 am

Neuters via Antiwar.com : Putin Calls For Mutual Ban on Election Meddling With US
https://news.antiwar.com/2020/09/25/putin-calls-for-mutual-ban-on-election-meddling-with-us/

US intel agencies claim Russia, China, and Iran are meddling in 2020 election

On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the US and Russia should sign an agreement promising not to meddle in each other's elections. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-putin/putin-says-russia-and-u-s-should-agree-not-to-meddle-in-each-others-elections-idUSKCN26G1LJ

Putin proposed, "exchanging guarantees of non-interference in each other's internal affairs, including electoral processes, including using information and communication technologies and high-tech methods."..

####

That is some excellently timed next level trolling from Pootie-McPoot-Face.

MARK CHAPMAN September 27, 2020 at 6:26 pm

I'd like to look at the Navalny 'poisoning" from a slightly different angle, one which I think bears scrutiny. I've said several times that nobody – to the best of my knowledge – has ever survived poisoning by VX. But that's not quite accurate – the two women who thrust what was always believed to be VX in some form into the face of Kim Jong Nam (Kim Jong-Un's half-brother) at an airport in Kuala Lumpur killed him stone dead. But they themselves apparently survived with no ill effects except that one of them allegedly may have vomited.

The major difference in the way the stories are treated, then, is the incredulity with which the apparent survival of the alleged poisoners is regarded by the western press. Consider;

An amount of VX, we are told, that weighs as much as two pennies would kill 500 people. I assume that's what he meant, as he is strikingly un-eloquent for a scientist and the 'penny' is not a weight of measure. Is that a British penny, or an American one? Big difference in weight.

''The other chemical agents like sarin, tabun, those kinds of things, they're way below this. They're toxic, yes, but this is the king,'' said John Trestrail, a U.S. forensic toxicologist who has examined more than 1,000 poisoning crimes.

He said an amount of VX weighing two pennies could kill 500 people through skin exposure. It's also hard to acquire and would likely have come from a chemical weapons laboratory, making it more likely that the attack was executed by a government."

Yes, you read that right – VX is the King of vicious toxicological agents. Except for Novichok, which is ten times as deadly, and the would-be killers dusted Navalny's bottle with enough of it that the bottle was liberally covered with the dust, and his clothes apparently were as well, or so Team Navalny suspects. Say – that's a handy little timeline right there, innit? When did Navalny put those clothes on? Presumably he had a shower before going to bed; did he dress in fresh clothes before leaving for the airport, or wear the same stuff from the day before? Either way, the poisoner must have accessed Navalny's room between the time he got up and the time the plane took off – if he still had Novichok on his clothes from the day before, he'd be dead, plus would have contaminated God knows how many surfaces.

Anyway, remember – Novichok is ten times as deadly as the King of nerve agents, VX. But it has killed – according to western yarns – only one of six people exposed to it; Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Detective Nick Bailey, Navalny and Charles Rowley all survived and have apparently achieved full recovery, Navalny in only a week after emerging from an alleged coma.

Western incredulity? None. Nothing to see here, old chap.

Listen to the awful consequences of poisoning with VX, and remember the assassins only pushed some quantity of VX into Kim Jong-Nam's face; a second's contact, them they ran away, not wearing gloves or any protective gear at all.

"VX is an amber-colored, tasteless, odorless chemical weapon first produced in the 1950s. When inhaled or absorbed through the skin, it disrupts the nervous system and causes constriction and increased secretions in the throat, leading to difficulty breathing. Fluids pour from the body, including sweat, spontaneous urination and defecation, often followed by convulsions, paralysis and death. Kim Jong Nam sought help at the airport clinic and died en route to a hospital within two hours of being attacked, police said."

I don't think anyone has reported what Navalny was roaring and screaming, but perhaps it was"Get back!!! I'm shitting myself!! Jesus, I can't stop pissing!!! Help me!!" although you would think if his symptoms included spontaneous defecation and urination, someone would have said – it could be important. Different agent, I know, but the symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning are quite similar across the type. Navalny's symptoms were nothing like nerve-agent poisoning, no matter how energetically the defector Mirzayanov and his fan club try to backstop Navalny's story. The intense sweating and the obvious gross irritation of the mucous membranes would have been unmistakable to the doctors in Omsk, considering Navalny had already passed the onset of whatever symptoms he did have and was unconscious.

Kim Jong-Nam died within two hours of being attacked with a nerve agent ten times less toxic than Novichok. Navalny was definitely poisoned with a substance ten times more toxic than VX, according to the Germans and the French and whoever else swears to that ludicrous story, but was to all appearances normal at least an hour after having been poisoned, since he showed no symptoms until at least 40 minutes after the plane took off with no obvious GRU agents on board, and hung around the airport before the flight was called at least long enough to drink a cup of tea, plus however long it took for him to get from the hotel to the airport.

"The two women -- one Vietnamese, one Indonesian -- recorded on surveillance cameras thrusting a substance into Kim Jong Nam's face as he was about to check in for a flight home to Macau, apparently did not suffer serious health problems. Malaysian police have said they were not wearing gloves or protective gear and that they washed their hands afterward as they were trained to do. However, authorities said Friday that one of them vomited afterward.

Both have been arrested along with another man. Authorities are also seeking several others, including an employee of North Korea's state-owned airline, Air Koryo.

''If they used their bare hands, there's just no possible way that they would have exposed him to VX unless they took some sort of precaution,'' Goldberger said. ''The only precaution I know of would be administration of the antidote before this went down.''

Perhaps that's it; perhaps immediately after swigging from his water-bottle – which he left in the hotel room, obviously – Navalny rang room service for some Novichok antidote. Just in case. Can't be too careful, when you are the main opposition leader.

"No areas were cordoned off and protective measures were not taken. When asked about it a day after the attack, airport spokesman Shah Rahim said there was no risk to travelers and the airport was regularly and properly cleaned. But officials announced Friday that the facility would be decontaminated.

''It's as persistent as motor oil. It's going to stay there for a long time. A long time, which means anyone coming in contact with this could be intoxicated from it,'' Trestrail said. ''If this truly is VX, they ought to be calling in a hazmat team and looking at any place these women or the victim traveled after the exposure.''

A hazmat team, and looking at any place the assassin or anyone potentially exposed might have traveled. For an agent ten times less toxic than Novichok.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2017/02/24/banned-chemical-weapon-potent-killer-that-lingers/5bTFjBz6tJVouk4tnyaERK/story.html

JEN September 27, 2020 at 9:21 pm

Reading this Wikipedia account of how Kim Jong-nam was targeted and attacked by the two women, I think there are other possibilities to consider:
(a) that the substance or substances sprayed into his face was / were dangerous only if (in the case of two or more substances) combined in a particular way and then inhaled;
(b) Kim was known to be allergic to particular substances and the people who plotted his assassination knew what those substances were and used them to induce an anaphylactic shock that killed him;
(c) Kim had other health issues (he was a very tubby fellow) that should have been considered factors in his death;
(d) one of the women who attacked Kim supposedly crept up behind him, took out a cloth with chemical on it and reached around his head to smack the cloth onto his face – sounds a bit like those movie / TV show stunts where someone creeps up from behind his victim and puts a chloroform-soaked cloth onto the victim's face – and chloroform can be toxic in high doses ;
(e) Kim's treatment at the Menara clinic at the airport included atropine and adrenaline and these could have contributed to his death if the plotters had foreknowledge of what would be used to treat him were he to be poisoned and planned his assassination accordingly.

Kim's assassins need not have been North Koreans or connected to the North Korean government in any way. He also might not have been expected to die but just be given a scare, but the shock he got along with his obesity and other underlying health issues might have done him in.

MARK CHAPMAN September 28, 2020 at 4:48 am

Yes, those are all good and sound arguments. The point I was trying to make, though, is that American toxicologists and field experts are astounded that anyone might survive exposure to VX; it is unaccountable not only that they could be alive, but that there is not a trail of death following the assassins as well until it kills them, too. But nobody seems surprised for Navalny to make a complete recovery and be sitting up in bed making demands and strolling around the stairwells, after exposure to a much more toxic agent that should have killed him, while nobody noticed anyone sneaking into his room dressed in a full hazmat suit with breathing apparatus and apparently others could come and go from the scene of the alleged exposure with no protection.

Perhaps the Skripals 'disappeared' because the British government was unsure how to present them after a supposedly-deadly poisoning attempt which they plainly are said to have survived. Perhaps also it is the judgment of similar authorities that the public will accept the dichotomy without demur; hence, the agent can still be nefarious beyond belief because it is so insidious and deadly, but Navalny can be alive and making noise after exposure to it.

MOSCOWEXILE September 28, 2020 at 12:28 am

So why does a head of government visit a foreign funded foreign political agitator in hospital?

Answer: When the head of government is Merkel and the visited party is chief, Washington-hired, non-systemic political bullshitter Navalny:

Spiegel: Меркель тайно навещала Навального в клинике Шарите

08:28 28.09.2020 (обновлено: 10:10 28.09.2020)

MOSCOW, September 28 – RIA Novosti. German Chancellor Angela Merkel secretly visited Alexei Navalny while he was being treated at the Charité clinic in Berlin, "Spiegel" weekly reported, citing its own informant.

Other details are not provided.

On August 20, the founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation* was hospitalized in Omsk after he had fallen ill on an aeroplane. Doctors diagnosed a metabolic disorder that had caused a sharp drop in blood sugar levels. It is not yet clear what caused this, but no poisons were found in Navalny's blood and urine.

Later he was transported to Germany. In early September, the German government announced that the Russian had been poisoned with a substance from the "Novichok" group of biological warfare agents. Moscow sent a request for more detailed information on the results of analyses from the Berlin laboratory, but there was no response.

At the same time, it is known that the German intelligence service BND has had access to "Novichok" since the 1990s. In addition, it has been studied by about 20 Western countries, including Great Britain, the USA, Sweden, the Czech Republic. Russia, in accordance with a presidential decree of 1992, stopped developing in the field of chemical weapons, and in 2017 destroyed the entire available stock of such substances, which has been confirmed by the OPCW.

On September 7, Navalny was discharged from the hospital, his condition is satisfactory.

*The Anti-Corruption Foundation is included by the Russian Ministry of Justice in the register of NGOs performing the functions of a foreign agent.

Note: the bastion of freedom and democracy has still not, as per agreement, destroyed its chemical weapons stocks -- always delays and so on, see

STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL
PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Celebrating a milestone: Russia completes the destruction of chemical weapons stockpile
29 September 2017

On Wednesday the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü of Turkey, congratulated Russia on completing the destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile which originally totalled 39 967 agent tonnes (i.e. excluding munition weight). This represents a major milestone towards realizing a world without chemical weapons as envisaged by the negotiators of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

The USA, the other major possessor of a chemical weapons stockpile (which originally totalled approximately 30 000 agent tonnes), has completed the destruction of approximately 90 per cent of its stockpile and is scheduled to finish its operations by 2023 .

Technologically backward Russia completes its task as agreed: the far more technologically advanced USA is still dawdling along

MARK CHAPMAN September 28, 2020 at 4:52 am

It's hard to imagine the Germans poisoned his samples, although I suppose it is possible. But if Pevchik had poisoned him with something intended to incapacitate but not kill him, you'd think the doctors in Omsk would have detected it.

MOSCOWEXILE September 28, 2020 at 12:51 am

Навальный подтвердил встречу с Меркель в берлинской клинике

28 сентября 2020, 11:22

Navalny confirms meeting with Merkel at Berlin clinic
28 September 2020, 11:22

Blogger Alexei Navalny has confirmed that German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited him at the Berlin Charité clinic, where he was being treated. Earlier, the secret visit of the politician was reported by the journal "Der Spiegel", citing sources.

"There was a meeting, but you shouldn't call it "secret " -- rather, a private meeting and conversation with the family. I am very grateful to Chancellor Merkel for visiting me at the hospital", Navalny wrote on his Twitter microblog on September 28.

At the same time, the interlocutors of "Der Spiegel" called the visit top secret, without giving details of the meeting. The publication considered this fact a sign of Merkel's loyalty to Navalny.

Earlier, the German Chancellor called Navalny a victim of an attack carried out with a substance from the "Novichok" group.

The Russian Foreign Ministry considered such statements by Berlin to be yet another information campaign against Russia, noting that the accusations were not supported by facts.

Alexei Navalny felt unwell during the Tomsk-Moscow flight on 20 August. The plane urgently landed in Omsk, the blogger was taken to the emergency hospital No. 1, and later transported to the Charite clinic in Berlin, Gazeta.ru recalls.

There, the Russian "found" signs of intoxication with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors. However, Omsk doctors during the examination of the patient did not reveal intoxication with this substance. On September 23, Navalny was discharged from the hospital.

So Merkel too is part and parcel of the Navalny bullshit performance dreamt up by the US Dept. of State.

You'll pay for all of this, bastards!

JAMES LAKE September 28, 2020 at 3:15 am

This has surprised me, what is all this for?

Is it to boost him as a potential leader?

I just don't get this behaviour by Merkel.

Does she believe he is important?

Or is he going to be another Juan Guaido

MOSCOWEXILE September 28, 2020 at 1:00 am

I wonder if she "secretly" visited Yuschenko and Timoshenko and Verzilov when they were patients at the Charité

I should hardly imagine so -- they are of no importance whatsoever when compared with the "leader of the Russian opposition", albeit the Russians themselves consider the Bullshitter with the derision he deserves, but don't tell anyone in the "free world" that!

CARTMAN September 28, 2020 at 6:34 am

Kernes recently arrived at Charite for treatment of COVID:

https://112.international/ukraine-top-news/kharkiv-mayor-in-german-clinic-charite-54791.html

Germany seems to be collecting Eastern Europe's politicians. Timoshenko miraculously woke from her coronavirus coma, but I cannot find information that says she was also at Charite.

ET AL September 28, 2020 at 7:31 am

I think the clinic clones people. That's my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it!

ET AL September 28, 2020 at 7:24 am

Politico.eu : Polish energy deal signals a more political Vestager
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-energy-deal-pkn-orlen-lotos-margrethe-vestager/

EU green light for merger suggests Franco-German pressure for 'champion' companies is paying off.

blah blah blah blah

The clearance could become a precedent for other political mergers -- such as the Franco-Italian tie-up between cruise ship-builders Fincantieri and Chantiers de l'Atlantique -- and the Commission will have to "limit the contagion," the first senior official said.

And the Dane has to ensure the Polish champion keeps its promises .
####

Interesting if you follow how the Brussels/EU is still struggling to adapt to the real world (i.e. outside the EU) rather than its own bubble and dreams of a western led globalization, particularly it's failure to balance consumer protection with building modern, EU based companies/organizations that can hold their own against other globocorps. It's where principles hit reality.

But, I was sure that there was something in the past about a possible Russian share in the Gdansk Lotos Refinery (I was wrong) but I did come across this in looking for further information:

BiznesAlert.com : Orlen will want to prevent Russians from buying shares in the Gdańsk Refinery
https://biznesalert.com/orlen-lotos-merger-gdansk-refinery/

13 August, 2020

Rosneft's missing link in Germany

One of the arguments for the thesis that Russians could enter the Polish market as a shareholder of one of the two biggest refineries, is supposedly the fact that they are already present in Germany. However, it is worth reminding that they slipped into Germany thanks to Venezuela's fondness towards Russian politics. Venezuela's late president Hugo Chavez agreed for PDVSA, a state-owned oil company, to sell its shares in five German refineries to Russia's Rosneft. Since then, Igor Sechin's concern has been trying to acquire the missing link – the retail market and gas stations. Despite interventions, negotiations and investments, Russians have not achieved this goal yet. They have been trying to purchase gas stations in Germany for a few years. This is the next natural step for any oil company that took over shares in a refinery on a new market. After the success on the wholesale market, it wants to earn on the retail market by selling its own oil products. However, nobody wants to sell Russians, in this case Rosneft, any gas stations despite the fact they have been present on the market in Germany for years.

In January 2019, Rosneft Deutschland GmbH, Rosneft's daughter company, launched a trade and marketing business in Germany. Today it purchases products from three German refineries in which it has shares

Why would Russians want to enter the Polish market? Poland is one of the biggest importers of Russian oil. In 2019 PKN Orlen imported 8.3 m tons of oil from Russia, which makes it one of the biggest importers of this fuel. By entering the Polish market, Russians could achieve synergy by acquiring 30 percent of shares in the refinery. However,
####

Plenty more at the link.

So, it looks like this merger is to bolster the lo-land of Po-lands energy position and protect the key refinery being picked up by one means or another by Russia.

ET AL September 28, 2020 at 7:52 am

Politico.eu : Macron's Russia dialogue to be tested on Baltic trip

https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-baltics-trip-france-russia-strategy/

French president heads to Lithuania and Latvia, where discussion will focus on Russia and Belarus.

"The so-called new architecture of security that France wants to develop with Russia is sensitive for us, because it's a bilateral conversation discussing a multilateral issue," said a Lithuanian government official ahead of Macron's visit

So far Macron's team has played it coy, avoiding confirming that he will meet with Tikhanovskaya but not ruling it out either. She has expressed her desire to meet with him

Western officials have stressed that they are not in competition with Moscow over Belarus and Macron believes Russia has a role to play.
####

The €µ 'Failing at Home so preening abroad' PR campaign continues apace after his successful trip to Lebanon where he saved the country from disaster. Except he didn't!

Le Coq soit bloqué! (trans. 'cock block' ! 😉 )

What the f/k does he think he can offer? Are the Balts and Russia going to be overawed with his garlic charm before he sleeps with their wives (and husbands) before they all form a circle and hold hands merrily? No.

Yes, the only thing that makes sense is a a grand strategic treaty between the EU and Russia, but when some of its own members are actively undermining such a thing and playing with the Americans at the same time, you have to wonder what all the point of this is? Simply 'Don't you forget about me'? Russia is not going to patiently wait for the EU to climb out of its own hypocritical a**hole after years of sanctions and 'Do as we say, not as we do.'

The CFE Treaty is not fit for purpose and the permanent rotation of NATO forces on Russia's borders drives a tank through it, however clever they think this loophole is. By the time the EU is ready to talk properly and get off its high horse, the only things it will have attached to its shoulders will be its own stubby little fingers, or should that be 'cut off its nose to spite its face'? Just ridiculous!

MARK CHAPMAN September 28, 2020 at 4:29 pm

Ha, ha, haaaa!! 'Garlic charm' – I don't know if that was deliberate or accidental, but it's brilliant.

The Baltic position on Russia is well-known, and you would not have to be much of a political wunderkind to figure out that the Balts hope for a chance to shit all over any plans France might have that smack too much of rapprochement to suit them. But there is no real danger Micron would proceed with any such plans even if he made them; he is a political lightweight aching to duplicate the derring-do of Sarkozy. No political softening between Russia and Europe is possible with the current crop of European leaders, as all are committed Atlanticists to some degree and in thrall to Washington. They might pretend Washington is bullying them, but it hurts so good, daddy.

Lavrov has already announced that Russia has given up on trying to get the west to like it, and acknowledges it is not possible. Just like admitting you are an alcoholic – metaphorically speaking, I wasn't pointing at you personally -is the day your recovery begins, resolving to dedicate no more Russian effort to wooing the western delinquents is the day the west loses a shiny toy it loved to play with. Few moments were so satisfying as those dedicated to typing "Moscow denies it!" after some new fabricated atrocity was thrown in Russia's face. I recommend a macro be built into all Russian diplomatic computers' word-processor programs which reads, "Believe what you like. It is of no interest to us. Oh, and your zipper is open. Made you look!!". The last two sentences are optional, but I think they lend a certain joie de vivre .

E

MOSCOWEXILE September 28, 2020 at 9:07 am


Mutti Merkel mit Lieblingssöhnchen

MOSCOWEXILE September 28, 2020 at 9:26 am

Why the German Chancellor visited the blogger at the hospital is not quite clear. After all, if German doctors are right about "Novichok", then the head of the German Cabinet of Ministers, Bundeskanzlerin Merkel, seriously risked her life.

Armen Gasparyan* has suggested that the matter is due to the status of the patient from Russia -- after all, he is in Germany as an official guest of the Chancellor. And what kind of guest is this, with whom the hospitable hostess does not even meet?

So they decided to support this fantasy about his status in Germany by following due protocol, but with a supposedly secret visit, which secret the whole world immediately learnt about.

* Armen Gasparyan works for a Russian media outlet Sputnik and, at the same time, is a member of Russia Today board. In parallel, he is a member of Russian State Duma Youth Council and a holder of a prize from the Ministry of Communications of the Russian Federation for his contribution towards developing radio communication.

In December 2018, the "Russian opposition" (that's the non-systemic opposition, mind you -- the ones that no one votes for) -- has included Gasparyan in the list of "Putin's propagandists".

PATIENT OBSERVER September 28, 2020 at 10:11 am

That picture is highly disturbing. Some weirdity going on. Is that some sort of love seat?

ET AL September 28, 2020 at 11:03 am

It's a bin. Photoshop, innit?!

PATIENT OBSERVER September 28, 2020 at 1:21 pm

I thought it might be photoshopped but there seemed to be some real chemistry between the two.

MARK CHAPMAN September 28, 2020 at 4:34 pm

"Tell me, Lyosha – do you sink mein arsch is too big?"

"Not at all, Angelichka – that's just a small table."

MARK CHAPMAN September 28, 2020 at 6:22 pm

It might be interesting to see what kind of deal would result from a process in which Russia has given up trying to be liked by the west, and consequently examines each negotiation on its merits alone.

I think it might result in quite a few initial offers being rebuffed with "Uh huh. Go fuck yourself." And that would be kind of refreshing. It might usher in an international process between the two countries in which no 'deal' was possible until each side was satisfied it had gotten the better of the other. I need hardly point out these would be few and far between, and none would be arms-control agreements.

[Sep 29, 2020] What is known about Maria Pevchikh: Navalny's mysterious companion

Sep 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE September 23, 2020 at 10:00 am

KP.ru

22 сентября 2020 13:18
Что известно про Марию Певчих: Таинственная спутница Навального -- связная с его иностранными заказчиками?
След Марии Певчих начинается в Лондоне и, похоже, ведет к теневым кураторам Фонда борьбы с коррупцией

22 September 2020 13:18
What is known about Maria Pevchikh: Navalny's mysterious companion – connected with his foreign customers?
The trail of Maria Pevchikh begins in London and seems to lead to the shadow curators of the Anti-Corruption Foundation

If you believe that journalists have so far been able to unearth Navalny's mysterious companion on his "last tour" in Siberia, Maria Pevchikh lives in a prestigious area of London overlooking the Thames. But her old grandmother Valentina Vasilievna – in a modest two-room apartment on the far outskirts of Moscow – in Zelenograd. Only now her granddaughter does not visit her at all, although in recent years she has flown to Moscow 64 times.

"Komsomolskaya Pravda" went to all the addresses of Maria Pevchikh in Russia – Zelenograd, Moscow State University, school, neighbours, relatives and colleagues at FBK

and discovered that Pevchikh was not only Navalny's employee, but the conspiratorial head of his investigation department, and, possibly, its curator from Western customers.

LIKE A DETECTIVE
Maria Pevchikh. A couple of weeks ago, this name was not known to anyone except to a narrow circle of people. But now it has thundered all over the world. Now Pevchikh claims to be an old and trusted employee of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (Navalny's main brainchild) with almost 10 years of experience, who has had a hand in almost all of his landmark investigations. But her name never flashed in the credits for the FBK video exposures . And the opposition blogger's associates have never spoken about her anywhere.

So after the mysterious "poisoning" of Navalny on August 20, no one let slip the fact that on the trip he was accompanied by a mysterious companion – 33-year-old Maria Pevchikh. Perhaps Maria would have remained unnoticed if the transport police of the Siberian Federal District had not found her name among those who were on that trip with the oppositionist. And it turned out – what a coincidence – she was the only one of the 6 members of Navalny's entourage in Siberia who was not interviewed: " Marina [sic} Pevchikh, who permanently resides in Great Britain, on August 20, avoided giving explanations. On August 22 the said citizen flew to Germany, and therefore it was not possible to get an explanation from her", the police reported on September 11. That is, 3 weeks after the incident! Until that moment, there was complete silence about the existence of Pevchikh.

But as soon as this name was sounded, something strange began to happen. More like a detective story.

LOOKING FOR POLICE, LOOKING FOR JOURNALISTS
The name of the Pevchikh immediately became surrounded with rumours and speculation. Who is she? Where from? FBK employees were stubbornly silent. There were only two mentions of Pevchikh in open sources. First, how about a 9th grade student from Zelenograd gymnasium No. 1528 who took part in the international (!) "Gifted children" competition. The second (from 2010) on the website of the Faculty of Social Sciences of Moscow State University: "Congratulations to Maria Pevchikh! The 5th year student has been selected as the head of the Russian delegation at the G8 Youth Forum in Canada based on the results of the All-Russian competition". And a photo of a smiling red-haired girl. And journalists also found the name of the Pevchikh in the list of students at the prestigious London School of Economics and Political Science.

A couple more blurry images from the Internet, where it is generally difficult to see someone (supposedly in 2013, from a Moscow hotel, where Navalny had a secret meeting with the ex-Prime Minister of Belgium). Well, Western journalists also recognized Maria as the woman caught in the lenses of cameras in Berlin next to Navalny's wife Julia. True, everywhere the "Pevchikhs" are in dark glasses and wearing a mask. From coronavirus or prying eyes? That, in fact, is all.


We congratulate Maria Pevchikh!

Such mystery only spurred interest – who is this lady?

"Investigations" began – who Pevchikh was, overshadowing even the "poisoning" of Navalny. And bit by bit the image of a certain secret agent was formed – a sort of James Bond in a skirt. With reference to a source close to FBK, a Sherlock Holmes managed to dig up from the Internet that Maria lives in a prestigious area of London overlooking Tower Bridge. Owns a chain of bookstores in Britain. And she participates in competitions under the US Special Forces program – "Navy Seals"!

And she is also a friend of Navalny's rivals and associates in the fight against the "Russian regime" who have settled in London – Khodorkovsky, Chichvarkin, Ashurkov. But bad luck – none of these figures in social networks have found a friend by the name of Pevchikh. And in the photos that appear in their social networks, none of Maria is to be seen.

Maria's story with social networks is generally amazing – they simply do not exist! In the 21st century that is simply unthinkable for a young woman. Have you at least one young woman acquaintance who has no Facebook or Instagram page, or who is in at least in Odnoklassniki or VKontakte? Quite!

Experts believe that such secrecy is one of the sure signs that a person is related to the special services. They – both in Russia and abroad – do not welcome the publicity of their employees on social networks.

However, Major General of the FSB in reserve Alexander Mikhailov admits that she might be playing a two-sided gamey:

"Apparently, this person leads a double life and, on the one hand, creates turbulence around her activities in the same social networks, but on the other hand, she does not want to attract personal attention to herself. I think this woman may have accounts, but under assumed names. Because it is impossible to imagine that she works in such a field and does not use modern technologies at all."

HER FATHER IS A SCIENTIST AND WORKS WITH VIRUSES

But a page on the social network has turned out to belong to Pevchikh's father Konstantin. No one has any doubts that he is Maria's father – both are registered in the same apartment in Zelenograd. And Konstantinovna is Maria's patronymic. At the same time, there is no Maria Pevchikh even in his photo or in subscribers! But there is information that he is the general director of the Zelenograd NIOBIS LLC, which is engaged in research in the field of virology. At the same time, he is developing the SkinPort system of painless (say, invisible) drug delivery through the skin. Which is also a very suspicious circumstance, when his daughter accompanies an oppositionist, who was either injected or not with some kind of poison. So much so that he only knew he had been poisoned when he began to feel bad.

There is not much information about NIOBIS either. In the magazine "Zelenograd Entrepreneur" of October 2011, there is an interview with the leaders of the company Grishin and Morozov (Pevchikh even then did not communicate with journalists for some reason). In it, they declare that the NIOBIS biological laboratory is a joint project of the Probe Microscopy and Nanotechnology Research and Education Centre and the Zelenograd Nanotechnology Centre. However, in these centres, no matter how many times we called, they did not tell us anything about NIOBIS, switching from one employee to another. At the legal address in Moscow on Viktorenko Street, we did not find any information.

Interestingly, the British tabloids could not find Pevchikh either. In search of at least some information, British journalists began to call Russia, former and current FBK employees.

"British journalists contacted me and found out at least some information about Maria Pevchikh", Vitaly Serukanov, the former deputy head of Navalny's Moscow headquarters and lawyer of his foundation, told KP. "This suggests that not only we in Russia do not understand what kind of person she is, but, apparently, the British themselves are not clear about what kind of activities she is involved with. Even they have nothing concrete to go on.

Of course, rumours immediately spread that Maria Pevchikh was a spy. Some even stated it openly:

"She is an undercover British intelligence agent with MI6", political scientist Vladislav Rogimov believes. "My source, a former high-ranking official of the Stasi [GDR Ministry of State Security] , immediately stated this. And Pevchikh supplied Navalny with information about the targets of his investigations, such that an ordinary person cannot get."


A couple more blurry shots from the Internet, where it is generally difficult to see anyone

MSU AND COLLEGE
Strange, but none of the graduates of those years could remember the outstanding student who glorified the faculty during her studies by becoming the leader of a youth delegation.

"Well, I seem to remember Maria – such a bright girl. We crossed paths with her in the hostel. She loved rock music and knew English well", Svetlana Cherezova, a graduate of the social faculty in 2009, told KP. [American rock music, the chief weapon of US soft power! Rock music is the bane of modern society! -- ME 😦 ]

"And how did you realise that she knows a foreign language?"

"In the summer, foreign students were settled in the hostel. And she communicated well with them. But after that I somehow didn't see her "

Another graduate of the social faculty recalled the Pevchikh, but also only vaguely.

"Yes, she studied with us. Smart, open like that. But that's all I remember about her."

And in the Zelenograd gymnasium №1528 Maria Pevchikh was not remembered at all. Even by the old-timers who have been working at the school for over 30 years.

"No, we didn't have a student with that last name."

HEAD, ABOUT WHOM NO ONE KNEW ANYTHING
Even after journalists had found out that Pevchikh has been an FBK employee since 2011, Navalny's fund employees remained silent about her. No statements! None at all.

And only on September 15, when Navalny came to his senses, and journalists and political analysts said in unison that Pevchikh herself could have organized his "poisoning", the FBK employees, as if on command "from above", began to urgently divert suspicions from her, turning everything into a joke and publishing pictures of themselves with her. Georgy Alburov, who had previously called himself the head of the FBK investigation department, suddenly revealed his real boss to the world yes, Pevchikh:

"I have been working with Maria in the Investigation Department for 8 years and for about 7 of them we constantly joked about some kind of martial art that she went to a couple of times. They teach how to fight off drunken men with the help of a hundred different techniques of hitting in the groin (we laugh at this). Our office wiretap also failed to remember the name, and now Maria is featured in the media as 'a martial arts master trained under the US Army SEAL program'. It's funny. And it's not funny that now all her relatives are hunted by the Prigozhin gangster 'media' (and the British ones are also "Prigozhin gangsters", yes, George? – author) . Not for the poisoners of Alexei, but for Maria's 85-year-old grandmother. We shall remember this and shall not forget. And I wish my fighting friend (and boss) fortitude and courage."


Georgy Alburov, who had previously called himself the head of the FBK investigation department, suddenly revealed his real boss to the world. Photo: http://www.instagram.com/alburov

On the same day, FBK lawyer Lyubov Sobol also published a photo of herself with Maria: "I know Masha as an honest and decent person. To suggest that she may have been involved in the poisoning of Navalny complete bullshit and a smokescreen to distract attention".

And not a word about why for so long all as one "fighters against corruption" were silent about the existence of Pevchikh and the fact that she was on a trip with Navalny in Siberia.

BUT WHAT ABOUT GRANDMA?
And Maria Pevchikh's grandmother really lives in Zelenograd. Not far from the local forest park. Here, apparently, the "Prigozhin gangster media" had been hunting for her.

In general, it is strange that an employee of the investigation department, who herself "hunts" for the targets of Navalny's revelations and for these targets' relatives as well, was outraged that journalists began to visit all possible addresses associated with Maria. What would have happened if the "Navalnyites" themselves had not hidden her existence hardly anyone could have "crossed her grandma's threshold", because nobody had seen her there for a long time: she dwelt elsewhere.

"Yes, I know Valentina Vasilievna. Our children studied together, in the same school. My son and her Kostya", a neighbour told the KP correspondent on the street at the entrance. "She lived here just like me since the construction of the house, since 1982. But I haven't seen her for a long time, although I had met her all the time before. She seems to be still working".

"At 85 years of age?"

"Why 85? She is 84".

"And what does she do? "

"Earlier, I believe, she was at Mikron [manufacturer of integrated circuits – author] . Where now, I do not know".

"Her son often turns up here? "

"No, I haven't seen him for a long time.

And her granddaughter Maria?

"Oh, I did not know that she has a granddaughter! I have never seen her."

No other neighbours remembered Masha Pevchikh, even from the photo. Although she, as the media has already dug up, in recent years flew to Moscow at least 64 times, but here, with her grandmother, she has not appeared. At least, neighbours have never came across her.


Georgy Alburov and Maria Pevchikh. Photo: http://www.instagram.com/alburov

"I AM SO FUCKING AWESOME" .
And only ABOUT a month after the "poisoning" of Navalny, when suspicions about Maria Pevchikh had reached their peak, she herself gave an interview for some reason to the BBC, and not to the Russian media. "I am the head of the investigation department at FBK. I was recruited by an ad (in 2011), as they say. If you've seen our investigations on Navalny's channel, then I have this or that relationship." Maria explained her incognito state in one phrase: "It was my personal choice and desire to avoid publicity". But at the same time: "Absolutely everyone in the office knew me. A huge number of people from the journalistic environment knew me. Therefore, the fact that I am somehow connected with FBK is a secret only for a very wide audience."

Investigations about herself were ridiculed by Pevchikh (a professional technique when it is impossible to refute, but it is necessary to object): "This is absolutely ridiculous. I read about myself and thought: Damn, how fucking awesome I am".

About the her scientist father: "Some creepy, crazy story has been made up about my father, with whom I have not communicated for 15 years – my parents are divorced. And he is portrayed as almost a key figure in all that has happened".

But Maria gave a lot and of details about what happened in Tomsk, about how boldly she, together with others, rushed into Navalny's room in order to collect "evidence" – bottles of water. She confirmed that she flew to Germany on the same aircraft as did Navalny and took those bottles out of the hotel to the West and on which German experts found traces of "poison". True, she did not explain why she had not y taken sheets and towels, because poison can be both solid and gaseous. The discerning Pevchikh's' suspicions fell only on liquid.

Maria tossed a few of her pictures to the BBC and a portion, apparently to dilute the avaricious photos that the media was chewed on.

Talking about everything and yet . . . again about nothing. Also a professional reception?

SECRET BRITISH FBK CURATOR
"When they began asking me about Maria Pevchikh, I also could not immediately understand who it was", Vitaly Serukanov, an FBK employee in 2013-2017, told KP. "But then I remembered that I first noticed her (although I had probably seen her many times, but had not paid any attention to her) in 2016. It was surprising to me that Navalny, who always kept his distance from his employees, behaved in a special way with her. With respectful reverence. As if they were of the same rank, as if they were of the the same position. This is generally strange and did not fit into the paradigm of his behaviour. That is to say, Maria is a person who appeared sometimes, but who had to be respected. My personal opinion is that she is a liaison agent between Navalny and foreign customers. The person who brought the invoice and, at the right time, audited the investigation department, supervised its work. Such as , you know, a British auditor who is always lurking in the shadows.

"Pevchikh told the BBC that she actually ran Navalny's investigation department.

"I have been saying for a long time that the FBK investigation department "headed by the talented Alburov" was a screen that does not represent anything. Alburov is just a drone driver who provides a naive Russian man in the street with a picture: "You see, we are not foreign agents. Our investigation department is here". In fact, there is no talented Alburov. And there are people like Maria Pevchikh who flock to Russia to promote the interests of their Russian and Western masters. That's all, no matter how tough it sounds.

"That is, all this hidden lifestyle, lack of social networks and photos are part of this opera?

"Absolutely!"

But you had some corporate parties, meetings at FBK. How did it happen that for almost 10 years Pevchikh never got into the frame?

"She very professionally avoided attracting attention to herself. Never hit the lens. And I'm sure the rest of the people made sure that this did not happen. At the same time, FBK is a special society where everyone wants to become a media and popular person. There are even internal competitions to see who is more popular on social media. The same was always demanded by Navalny. His main postulate in politics was: "I am absolutely open. I have no secrets. " But it turns out there are! Suddenly, a certain Pevchikh is presented to the world, who has never even been registered in the fund and who lives on an unbelievable income. All the stories about her business are just a way to legalize her financial situation – like 'I'm such an ordinary simpleton from Britain'. Who's going to believe that?

And they would hide Pevchikh further. But she was so very much lit up in this story with the "poisoning" that they had no other choice. I was really amused how all these clowns, such as Alburov and Sobol, on command, simultaneously began to upload their prepared photos of Pevchikh. It's funny. Why did they hide her before? Refused to answer questions about her? And then they burst through at once. Received instructions to bring Pevchikh out into the light so as to ward off the threat from her? All this suggests that Pevchikh knows more than we can ever imagine. The story is a real detective one. Even a spy one. It's very interesting what will happen next.

MARK CHAPMAN September 23, 2020 at 11:14 am

She is almost too perfect; a daddy who is both a virologist and a developer of a means of delivering a drug through the skin without a needle or any sensation likely to be noticed, leader of the effort to collect 'evidence' in the hotel room – an effort surprising in its thoroughness in that they thought to take a lawyer with them and yet still made it before the hotel had begun to clean the room, and a young woman with no social media presence when they normally cannot powder their noses without Facebooking it. Add to that the full-court press by the Navalnyites to ridicule any possibility she might be involved; especially Sobol, who as a lawyer herself would be able to more accurately appraise the weight of mounting coincidences.

But you went too far when you spat on American rock music. I will grant that at least half of it is crap, but America is the cradle of rock, more so than the UK. Your punishment is to listen to Joan Jett and the Blackhearts do "I Hate Myself for Loving You" on a volume at least 8 and preferably all the way over. This is a fine example of the genre, one I used to play for the little 'un when she actually was a little 'un, to show her that women can do anything.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bpNw7jYkbVc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

[Sep 28, 2020] "Then there are the Chinese. OK, they really are communists, but who is it that has bought into the nonsense about them oppressing poor, innocent, religious head choppers?

Sep 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

One Too Many | Aug 9 2020 0:42 utc | 46

William Gruff , Aug 8 2020 23:50 utc | 40

"Then there are the Chinese. OK, they really are communists, but who is it that has bought into the nonsense about them oppressing poor, innocent, religious head choppers? Who cares even if those lies were true? Yep, that's millennial morons."

Actually it was the USG through funding of various think tanks and NGOs that started the whole fiasco with the MSM pushing the narrative. You know people with power in established organizations, who tend to be much older. I wouldn't blame the people at the bottom so much for the decisions made at the top.

[Sep 28, 2020] The great Orwellian hypocrisy of America's pants-wetting complaints that other countries are meddling in America's (fake) democracy is that the United States itself is guilty of regime changing, balkanizing, and colonizing scores of foreign nations dating back over a century to the USA's regime change and eventual colonization of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Notable quotes:
"... We have no evidence, but don't forget, they are evil and wouldn't hesitate to do it! ..."
Sep 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

ak74 , Aug 10 2020 6:55 utc | 71

"The statement then claims:

Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process."

What America is yet again conniving to do is to discredit any domestic political dissent against the fraud of "American Democracy" by connecting this dissent to those nations that are the latest targets of America's Two Minutes of Hate campaign.

This is a standard American tactic that the USA always resorts to when it fears its own citizens are starting to question the fairy tale of American "Democracy and Freedom." Thus, during the Cold War, the USA even to discredit some elements of the Civil Rights movement as being assets of the Soviet Union.

The great Orwellian hypocrisy of America's pants-wetting complaints that other countries are meddling in America's (fake) democracy is that the United States itself is guilty of regime changing, balkanizing, and colonizing scores of foreign nations dating back over a century to the USA's regime change and eventual colonization of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Bottom Line: America needs to drink a big up of Shut the F*ck Up with its pathetic Pity Party whining about foreigners trying to influence its bogus democracy.

This tired psyops is pathetic.

Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
https://books.google.com/books/about/Overthrow.html?id=Q3o2BaNiJksC

Killing Hope
U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II
https://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope

padre , Aug 10 2020 15:12 utc | 74

We have no evidence, but don't forget, they are evil and wouldn't hesitate to do it!

[Sep 28, 2020] MSM Promotes Yet Another CIA Press Release As News -

Sep 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

The Washington Post , whose sole owner is a CIA contractor , has published yet another anonymously sourced CIA press release disguised as a news report which just so happens to facilitate longstanding CIA foreign policy.

In an article titled " Secret CIA assessment: Putin 'probably directing' influence operation to denigrate Biden ", WaPo's virulent neoconservative war pig Josh Rogin describes what was told to him by unnamed sources about the contents of a "secret" CIA document which alleges that Vladimir Putin is "probably" overseeing an interference operation in America's presidential election.

True to form , at no point does WaPo follow standard journalistic protocol and disclose its blatant financial conflict of interest with the CIA when promoting an unproven CIA narrative which happens to serve the consent-manufacturing agendas of the CIA for its new cold war with Russia.

And somehow in our crazy, propaganda-addled society, this is accepted as "news".

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1308366421316038659&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

The CIA has had a hard-on for the collapse of the Russian Federation for many years , and preventing the rise of another multipolar world at all cost has been an open agenda of US imperialism since the fall of the Soviet Union. Indeed it is clear that the escalations we've been watching unfold against Russia were in fact planned well in advance of 2016, and it is only by propaganda narratives like this one that consent has been manufactured for a new cold war which imperils the life of every organism on this planet.

There is no excuse for a prominent news outlet publishing a CIA press release disguised as news in facilitation of these CIA agendas. It is still more inexcusable to merely publish anonymous assertions about the contents of that CIA press release. It is especially inexcusable to publish anonymous assertions about a CIA press release which merely says that something is "probably" happening, meaning those making the claim don't even know.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

None of this stopped The Washington Post from publishing this propaganda piece on behalf of the CIA. None of it stopped this story from being widely shared by prominent voices on social media and repeated by major news outlets like CNN , The New York Times , and NBC . And none of it stopped all the usual liberal influencers from taking the claims and exaggerating the certainty:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1308457905562292225&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

The CIA-to-pundit pipeline, wherein intelligence agencies "leak" information that is picked up by news agencies and then wildly exaggerated by popular influencers, has always been an important part of manufacturing establishment Russia hysteria. We saw it recently when the now completely debunked claim that Russia paid bounties on US troops to Taliban-linked fighters in Afghanistan first surfaced; unverified anonymous intelligence claims were published by mass media news outlets, then by the time it got to spinmeisters like Rachel Maddow it was being treated not as an unconfirmed analysis but as an established fact:

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1305570430925766657&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

If you've ever wondered how rank-and-file members of the public can be so certain of completely unproven intelligence claims, the CIA-to-pundit pipeline is a big part of it. The most influential voices who political partisans actually hear things from are often a few clicks removed from the news report they're talking about, and by the time it gets to them it's being waved around like a rock-solid truth when at the beginning it was just presented as a tenuous speculation (the original aforementioned WaPo report appeared on the opinion page).

The CIA has a well-documented history of infiltrating and manipulating the mass media for propaganda purposes, and to this day the largest supplier of leaked information from the Central Intelligence Agency to the news media is the CIA itself. They have a whole process for leaking information to reporters they like (with an internal form that asks whether the information is Accurate, Partially Accurate, or Inaccurate), as was highlighted in a recent court case which found that the CIA can even leak documents to select journalists while refusing to release them to others via Freedom of Information Act requests.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-3&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=965650954040291329&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

A lying, torturing , propagandizing , drug trafficking , assassinating , coup-staging , warmongering , psychopathic spook agency with an extensive history of deceit and depravity that selectively gives information to news reporters with whom it has a good relationship is never doing so for noble reasons. It is doing so for the same rapacious power-grabbing reasons it does all the other evil things it does.

The way mainstream media has become split along increasingly hostile ideological lines means that all the manipulators need to do to advance a given narrative is set it up to make one side look bad and then share it with a news outlet from the other side. The way media is set up to masturbate people's confirmation bias instead of report objective facts will then cause the narrative to go viral throughout that partisan faction, regardless of how true or false it might be.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291936114698153984&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fmsm-promotes-yet-another-cia-press-release-news&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

The coming US election and its aftermath is looking like it will be even more insane and hysterical than the last one, and the enmity and outrage it creates will give manipulators every opportunity to slide favorable narratives into the slipstream of people's hot-headed abandonment of their own critical faculties.

And indeed they are clearly prepared to do exactly that. An ODNI press release last month which was uncritically passed along by the most prominent US media outlets reported that China and Iran are trying to help Biden win the November election while Russia is trying to help Trump. So no matter which way these things go the US intelligence cartel will be able to surf its own consent-manufacturing foreign policy agendas upon the tide of outrage which ensues.

The propaganda machine is only getting louder and more aggressive. We're being prepped for something.

* * *

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform, click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2



theory , 3 minutes ago

ARTICLE: "Putin directing' influence Operation Denigrate Biden"......

The man is on Dementia Medication,

Without any help from Russia....!!!!!!!!!

Freeman of the City , 18 seconds ago

'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'

- Mark Twain

palmereldritch , 49 seconds ago

And prior to Bezos/CIA ownership the paper was managed by heirs whose ownership stake was originally acquired through a bankruptcy sale by a board member/trustee of The Federal Reserve.

So maybe it was just a share transfer...

Freeman of the City , 1 minute ago

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free"

- Goethe

[Sep 28, 2020] It's been pretty funny to watch American Progressives rant and rave about Russia like warmonger rednecks in the 80's who just watched Rocky IV.

Sep 28, 2020 | www.unz.com

JimDandy , says: September 26, 2020 at 6:33 pm GMT

@lavoisier

We can both be right. Russia cockblocking Israel's ability to just roll over Assad's Syria, their relationship with Iran, etc. are big factors. It's been pretty funny to watch American Progressives rant and rave about Russia like warmonger rednecks in the 80's who just watched Rocky IV.

[Sep 28, 2020] Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate'

Highly recommended!
Aug 21, 2020 | www.unz.com
Ragno says: August 21, 2020 at 4:16 pm GMT 800 Words ⇑ @mark green

Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate'.

They are more correctly described as a Fifth Column , one far more open and sworn to destroy our country and its foundational citizens – and taxpayers – as any that ever operated during World War II. You would think this would be of vital interest to people who loudly declare themselves to be "Nazi-punchers", but who time and again show themselves to be merely low-level street terrorists informed and inspired by Mao's Red Guard and the irredeemable thugs of the African National Congress.

One wonders what's preventing them from mimicking the Red Terror waged by the leftists of Spain, when the battle for "freedom" involved the disinterment of the graves of Catholic clergy to better pose the corpses in blasphemous positions. Imagine how depraved those Mostly Peaceful protesters had to have been for even a leftist-supporting site such as Wikipedia to baldly state

The violence consisted of the killing of tens of thousands of people (including 6,832 Roman Catholic priests, the vast majority in the summer of 1936 in the wake of the military coup), attacks on the Spanish nobility, industrialists, and conservative politicians, as well as the desecration and burning of monasteries and churches.

Directly in the crosshairs this time are small and medium-sized owner-operated businesses – the true backbone of American freedom and prosperity – who have largely been sacrificed in exchange for the knock-kneed offerings of Danegeld from our giant conglomerates, all of whom have prospered immensely from the suffering and privation brought on by the Democratic lockdown of society – and the total shutdown of our economy.

Think! – have you read a single article charting how the government war on small business directly enriched Amazon.com and world's richest autocrat, Jeff Bezos? . who then funnels his windfall into a newspaper that blatantly pimps for the Democratic Party, which translates into a vast payday for the DNC, not least from its newly-approved partnership with the shadowy and many-tentacled Soros-surrogate group, BLM?

The result is what you'd expect when a fringe group operates with the full cooperation and partnership of major industry and both political parties (don't confuse Trump with a standard-issue Republican, please – he may have terrible flaws, but that isn't one of them) – 10% of the population holding the other 90% in a chokehold with only one set of rules: no arrest and prosecution for Bolshevik violence and terror ..but the zero-tolerance heavy hand of corrupt Leviathan coming down hard against any and all citizens who fight back or, eventually – inevitably – who even struggle against their restraints.

Short of the sudden arrival of celestial horsemen to punish the guilty and reward the set-upon, it has become clear that the only answer is the one that the Powers That Be claim to be dead set against: racial separatism. (Particularly when we consider that all that will be necessary to turn America into Hell on earth will be the adoption of Ibram Kendi's First Law, sometimes known as equality of outcome :

To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different racial groups are equals.

Could any "amendment" be more terrifyingly totalitarian than this?)

White and black separation would, instead, accomplish two goals, both more important than Kendi's quick fix: we would learn soon enough about actual equality of outcomes (which is why no Communist, black or white, wants anything to do with the creation of one more failed basket-case black state), and much more importantly, white families can sleep secure in their beds at night, without worrying about Apache raids at midnight, egged on and recorded for "posterity" by that Fourth Estate/Fifth Column referred to up top. Because the fact of the matter is that, even should some combination of government and law-enforcement halt the burning and looting of America – as things stand now, none of the worst malefactors will ever see the inside of a prison cell .which means any ceasefire will only be temporary, to be violently ripped asunder the moment they sense white Americans have at last lowered their guard once more. And living in perpetual paranoid readiness for violent uprisings and mindless destruction is no way to live at all.

Trump has it half right, a border wall is the answer: only it needs to run lengthwise , between the Southern and Northern borders. If we don't use the next four years to plan out such a separation, fretting over our children's children will be a fruitless exercise – those who aren't murdered will be captured and 'go native' .and in case you haven't looked at a globe lately, there's no place left to run.

Majority of One , says: August 21, 2020 at 4:33 pm GMT

@Miro23

As a recovering journalist, I can point out that even on a rinkydink rag in a small city, where I got fired for being a real journalist back in the early '70's; he who owns the presses and distribution networks calls the tune. It's a matter of working-class (no matter how middle-class your income or social-status) versus the ownership class. The latter wins every time.

[Sep 28, 2020] Washington's Hybrid War On Russian Energy Targets Germany, Belarus, And Bulgaria -

Sep 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Washington's Hybrid War On Russian Energy Targets Germany, Belarus, And Bulgaria


by Tyler Durden Sun, 09/27/2020 - 08:10 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Andrew Korybko via OneWorld.press,

The US is ruthlessly waging an intense Hybrid War on Russian energy interests in Europe by targeting the Eurasian Great Power's relevant projects in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria, banking on the fact that even the partial success of this strategy would greatly advance the scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic allies.

The Newest Front In The New Cold War

The New Cold War is heating up in Europe after the US intensified its Hybrid War on Russian interests there over the past two months. This proxy conflict is being simultaneously waged in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria, all three of which are key transit states for Russian energy exports to the continent, which enable it to maintain at least some influence there even during the worst of times. The US, however, wants to greatly advance the scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic allies which would allow America to reassert its unipolar hegemony there even if this campaign is only partially successful. This article aims to explore the broad contours of the US' contemporary Hybrid War strategy on Russian energy in Europe, pointing out how recent events in those three previously mentioned transit states are all part of this larger plan.

Germany

From north to south, the first and largest of these targets is Germany, which is nowadays treating Russian anti-corruption blogger Navalny. The author accurately predicted in late August that "intense pressure might be put upon the authorities by domestic politicians and their American patrons to politicize the final leg of Nord Stream II's construction by potentially delaying it as 'punishment to Putin'", which is exactly what's happening after Berlin signaled that it might rethink its commitment to this energy project. America isn't all to blame, however, since Germany ultimately takes responsibility for its provocative statements to this effect. Dmitri Trenin, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, published a thought-provoking piece titled " Russian-German Relations: Back To The Future " about how bilateral relations will drastically change in the aftermath of this incident. It's concise and well worth the read for those who are interested in this topic.

Belarus

The next Hybrid War target is Belarus , which the author has been tracking for half a decade already. After failing to convince Lukashenko to break off ties with Russia after this summer's Wagner incident, a Color Revolution was then hatched to overthrow him so that his replacements can turn the country into another Ukraine insofar as it relates to holding Russian energy exports to Europe hostage. The end goal is to increase the costs of Russian resources so that the US' own become more competitive by comparison. Ultimately, it's planned that Russian pipelines will be phased out in the worst-case scenario, though this would happen gradually since Europe can't immediately replace such imports with American and other ones. "Losing" Belarus, whether on its own or together with Nord Stream II, would deal a heavy blow to Russia's geopolitical interests. Countries like Germany wouldn't have a need to maintain cordial relations with it, thus facilitating a possible "decoupling".

Bulgaria

about:blank

about:blank

me title=

That's where Bulgaria could become the proverbial "icing on the cake". Turkish Stream is expected to transit through this Balkan country en route to Europe, but the latest anti-government protests there threaten to topple the government, leading to worries that its replacement might either politicize or suspend this project. Azerbaijan's TANAP and the Eastern Mediterranean's GRISCY pipelines might help Southeastern Europe compensate for the loss of Russian resources, though the latter has yet to be constructed and is only in the planning stages right now. Nevertheless, eliminating Turkish Stream from the energy equation (or at the very least hamstringing the project prior to replacing/scrapping it) would deal a death blow to Russia's already very limited Balkan influence. Russia would then be practically pushed out of the region, becoming nothing more than a distant cultural-historical memory with close to no remaining political influence to speak of.

Economic Warfare

The overarching goal connecting these three Hybrid War fronts isn't just to weaken Russia's energy interests, but to replace its current role with American and other industry competitors. The US-backed and Polish-led " Three Seas Initiative " is vying to become a serious player in the strategic Central & Eastern European space, and it can achieve a lot of its ambitions through the construction of new LNG and oil terminals for facilitating America's plans. In addition, artificially increasing the costs of Russian energy imports through political means related to these Hybrid Wars could also reduce Russia's revenue from these sources, which presently account for 40% of its budget . Considering that Russia's in the midst of a systemic economic transition away from its disproportionate budgetary dependence on energy, this could hit Moscow where it hurts at a sensitive time.

The Ball's In Berlin's Court

The linchpin of Russia's defensive strategy is Germany, without whose support all of Moscow's energy plans stand zero chance of succeeding. If Germany submits to the US on one, some, or all three of these Hybrid War fronts in contravention of its natural economic interests, then it'll be much easier for America to provoke a comprehensive "decoupling" between Russia and Europe. It's only energy geopolitics that allows for both sides to maintain some sense of cooperation despite the US-encouraged sanctions regime against Russia after its reunification with Crimea and thus provides an opportunity for improving their relations sometime in the future. Sabotaging Russia's energy interests there would thus doom any realistic prospects for a rapprochement between them, but the ball's in Berlin's court since it has the chance to say no to the US and ensure that the German-Russian Strategic Partnership upholds Europe's strategic autonomy across the present century.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Concluding Thoughts

For as much as cautiously optimistic as many in the Alt-Media Community might be that the US' Hybrid War on Russian energy in Europe will fail, the facts paint a much more sobering picture which suggests that at least one of these plots will succeed. Should that happen, then the era of energy geopolitics laying the foundation for Russian-European relations will soon draw to a close, thereby facilitating the US' hoped-for "decoupling" between them, causing budgetary difficulties for Moscow at the moment when it can least afford to experience such, and pushing the Eurasian Great Power's strategic attention even further towards Asia. The last-mentioned consequence will put more pressure on Russia to perfect its "balancing" act between China and India , which could potentially be a double-edged sword that makes it more relevant in Asian geopolitical affairs but also means that one wrong move might seriously complicate its 21st-century grand strategy .

Vegetius , 4 hours ago

If you look at the three countries mentioned Belarus will likely be absorbed by Russia sooner rather than later. The push for this is underway looking at meetings taking place. For Bulgaria the US is far away and has no power to stop the Turks. It is the Turks the Bulgarians fear, with a lot of reasons, their surest way of keeping out of the Turks clutches is to look to Russia for support. Unfortunately the USA has an appalling track record of betraying countries, ask Libya.

The Germans have no choice but take the Russian gas, economically, socially and for strategic reasons. The truly big fear for the US is a German/Russian bloc. German and Russian technology with unrivaled resources. That is the future super power if they are pushed together, something that is very likely if we see a major economic contraction in the next few years.

Mustahattu , 4 hours ago

The US fear of an Eurasian alliance. The US fear Europe will create a Silicon Valley of the future. The US fear the Euro will replace the dollar as a reserve currency. The US fear Russia will become a superpower. The US fear China. There's a lot to fear yankee dear...cos it's all gonna happen.

Hope Copy , 1 hour ago

RUSSIA is content with 45 and 25nm as it can be hardened.. 14 and especially 7nm is so that the **** will wear out..

Ace006 , 2 hours ago

Instead of fretting about how this or that country or bloc will become a/an _________ superpower the US could focus on regaining its former pre-eminence.

It's a crazy thought, I know, but

  1. moving a massive amount of industrial capacity to China and fueling the rise of a communist country just might have been a bad idea and
  2. thrashing about in the international arena like a rutting rhinoceros at huge expense makes us look foolish and, in the case of Syria, petty and vindictive.

Repairing the damage from the former and stopping the hemorrhage of money and reputation respectively would be a far better objective than playing Frankenstein in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Iran, Poland, N. Korea, and Venezuela, inter alia . Mexico is a failed state right on our border that contributes mightily to our immigration, cultural, and political problems. But, no, the puffed up, prancing morons who make US policy can summon the imagination to figure out how to help our very own neighbors deal with their hideous problems. No. Let's engage in regime change and "nation building" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Belarus.

The words of the great Marcus Aurelius are on point: "Within ten days thou wilt seem a god to those to whom thou art now a beast and an ape, if thou wilt return to thy principles and the worship of reason."

Herodotus , 1 hour ago

Bulgaria must return to the protection of the Ottoman Empire.

yerfej , 4 hours ago

Easy solution, end NATO. Just have all US forces told to leave the EU and let them determine their own destiny. Then do the same with US forces in the ME, Japan, Korea, etc. EVERYONE would be better off, including US taxpayers which get nothing out of the useless overseas deployment of resources which could be better spent at home.

yojimbo , 3 hours ago

5% budget deficit, 5% military spending. Leave the world, drop 4.5% of the spending and either save money, or build infrastructure. It's so simple, I am disappointed Trump doesn't at least state it. I get he is limited by the system, and can't be a Cincinnatus, even if he wanted to, but he has his First Amendment.. though I grant him a personal fear of being Kennedied!

Bac Si , 2 hours ago

Howdy Yerfej. It sounds like you are all for Isolationism.

But Isolationism means different things to different people. Pre WW2, Isolationism in the US meant selling our products to hostile countries. In the case of Japan, oil to help them kill Chinese people. In the case of Germany and Italy, food and vehicles to help them conquer all of Europe.

Considering the ridiculous education that the US gives its children, it's no wonder that most Americans don't know much about history (I say that in general terms, not to you specifically). Henry Ford senior not only received the 'Grand Cross of the German Eagle' from Adolf Hitler in 1938, he also received a 'Congressional Medal' from the US Congress shortly after WW2 – and for the same reason. Selling trucks to help the war effort.

Even after Pearl Harbor, there were politically powerful Isolationists that did not want the US to get involved in WW2. Why? Because a lot of money was at stake. It still is. These same people will continue to argue for Isolationism even after we are attacked.

Two months AFTER Pearl Harbor, FDR made a speech that included this:

"Those Americans who believed that we could live under the illusion of isolationism wanted the American eagle to imitate the tactics of the ostrich. Now, many of those same people, afraid that we may be sticking our necks out, want our national bird to be turned into a turtle. But we prefer to retain the eagle as it is – flying high and striking hard. I know that I speak for the mass of the American people when I say that we reject the turtle policy and will continue increasingly the policy of carrying the war to the enemy in distant lands and distant waters – as far away as possible from our own home grounds." – FDR

This radical change in our foreign policy has never been explained or even referred to in US history books. Powerful economic forces will always love the idea of "Open Trade Isolationism". But if Isolationism is ever suddenly defined by not doing business with any hostile government – those powerful forces will go ballistic. They will strongly lobby against 'Economic Warfare'. In other words, they will always want to make lots of money by selling their products to hostile governments, no matter how many people die.

Want a great example?

Right after Loral Corporation CEO Bernard L. Schwartz donated a million dollars to the DNC, President Clinton authorized the release of ballistic missile technology to China so Loral could get their satellites into space fast and at low cost. Those same missiles, and their nuclear warheads, are now pointed at the US.

The argument has always been that if we trade with hostile governments, they will grow to like us. Does anyone out there believe that if the UK and France gave pre WW2 Germany an extra $20 billion in trade, Germany wouldn't have started WW2? Anyone with a brain would tell you that Germany would have put those resources into their military (like China has been doing) and WW2 would have started earlier.

Yerfej, if we brought back the Cold War organization called the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), I would be all for Isolationism. President Clinton got rid of it in his first year, and Western weapons technology has been threatening us ever since.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago

You have to love the dynamic duo of "lie, cheat and steal" Pompeo and his "mob boss" Trump. There is absolutely no subtlety in their obvious shakedown tactics.

PrivetHedge , 4 hours ago

The mob had far more honor, and better morals.

PrivetHedge , 4 hours ago

Washington's transatlantic allies...

Hahahah, occupied vassals.
Washington has cost Germany a massive slice of GDP.

you_do , 4 hours ago

Yankee has plenty of problems at home.

Rest of the world can decide their own energy policy.

They do not suffer from the 'Russia' propaganda.

geno-econ , 5 hours ago

Let Russia, the lowest cost energy producer win energy competition in Europe as China, the lowest cost manufacturing producer is winning in America. Only difference is retailers, shippers, assembly part importers such as auto, electronics and appliance makers are making a profit and consumer gets lower prices. We should let others decide for themselves and stop meddling----only result will be a bloody nose

you_do , 4 hours ago

Yankee has plenty of problems at home.

Rest of the world can decide their own energy policy.

They do not suffer from the 'Russia' propaganda.

geno-econ , 5 hours ago

Let Russia, the lowest cost energy producer win energy competition in Europe as China, the lowest cost manufacturing producer is winning in America. Only difference is retailers, shippers, assembly part importers such as auto, electronics and appliance makers are making a profit and consumer gets lower prices. We should let others decide for themselves and stop meddling----only result will be a bloody nose

free-energy , 4 hours ago

Notice how everything the US does around the world is a WAR. War on Energy, War on Drugs, War on Birth Control, War War War... America will fall after 2020 if nothing changes for the better. Every year the world grows more and more tired of the US bs and moves further away from it. Its so bad that they choose to deal with a communist country over us.

You reap what you've sowed.

Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago

The Anglo American parasite pirate gangsters keep barking on about Russia bad, China bad, but I look around and I see nothing but these trouble makers waging war on anything they cannot control. The US and UK are devil nations. They will deserve all the rot they have coming their way.

Unknown User , 5 hours ago

Trump wants a trade balance with all major economies like Germany and China. If they don't buy from us, he will have to raise tariffs. In case of Germany, they need nothing from us so he wants them to buy US LNG. Merkel's position is that "there is a cheap Russian gas", while Trump is telling her "no there isn't one".

Pumpinfe , 4 hours ago

So trump loves to deep throat Russia but give Germany a hard time to Nordstream 2? Wake up fanboys, your hero is a ******. I got so much money invested in gazprom. LNG is junk and gazprom (Russian owned) is gona crush LNG and trump and his idiot following can't do a damn thing. You trump idiots will believe anything. Let me enlighten you...gazprom is the lowest cost producer of natural gas in the world...go look at the difference between gazprom and LNG and then you will realize that orange dump is an idiot along with his army of empty heads. Oh and if you think China and Russia are not friendly, go look up the Power of Siberia pipeline. That will give you a good sense of the relationship between Russia and China. America is rotting from the inside and Russia and China are eating their popcorn watching it happen.

Dabooda , 3 hours ago

I don't see Trump deep-throating anyone but Netanyahu. Sans gratuitous insults, your comment about Gazprom is spot on

Lokiban , 5 hours ago

I doubt Merkel will give in. She would commit political suicide if she did that. She knows Navalny is a US effort to stop Nordstream 2.
What is the alternative? Buying gas from the US or US-controlled oilfields in Iraq and Syria? Putin might have a say in that.

Lokiban , 5 hours ago

I doubt Merkel will give in. She would commit political suicide if she did that. She knows Navalny is a US effort to stop Nordstream 2.
What is the alternative? Buying gas from the US or US-controlled oilfields in Iraq and Syria? Putin might have a say in that.

thurstjo63 , 3 hours ago

The main fault in Mr Korybko's thinking is that he believes that European countries will not just shoot themselves in the foot but in the head to appease the US. At a european and local level, those who wanted Nord Stream 2 to be suspended or killed have failed. The costs are way too high. For that we can thank, perversely, the agreements associated with protecting investments from political decisions pushed by the US itself!!! Given that there is no proof of Navalny being poisoned, Germany knows that there is no way that they could hope to win their case for stopping Nord Stream 2 in a tribunal with persons capable of rational thought. That is why they made the deal to buy some US liquified gas for a couple of billion dollars. Because that is the cheapest way of extricating themselves from this situation. Otherwise, they are looking at orders of magnitude more compensation to russian and european firms for stopping the pipeline.

As for Belarus, barring Lukashenko doing something profoundly stupid like reacting violently to protests, that ship has already sailed. Protests are smaller every week and mainly on the weekend as now the "opposition" has been publishing people's profiles accusing them of collaborating with the government without any proof, leading to innocent people and their families to be threatened. There will be a transition from Lukashenko over the next couple of years but you can be sure that the present "opposition" given their desire to break away from Russia will not be part of the group that comes to power in the future since their base of support diminishes every week.

Finally Bulgaria already shot themselves in the foot when they backed out of South Stream and had major problems securing energy resources to meet its needs during the intervening period. Radev as any politician wanting to stay in office knows, if he doesn't go through with connecting Turk Stream to the rest of Europe that he might as well resign. So unless the US has compromising information on him that can force him from office or the Radev's administration doesn't control the US attempts to create the conditions for a colour revolution in Bulgaria, it is definitely not going to happen.

I'm sorry but Mr. Korybko is wrong on all counts!

Savvy , 4 hours ago

When the US backed Georgia's violent incursion into S Ossetia it took Russia one day to send them back.

Russians are slow to saddle but ride fast.

Joiningupthedots , 2 hours ago

That was with the remnants of the old Soviet Army too.

The new Russian Army is an entirely different beast in both organisation, training, experience and equipment.

This guy has his finger on the pulse;

http://thesaker.is/the-world-has-gone-absolutely-insane/

JeanTrejean , 5 hours ago

Are the USA really at war with Russia...and EU?

Decoupling Russia from EU, is re-enforcing the Eurasia bloc...where is the future of the world.

Russia belongs to Europa...not the USA.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 4 hours ago

Geographically Europe and Asia are one continent. It was "European exceptionalism" (the precursor to American Exceptionalism) that divided it as an ethno-cultural construct.

researchfix , 5 hours ago

Cancelling NS2 will chase the German industry into Russia. Cheap energy, moderate wages, Eurasian market at the front steps.

The sheep and their ex working places and Mutti will stay in Germany.

Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago

Do Germans want to be slaves of these abject Brits and Americans? Pffffft....gas from Russia is a NO BRAINER.

Only British and Americans rats do not like that idea. How un-selfish then, it is for these jealous, insecure morons to dictate to Germany how she should trade. That's called outright meddling. These imperialists are like entitled Karens, they think the world owes them favours at the snap of a finger.

Sandmann , 4 hours ago

Nordstream 2 has an add-on leg to UK. Germany is largest gas importer on earth and cannot run its industry without gas imports from Russia. LNG is simply too expensive unless US taxpayers subsidise it.

If US wants to destabilise Europe it will reap the consequences. Southern Europe depends on gas from North Africa - Portugal generates electricity from Maghreb Pipeline to Spain from Algeria via Morocco. Erdogan hopes to put Turkey in position of supplying gas to Europe.

Germany will not abandon Nordstream 2 but might abandon USA first.

Max21c , 3 hours ago

The US is ruthlessly waging an intense Hybrid War on Russian energy interests in Europe by targeting the Eurasian Great Power's relevant projects in Germany, Belarus, and Bulgaria, banking on the fact that even the partial success of this strategy would greatly advance the scenario of an externally provoked "decoupling" between Moscow and Washington's transatlantic allies.

It's a petty game and when it fails then the Washingtonians credibility and legitimacy just further erodes. The EU needs the energy supplies and the Russian Federation has the supplies. It's all just short term & small gain silliness by a pack of freaks in Washington DC and their freaks in the CIA, Thunk Tank freaks and freaks in the foreign policy establishment. It's just more of the Carnival sideshow/freakshow put on by Washingtonians. As usual if it's a Washingtonian (post Cold War) policy then there's little or no substance behind it and you can be sure it hasn't be thought through thoroughly and it'll eventually turn and boomerang back on the circus people in Washington, Ivy League circus people, and JudeoWASP elite circus people, CIA circus clowns and circus clowns in the Thunk Tonks and elites Fareign Poolicy ***-tablishment.

John Hansen , 3 hours ago

If all it takes is a Navaly hoax to cause this Europe isn't really worth dealing with.

propaganda_reaper , 3 hours ago

Once upon a time, a revolution occurred in a country through which passed a gas pipeline. The bad guys were vanquished. And the very good foreign guys who helped the local good guys defeat the tyrant said: "We got the same stuff, but liquid."

Any similarity with fictitious events or characters was purely coincidental.

_ConanTheLibertarian_ , 4 hours ago

Germany needs the gaz.

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-germany-cant-say-no-to-nord-stream/

Obamanism666 , 49 minutes ago

Remember the Gas to Europe still flows through the Ukraine. Russia just needs to reduce the gas Pressure and blame the Ukraine and Europe goes cold and Dark.

German People will beg for Nordstream 2 to be switched on.

lucitanian , 31 minutes ago

That's not the way Russia works. But it's the kind of blackmail that the US uses. And that's why Russia is a more dependable partner for Europe for energy.

Hope Copy , 1 hour ago

This **** goes right back to the 'DeepState' pseudo-revolution that got the Nicky-the-weak killed ,because he financed his railroads and wanted to be rich as hell as he perceived the ENGLISH monarchy to be, with a parliamentary DUMA that he could over rule if need be. I have looked 'DeepState' right in the eyes when I was young and dumb and was told that I would never go to their masion.. Nicky had family enemies. and the Czech fighting force was never going to save him.. Stalin was also double-crossed, but was well informed.. it was in his sector if one reads and believes. Cunning fox Stalin was, always playing those under him to do his bidding.. and that lesson has been well learned by a couple of the world's leaders in this day-in-age...

Herodotus , 1 hour ago

German manufacturing costs must be driven higher to take the heat off of the UK as they emerge from the EU and attempt to become competitive.

novictim , 1 hour ago

When "War" is actually not war but trade policy and financial incentives then you know you are engaged in dangerous bloviations and hyperbole.

When the shooting starts, then you can talk of War.

SuperareDolo , 2 hours ago

Russia might not want to fight these attempts to isolate it from the western economy. The collateral damage will be that much less, once Babylon the great finally falls.

LoveTruth , 2 hours ago

And US claims to be a "Fair Player," caring for freedom and democracy, while twisting arms and supporting corrupted officials.

IronForge , 3 hours ago

PetroUSD, MIC, Colonial Control of Vassals. World Domination Play by the Hegemony.

Just like the Policies of NATO: Russians Out, Germans Down, Anglo-American-ZioMasons and Vatican_Vassals In.

Policies were like this - Sponsored by Anglo-ZioMasons from Pre-WWI, continued through WWII and the First Cold War, and onwards after the Collapse of the SUN and the ensuing NeoCon Wolfowitz Doctrine and PNAC7/Bush-Cheney PetroUSD Plans.

The Hegemony Control MENA Energy Producers. The IRQ-KWT War were mishandled; and KSA demanded for the USA to Smite IRQ. The Initial War and Occupation prompted Hussein to opt the EUR for Petroleum, which Brought about the End of Hussein through the 9-11/PNAC7 Long War.

LBY opted for the Au-Dinar for Petroleum; and were Fail-Stated. IRN and RUS remain the only Major Energy Producers not Controlled by the Hegemony.

IRN were Sanctioned since removing the Shackles of Hegemonic Occupancy via Shah Par Levi; and attempts for Energy Diversification via Nuclear means raised suspicions of Nuclear Weapons Development - prompting for heavier Sanctions and 5thColumn Regime Change Operations by the Hegemony. IRN circumvented Sanctions in part by selling their Petroleum via Major Currencies and Barter. Though many Countries have reduced or maintained their purchase of IRN Petroleum via Sanctions Protocols, CHN are involved in Purchasing IRN's Output.

RUS, another Target of Ruin, Plunder, and Occupational Exploitation by the Hegemony, were Too Large a Country with Standing Armed Forces for Direct Military Invasion by the Hegemony. After the Collapse of the SUN, The Harvard/Chicago led Economic Reforms ended in Plunder - which prompted the Selection and Rise of Putin, who drove out the Plunderers. The Hegemony continue their Geopolitical War of Influence Peddling around RUS while attempting Soft War NATO Membership Recruitment and Regime Change Coups within RUS, Ex-SUN Nation-States, and Trading Partners.

RUS have endured, became Militarily mightier, have become the Major Energy Producer for North/Western Europe and CHN. In addition to the Production, RUS now have begun Trading Petroleum+NatGas outside of the PetroUSD Exchange Mechanism, opting for Customer Currencies or RUB.

RUS and IRN are expected to be Key Providers of the PetroCNY-Au Exchange Mechanism.

The Hegemony and MENA Vassals can't Compete in Combined Petroleum+NatGas Volume and Price; and DEU - by Directly Importing from RUS - will most likely become more Independent from the Hegemon.

CHN, RUS, and DEU - Major Energy, Industrial, Natural Resource, and Military Powers Decoupling from the Influences of the Hegemony, with IND Slowly coming to their Own (IND are simply Too Large to remain Vassals to the Hegemon; and Vassal GBR did so much to Oppress them in the past).

Funny that the Anglo-American-ZioMasons and VAT have brought each of these 3 Powers to Ruin and Occupation in the Past 2 Centuries.

The Ironies being Played Out are that:

1) GBR Lost their Prime Colonies - America/USA, IND, and now Trade City Colony HKG - by their Oppressive and Exploitative Occupancy; and

2) USA, after Fighting Wars for Independence from such Occupations by GBR - Once Becoming a Major Military Power, Followed in the Anglo-ZioMason Tradition of Geopolitical Conquest and Control to the Scale of pursing not only in World Domination - but in Absolute Global Rule.

Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago

Problem is demographic shift . The previous modern system dominated by Zio-Masonry was GNP and GDP where currencies were measured against global output and floated against gold and each other. Now with high inflation and demographic decline knocking out the economy is easier leading to fights between zones of influence. Petro Ruble, Euro or dollar. Dangerous commodities like kilos of heroin, trafficked humans or weapons. Zio-Masonic system has fallen to gangsterism. Hybrid Warfare is the kind of thing we saw in Afghanistan or 80s Columbia . Militarized Russian mafia vs NATO backed militarized police forces.

Once the population reaches a certain age and consumption drops there isn't much to fight over besides social control systems of the young minority. Color revolutions in Central Europe are really only effecting the long term economy of the young . Hope would be Left wing Radicals stood up to the system and aligned with right wing groups to eliminate masonic and Zionist factions and take back the command and control systems before the continet is shut down permanently.

Precision strikes and hunting down their descendents . Easy to find because Hitler and Stalin had their ancestors massacred for loyalty to Rothschild. They won't bite the hands that feed.The Vatican vassal systems was built on knowing that a Zionist is Zionist and Masons is a Mason. They are cults simply teaching them the correct way to behave can avert these political problems.

In terms of Belarus and Russia they should consider the fact the birth rate rate rose after the Soviet collapse and exodus west means many of them shouldn't have even been born in Rothschilds plan. In their " system " economic planning starts at birth because color revolutions effect long term bond issuances they control.

Stalin and Hitler both knew this and used money linked to raw marterials and goods to beat the British gold standard system. If you knew what the Western Central banks were worth you would kill people for using their money.

[Sep 27, 2020] The Real Russian Playbook Is Written in English by Patrick Armstrong

Jul 17, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

I hadn't given The Russian Playbook much attention until Susan Rice, Obama's quondam security advisor, opined a month ago on CNN that " I'm not reading the intelligence today, or these days -- but based on my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook ". She was referring to the latest U.S. riots.

Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the " Kremlin Playbook " with this ominous beginning

There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.

And asks

Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'?

Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly wasn't the last.

Russia has a century-old playbook for 'disinformation' 'I believe in Russia they do have their own manual that essentially prescribes what to do,' said Clint Watts, a research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a former FBI agent. (Nov 2018)

The Russian playbook for spreading fake news and conspiracy theories is the subject of a new three-part video series on The New York Times website titled 'Operation Infektion: Russian Disinformation: From The Cold War To Kanye.' (Nov 2018)

I found headlines such as these: Former CIA Director Outlines Russian Playbook for Influencing Unsuspecting Targets (May 2017) ; Fmr. CIA op.: Don Jr. meeting part of Russian playbook (Jul 2017) ; Americans Use Russian Playbook to Spread Disinformation (Oct 2018) ; Factory of Lies: The Russian Playbook (Nov 2018) ; Shredding the Putin Playbook: Six crucial steps we must take on cyber-security -- before it's too late. (Winter 2018) ; Trump's spin is 'all out of the KGB playbook': Counterintelligence expert Malcolm Nance (May 2019) .

Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity is this video from the Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state indeed.

So let us consider The Russian Playbook. It stands at the very heart of Russian power. It is old: at least a century old . Why, did not Tolstoy's 1908 Letter to a Hindu inspire Gandhi to bring down the British Indian Empire and win the Great Game for Moscow? The Tolstoy-Putin link is undeniable as we are told in A Post-Soviet 'War and Peace': What Tolstoy's Masterwork Explains About Putin's Foreign Policy : "In the early decades of the nineteenth century, Napoleon (like Putin after him) wanted to construct his own international order ". Russian novelists: adepts of The Playbook every one . So there is much to consider about this remarkable Book which has had such an enormous – hidden to most – role in world history. Its instructions on how to swing Western elections are especially important: the 2016 U.S. election ; Brexit ; " 100 years of Russian electoral interference "; Canada ; France ; the European Union ; Germany and many more. The awed reader must ask whether any Western election since Tolstoy's day can be trusted. Not to forget the Great Hawaiian Pizza Debate the Russians could start at any moment.

What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for, the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked. Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human cunning could devise; right up there with the nuclear codes .

So, The Russian Playbook would be extraordinarily difficult to get hold of. And yet every talking head on U.S. TV has a copy at his elbow! English copies, one assumes. Rachel Maddow has comprehended the complicated chapter on how to control the U.S. power system . Others have read the impenetrably complex section on how to control U.S. voting machines or change vote counts . Many are familiar with the lists of divisions in American society and directions for exploiting them . Adam Schiff has mastered the section on how to get Trump to give Alaska back . Susan Rice well knows the chapter "How to create riots in peaceful communities".

And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.

There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can have a personal copy: it's named " From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by Gene Sharp (1928-2018) . Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting, his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as "democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes . Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary "Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been used to produce what only the propagandists could call " model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction , war and refugees .

The Albert Einstein Institution , which Sharp created in 1983, strongly denies collusion with Washington-sponsored overthrows but people from it have organised seminars or workshops in many targets of U.S. overthrows . The most recent annual report of 2014 , while rather opaque, shows 45% of its income from "grants" (as opposed to "individuals") and has logos of Euromaidan, SOSVenezuela, Umbrellamovement , Lwili , Sunflowersquare and others. In short, the logos of regime change operations in Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Burkina Faso and Taiwan. (And, ironically for today's USA, Black Lives Matter). So, clearly, there is some connection between the AEI and Washington-sponsored regime change operations.

So there is a "handbook" but it's not Russian.

Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about the violence ; "non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance, direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And, not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naďve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources.

His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. It's not Russian diplomats that are caught choosing the leaders of ostensibly independent countries . It's not Russians who boast of spending money in poor countries to change their governments . It's not Russian diplomats who meet with foreign opposition leaders . Russia doesn't fabricate a leader of a foreign country . It's not Russia that invents a humanitarian crisis , bombs the country to bits , laughs at its leader's brutal death and walks away. It's not Russia that sanctions numerous countries . It's not Russia that gives fellowships to foreign oppositionists . Even the Washington Post (one of the principals in sustaining Putindunnit hysteria) covered " The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere "; but piously insisted "the days of its worst behavior are long behind it". Whatever the pundits may claim about Russia, the USA actually has an organisation devoted to interfering in other countries' business ; one of whose leading lights proudly boasted: " A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. "

The famous "Russian Playbook" is nothing but projection onto Moscow of what Washington actually does: projection is so common a feature of American propaganda that one may certain that when Washington accuses somebody else of doing something, it's a guarantee that Washington is doing it. Also by this author

Patrick Armstrong was an analyst in the Canadian Department of National Defence specialising in the USSR/Russia from 1984 and a Counsellor in the Canadian Embassy in Moscow in 1993-1996. He retired in 2008 and has been writing on Russia and related subjects on the Net ever since.

[Sep 27, 2020] PODCAST- Tribute to Andre Vltchek- "West's sadistic personality disorder" by Kevin Barrett

Sep 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

One of the most vibrantly alive people I met, André Vltchek, just died . Though he barely made it past his mid-fifties he got in a lot more living than a hundred average Americans who live to collect their pensions. Allah yarhamhu.

In honor of this great Truth Jihadi we're replaying this 2018 interview:

André Vltchek on West's sadistic personality disorder (originally broadcast May 2, 2018)

The West claims to be the "free world" -- the global leader in human rights, humanitarianism, and free expression. Globetrotting independent journalist André Vltchek , who joins us from Borneo, isn't buying it. His latest essay begins:

Western culture is clearly obsessed with rules, guilt, submissiveness and punishment.

By now it is clear that the West is the least free society on Earth. In North America and Europe, almost everyone is under constant scrutiny: people are spied on, observed, their personal information is being continually extracted, and the surveillance cameras are used indiscriminately.

Life is synchronized and managed. There are hardly any surprises.

One can sleep with whomever he or she wishes (as long as it is done within the 'allowed protocol'). Homosexuality and bisexuality are allowed. But that is about all; that is how far 'freedom' usually stretches.

Rebellion is not only discouraged, it is fought against, brutally. For the tiniest misdemeanors or errors, people end up behind bars. As a result, the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than any other country on Earth, except the Seychelles.

Andre Vltchek's latest book is : The Great October Socialist Revolution: Impact on the World and Birth of Internationalism

Information on his other books and films


Luther Blisst , says: September 23, 2020 at 11:21 pm GMT

Andre taunted rightwing elites and illness – with a passion. I guess one of them caught up.

Living hard seems like a death-wish, maybe it was. Staring at darkness messes people up and he traveled again and again into the hearts of darkness across the planet because he wanted to be a modern Wilfred Burchett. He was one of the greats. My condolences to his family and friends.

Peace to Stephen Cohen too. You both will be missed.

PetrOldSack , says: September 24, 2020 at 11:00 am GMT

André Vltchek was not an intellectual heavyweight. What is fascinating about his life-story is how and who financed. That should be easy for insiders to fish out, and insiders there be.

As to my humble opinion, Chomsky was neither. From all angles, his pre-fabricated prestige, his in-group attitudes, his encrusted prestance, pettiness, pedantry, always within convention, his factoid approach, the channels of communication, the lack of any systemic approach, his "good guys bad guys" copper´ approach, did not warrant the few hours listening in on his tune and omni-presence. His numb personality, contrary to the combative Vltchek is noted as a minor.

Some "intellectuals" have half a page of original content in them over the course of a life-time (not the same as career (n´est ce pas Pinker?)), most have none. "History repeat itself", through the bull-horns of public intellectuals. They both practiced a sort of journalism that is superficial (accent on the superficial) agenda driven.

They both are within the K. B. range.

No Friend Of The Devil , says: September 24, 2020 at 9:07 pm GMT

@Robert Konrad,

Ex-CIA John Kiriakou stated that the CIA was attempting to recruit just about anyone that they were able to starting in the sixties ranging from Hollywood actors/actresses, musicians, writers, journalists, artists, business people, just about anyone. Operation Mockingbird is still widely used even if it is no longer regerred to it as Operation Mockingbird.

brabantian , says: September 26, 2020 at 11:14 am GMT

André Vltchek (1962-2020) was the son of a Czech nuclear physicist father, and a Russian-Chinese artist-architect mother, born in Soviet-era St Petersburg (then Leningrad). He spent part of his childhood as well in the famous Czech beer city of Pilsen.

Here, an article where Vltchek talked about his roots, and his nostalgia for life under Communism in eastern Europe
https://www.chinadailyhk.com/article/134280#How-we-sold-Soviet-Union-and-Czechoslovakia-for-plastic-shopping-bags

Eulogy for André Vltchek by China expert Jeff J Brown

https://www.youtube.com/embed/EmCFRyDLDJU?feature=oembed

Adûnâi , says: Website September 26, 2020 at 2:12 pm GMT

Western culture is clearly obsessed with rules, guilt, submissiveness and punishment.

What culture is not? Every single population on Earth wants to survive, Westerners want non-Aryans to survive, but the mechanism is always the same. The Stasi, the Gestapo, the CIA, the KGB – they all breathed air, and they all tortured dissenters. Turkey was almost overthrown in 2016. The Shah of Iran was, as were Hosni Mubarak and Gaddafi in Egypt and Libya. Bashar is facing quite a lot of criticism for being free – that critique comes in the form of bombs and jihadi freedom fighters. The Saudi Prince is wise for strangling and beheading Khashoggi. The USSR disintegrated after they had shut down the GULAG.

As a result, the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than any other country on Earth, except the Seychelles.

In 2012, the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in [the DPR of Korea] estimated 150,000 to 200,000 are incarcerated, based on testimonies of defectors from the state police bureau, which roughly equals 600–800 people incarcerated per 100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

The World Prison Brief puts the United States' incarceration rate at 655 per 100,000.

Anon [790] Disclaimer , says: September 26, 2020 at 5:27 pm GMT

Okay. If the West is the least free society on the planet, why the heck do all these third-world people keep trying to move there? It is plain that Vltchek's thinking flunks the real-world reality test.

The reality is, the rest of the world is worse off than the West, or people wouldn't keep trying to leave the third world for the West.

Robert Konrad , says: September 27, 2020 at 12:50 am GMT
@Anon ey want to have freedom of their stupid religious beliefs, not freedom from religion. They still don't know that freedom of religion is not worth anything if it also doesn't guarantee freedom from religion.

Thomas Jefferson tried very hard to explain this to them, but Yankee morons have never learned what Jefferson tried to teach them. (With some notable exceptions, though, who, however, have absolutely no political power.)

Vltchek is/was right: American/Western civilization [sic] (siphilization, rather) is bankrupt and inhuman. It can only offer an abundance of material goods and military weapons as if the only goals of human life were material things and warfare.

[Sep 27, 2020] The world has gone absolutely insane! by The Saker

Sep 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

We all know that we are living in crazy, and dangerous, times, yet I can't help being awed at what the imperial propaganda machine (aka the legacy ziomedia) is trying to make us all swallow. The list of truly batshit crazy stuff we are being told to believe is now very long, and today I just want to pick on a few of my "favorites" (so to speak).

First, of course, comes the " Novichok Reloaded " scandal around the alleged poisoning of the so-called "dissident" Alexei Navalnyi. I already mentioned this absolutely ridiculous story once , so I won't repeat it all here. I just want to mention a few very basic facts:

in my past article , if what the German authorities are claiming is true, then the Russians are truly the dumbest imbeciles on the planet. Not content to use this now famous "Novichok" gas against Skripal in the UK and after failing to kill Skripal, these stupid Russians decided to try the very same gas, only "improved", and they failed again: Navalnyi is quite alive and well, thank you! Then there is this: according to the imperial propaganda machine, Novichok was so horribly dangerous, that the Brits had to use full biosuits to investigate the alleged poisoning of Skripal. They also said that they would completely destroy the dangerous Skripal home (though they never did that). The self same propaganda machine says that the Novichok used on Navalnyi was a more powerful, improved version. Okay. Then try to answer this one: why did the Russians NOT put on biosuits, why did not a single passenger suffer from any side effects (inside a closed aircraft cabin!)? How is it that this super-dooper Novichok not only failed to kill Navalnyi (who, allegedly, ingested it!) but also failed to even moderately inconvenience anybody from the many people Navalnyi was surrounded by on that day?

I could continue to deconstruct all this nonsense, but that would take pages. I will mention two thing though:

First, the Russians have requested any and all evidence available to the Germans and to the Organization for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – but they got absolutely nothing in return. Yet the EU is demanding an investigation (which is already under way in Russia anyway!) as if the Russians did not want the exact same!

After being exposed to an improved Novichok and after weeks in coma in intensive care, here is Navalnyi trotting down stairs feeling great

Second, Navalnyi apparently has an immunity to otherwise deadly Russian biological agents, just take a look at him on this post-Novichok photo:

[By the way, the first time around the Brits also never gave the Russians any information, nevermind any kind of evidence. Apparently, to hide some super-secret secrets. Yeah, right!]

[Sep 26, 2020] The origin of Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine

Sep 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anatol Lieven's recent piece, How the west lost , describes this moral defeat of the 'west' after its dubious 'victory' in the cold war:

Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central message was:
...
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate, and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine" became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early 2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush declared in his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to the invasion of Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided into two armed camps now recognises one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America."

But that power has since failed in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, during the 2008 financial crisis and now again in the pandemic.

[Sep 26, 2020] A deal may be possible if the United States is ready to coordinate a new document on the basis of the balance of interests, parity and without expecting Russia to make unilateral concessions

Sep 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Sep 22 2020 22:55 utc | 37

An excellent look into the seemingly mundane but important business of negotiating arms control agreements is offered here: Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov's interview with the newspaper Kommersant, published on September 22, 2020 . Excerpt:

"For our part, we more than once described a balanced and mutually acceptable framework for future agreements in this sphere during our contacts with the American negotiators. Aware of the difficulties on the path forward in light of how widely different our approaches are, we proposed extending the New START as it was originally signed.

"We do not want any unilateral advantages, but we will not make any unilateral concessions either. A deal may be possible if the United States is ready to coordinate a new document on the basis of the balance of interests, parity and without expecting Russia to make unilateral concessions. But this will take time. We can have time to do this if the treaty is extended."

As predicted, the Outlaw US Empire makes an offer it knows will be refused so it can then blame Russia for being an unreliable negotiating partner--a trick we've all seen before.

Lavrov conducted a short interview with Sputnik mostly about Belarus and Ukraine and much of which is a rehash.

[Sep 26, 2020] Galloway- Lying industry may be the only sector of Western economies still in full production TAXPAYERS pay for it

Highly recommended!
Sep 26, 2020 | www.rt.com

If you have ever wondered why Syrian jihadists, or so-called 'moderate opposition', got support from the woke liberal West, a recent leak by Anonymous reveals it's because Western governments funded this propaganda.

In the end, it is the sheer childishness of the propaganda which amazes me most, not that our rulers lie about other countries – I have always known that. But somehow there was a kernel of truth around which the web of lies was spun, for example about life in the old Soviet Union.

I began to realise the scope of Western ability to literally invent the most baseless lies only in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, and only because I knew more about Iraq than any politician in Britain or America and ten times more than the average made-up telly-dolly chuntering through their auto-cued war propaganda. The women presenters weren't any better.

This all came flooding back to me when I received an email from Anonymous earlier this week and then read Ben Norton's excellent analysis of it all in The GrayZone.

If anyone ever wondered how the hordes of head-chopping throat-cutting heart-eating gay-murdering women-hating 'Jihadists' of the Syrian War ever managed to get a fair press in a 'woke' liberal West that gets hot under the lace collar about JK Rowling novels, the answers are all in the Anonymous leak . The principle answer is that you, the taxpayer, paid for it.

That's right. The blizzard of 'White Helmets' (who made it right up to the Oscars to thank everyone who'd helped them except those that had helped them the most), "chemical-weapons attacks" and all the paraphernalia of a newly "moderate opposition" in Syria – was all paid for by YOU. Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money was revealed to have been spent secretly on UK support for the throat-cutting coalition of chaos, which for a decade massacred its way across Syria wearing a snow-white Western beard of respectability.

It would appear that while the US (or rather its milk-cows in the Gulf) was paying for the lethal-weapons, perfidious Albion was doing what it does best – lying through its teeth whilst making those being lied to, pay for the privilege. Now that – thanks to the leaks – we know this, it should put us on guard for the next one. Yet somehow it doesn't, at least not for the purveyors of the news.

The Lazarus-like resurrection (and photo-shoot) of Russia's opposition figure and Western darling Alexey Navalny after yet another alleged Novichok (believed to be 5-8 times more toxic than VX nerve agent) attack without so much as a tracheostomy to show for it is swallowed whole in yet another anti-Russian public relations offensive.

ALSO ON RT.COM Caitlin Johnstone: MSM smear merchants target critics of Establishment China narratives

Grown sane men call my television show to talk about 'concentration camps' in China in which, we are told, "a million Uighur Muslims" are being held and forcibly sterilised. This is despite the allegations being largely based on studies backed by the American government and statements by Western media favourite, German researcher Adrian Zenz. Zenz, who is part of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a US-backed advocacy group, believes that he is "led by God" on his "mission" against China. Meanwhile, according to China's official statistics the Uighur population in Xinjiang province increased by over 25 percent between 2010 and 2018, while the Han Chinese rose by only two percent.

The lying industry may be the only sector of the Western economies still in full production. No need for furlough or bounce-back loans. The lie-machines never still. No smoke is usually detected from their chimneys, but inside, their pants are well and truly on fire.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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


[Sep 26, 2020] If you allow the hypothesis that Pevchickh she was part of a plot to get him "poisoned", lots of new questions pop up: did Navalny know, was he in on it?

Sep 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jen , Sep 23 2020 12:15 utc | 74

Thank you for the links, very interesting. I've seen several of the pics of Navalny, the heads look edited in, a bit too big, not quite aligned. This all seems very amateruish, like the Belorussian coup attempt. I'll bet they are connected more than we know.

I don't believe a bit of it. I haven't seem any evidence of life for Navalny except some not very convincing pictures.

The video of Ms Pevchickh is interesting too, she is very animated, works hard to get her point across.

If you allow she was part of a plot to get him "poisoned", lots of new questions pop up: did Navalny know, was he in on it? Was this supposed to tie in with the Belarus unrest, a distraction, something else? Who talked Merkel into going along and how? Is Heiko Maas really that dumb he thought this was going to work?

Anyway thanks.

Bemildred , Sep 23 2020 13:33 utc | 78

[Sep 26, 2020] I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS.

Notable quotes:
"... On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. ..."
Sep 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Sep 22 2020 22:53 utc | 36

On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. It would be satisfying to see the collective wisdom of the Parliament to exceed that of the BND. But then that is a low bar.

[Sep 25, 2020] The West has used against Russia the same memes and tropes the German Nazis used against Jews, the Soviet Union, and Slavic peoples.

Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Erelis , Sep 23 2020 0:26 utc | 45

Somewhat a side note, but has some relevance. The West has used against Russia the same memes and tropes the German Nazis used against Jews, the Soviet Union, and Slavic peoples. The great Jewish conspiracy to destroy German is being regurgitated as Putin wants to destroy American democracy. But the second half the Nazi attack was the Jews wanted to destroy European civilization, and not just Germany. This is where the crap about "rules based order" comes in. Some also used the term "liberal democracies". Same theme: Russian wants to destroy the entirety of the Western order--not just making sure Hillary lost the election (and now Biden).

But here is the thing. The West with American leadership looks at this struggle over a rules based order as a life and death struggle. It is not just about economic competition and dominance. The underlying propaganda base is rather deadly.

[Sep 25, 2020] The End Of The 'Rules Based International Order'

Notable quotes:
"... Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby ..."
"... In the early 2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." ..."
"... Bhadrakumar describes how the 'west', through its own behavior, created a mighty block that now opposes its dictates. He concludes ..."
"... Quintessentially, Russia and China contest a set of neoliberal practices that have evolved in the post-World War 2 international order validating selective use of human rights as a universal value to legitimise western intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. On the other hand, they also accept and continuously affirm their commitment to a number of fundamental precepts of the international order -- in particular, the primacy of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, the importance of international law, and the centrality of the United Nations and the key role of the Security Council. ..."
"... The rules are follow the dictates of our western neo-colonial institutions like the World Bank, the IMF et all. ..."
"... Its a pretty simple concept backed by the attack dog of the US military. ..."
"... 'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. The term was invented to avoid having to say 'rule of law', which invited criticism because even the most minimal amount of law (such as Geneva conventions, ICC etc) was rejected in practice and in policy by the leading members of the actually existing world order. ..."
"... Rumor says the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" also envisioned the balkanization of Russia (the document is still classified, but it leaked to a NYT journalist at the time, who published a report on it). ..."
"... It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the world. But as the "exceptionalist" western countries decline, they will go even crazier and crazier and there will be full blown hysteria. ..."
"... In this sense, the rule based order will be over as there will be only disorder and animalistic, crazed western rage and bullying. The West is like a trapped animal. It will start pouncing, raging and snarling like a wild animal. This is the real nature of the West. A hungry wild animal that needs to feed. ..."
"... But behind the liberal mask, there are hateful eyes and gnashing teeth, and hunger and greed for other people's resources. ..."
"... Expressed in words, the West's face says "I'm the best and you are nothing! Give me your stuff! And this is how it will forever be!" ..."
"... As Putin has said, the US is no longer agreement capable. ..."
"... Instead of bringing Russia into the Western liberal democracies (with the threat of major nuclear war now drastically reduced) the now Anglo-Zionist Empire just looted it. ..."
"... Actually the Trump Administration has done far more against Russia than all US administrations from the last 30 years. Do not listen what they say, look at what they do. Right now the US in a full blown Cold War with Russia with ever increasing attacks ..."
"... Rules based international order .... the U.S. functions as the the Supreme Court for the U.N. , 'we have invoked snapback sanctions and extended the arms embargo on Iran indefinitely and are enforcing it'. UN, 'but your vote failed'. ..."
"... Rules based International Order is the dog whistle for global private finance controlled economies. It is sad that we are in a civilization war with China/Russia about who runs international finance going forward and yet there is no discussion of the subject but instead all sorts of proxy conflicts. ..."
"... The US is not just facing relative decline -- the fact that others are catching up in key ways. The US is also facing absolute decline -- the fact that it is suffering a degradation of capacities and is losing competitive battles in key areas. Examples of absolute decline include the Russian and Chinese military-technological revolutions based on anti-ship and hypersonic missiles and air defense systems; Chinese 5G; China's demonstrative success in suppressing COVID and its overall manufacturing power; the declining quality of life for most Americans; and the collapse of American institutional competence. ..."
"... Related to this, we can't separate these dynamics from the political economy of the states in question. China, in particular, is showing that an interventionist state, with high levels of public ownership, is essential to qualitative power, human security, and economic and social development. ..."
"... Psssst, learning Russian is easier than Chinese and we already know a few Russian words, such as novichok. ..."
"... Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. [my emphasis] ..."
"... It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the world. ..."
"... The contest between the Empire and the upstarts is not over by a long shot. What the West HAS lost is the "inevitability" argument. But for the upstarts to actually prevail in their "multi-lateral" vision, they have to actually entice countries to join them despite threats and intimidation from the Empire. ..."
"... The Empire's power-elite KNOW that Russia, China, and allies of Russia-China don't want to be subject to their "rules-based order". The Empire is actively working to undermine, subvert, and divide the countries that oppose it. While also securing their own territories/population via intimidation and propaganda. ..."
"... On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. ..."
"... My late father as an army officer prosecuted Japanese war criminals for their atrocities now the Anglo-Zionists are the pre-eminent war criminals and their leaders loudly proclaim "our values" as a pathological and propagandistic form of projection. Is it possible they are unaware of their blatant hypocrisy ? ..."
"... There is no "international law" and no "international order." There is only relative power. And when those powers clash, as seems inevitable, the world is in for a major nuclear war, and probably preceded by several more regional wars. Meanwhile, the US internally is collapsing into economic disaster, social unrest, political and social oppression, infrastructure failure, and medical disasters. We'll probably be in martial law sometime between November 3 and January 21 if not beyond that period, just for starters. ..."
"... America's "Rules-Based International Order" is a Goebbelsian euphemism for a Lies-Based Imperial Order, led by the USA and its war criminal allies (aka the self-styled Free World). ..."
"... The true nature of this America-led order is exposed by the USA's war of aggression against Iraq (which violated international law and had no United Nations sanction) and its decades-long War on Terrorism, which have murdered hundreds of thousands of people and maimed, immiserated, or refugeed millions of more people. ..."
"... The Empire is very much alive and dangerous. Ask Iran, ask Syria, as the Palestinians, ask the Russians, ask the Chinese. Ask numerous African nations. Even Pangloss was not so stupidly naive. ..."
"... quite right. 'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. ie US and its "allies" is basically asking the rest of the world to finance their (the US et al) version of a welfare state. ..."
"... China and rest of the worlds foreign central banks stopped growing their foreign exchange reserves (on net) in 2014 leaving the US in a sort of limbo. ..."
"... "Major powers maintaining cooperation, at least not engaging in Cold War-style antagonism, is the important foundation of world peace. China is committed to maintaining cooperation among major powers, as well as being flexible in the balance of interests acceptable to all parties. The problem is the Trump administration is hysterically shaping decoupling and confrontation between Beijing and Washington, and has been mobilizing more forces to its side at home and abroad. Those US policymakers are deliberately splitting the world like during the Cold War. ..."
"... The first 'Cold War' was entirely contrived. The US knew the Soviet Union was weak and had no agenda beyond maintaining security and its own reconstruction after WW2. There was no threat of a Western European invasion, or of the USSR spreading revolution globally. All that Cold War ideology is a lie. And the same lying is taking place about China today. No difference. ..."
"... It's good to see discussion here of the nefarious role of the American far-right neocon warmongers in the State Department, intelligence services and military leadership just before the turn of the new century. What I have never seen clearly explained, however, is the connection between these very dangerous forces and the equally cynical and reactionary Israeli politicians and the Mossad, as well as Saudi Arabian officials. ..."
Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

The 'western' countries, i.e. the United States and its 'allies', love to speak of a 'rules based international order' which they say everyone should follow. That 'rules based order' is a way more vague concept than the actual rule of law:

The G7 is united by its shared values and commitment to a rules based international order. That order is being challenged by authoritarianism, serious violations of human rights, exclusion and discrimination, humanitarian and security crises, and the defiance of international law and standards.

As members of the G7, we are convinced that our societies and the world have reaped remarkable benefits from a global order based on rules and underscore that this system must have at its heart the notions of inclusion, democracy and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, diversity, and the rule of law.

That the 'rules based international order' is supposed to include vague concepts of 'democracy', 'human rights', 'fundamental freedoms', 'diversity' and more makes it easy to claim that this or that violation of the 'rules based international order' has occurred. Such violations can then be used to impose punishment in the form of sanctions or war.

That the above definition was given by a minority of a few rich nations makes it already clear that it can not be a global concept for a multilateral world. That would require a set of rules that everyone has agreed to. We already had and have such a system. It is called international law. But at the end of the cold war the 'west' began to ignore the actual international law and to replace it with its own rules which others were then supposed to follow. That hubris has come back to bite the 'west'.

Anatol Lieven's recent piece, How the west lost , describes this moral defeat of the 'west' after its dubious 'victory' in the cold war:

Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central message was:
...
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate, and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine" became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early 2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush declared in his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to the invasion of Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America."

But that power has since failed in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, during the 2008 financial crisis and now again in the pandemic. It also created new competition to its role due to its own behavior:

On the one hand, American moves to extend Nato to the Baltics and then (abortively) on to Ukraine and Georgia, and to abolish Russian influence and destroy Russian allies in the Middle East, inevitably produced a fierce and largely successful Russian nationalist reaction. ...

On the other hand, the benign and neglectful way in which Washington regarded the rise of China in the generation after the Cold War (for example, the blithe decision to allow China to join the World Trade Organisation) was also rooted in ideological arrogance.

Western triumphalism meant that most of the US elites were convinced that as a result of economic growth, the Chinese Communist state would either democratise or be overthrown; and that China would eventually have to adopt the western version of economics or fail economically. This was coupled with the belief that good relations with China could be predicated on China accepting a so-called "rules-based" international order in which the US set the rules while also being free to break them whenever it wished; something that nobody with the slightest knowledge of Chinese history should have believed.

The retired Indian ambassador M.K. Bhadrakumar touches on the same points in an excellent series about the new Chinese-Russian alliance:

Bhadrakumar describes how the 'west', through its own behavior, created a mighty block that now opposes its dictates. He concludes:

Quintessentially, Russia and China contest a set of neoliberal practices that have evolved in the post-World War 2 international order validating selective use of human rights as a universal value to legitimise western intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. On the other hand, they also accept and continuously affirm their commitment to a number of fundamental precepts of the international order -- in particular, the primacy of state sovereignty and territorial integrity, the importance of international law, and the centrality of the United Nations and the key role of the Security Council.

While the U.S. wants a vague 'rules based international order' China and Russia emphasize an international order that is based on the rule of law. Two recent comments by leaders from China and Russia underline this.

In a speech in honor of the UN's 75th anniversary China's President Xi Jinping emphasized law based multilateralism :

China firmly supports the United Nations' central role in global affairs and opposes any country acting like boss of the world, President Xi Jinping said on Monday.
...
"No country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others or keep advantages in development all to itself," Xi said.

Noting that the UN must stand firm for justice, Xi said that mutual respect and equality among all countries, big or small, is the foremost principle of the UN Charter.

No country should be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon or bully, Xi said. "Unilateralism is a dead end," he said.
...
International laws should not be distorted or used as a pretext to undermine other countries' legitimate rights and interests or world peace and stability, he added.

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went even further by outright rejecting the 'western rules' that the 'rules based international order' implies:

Ideas that Russia and China will play by sets of Western rules under any circumstances are deeply flawed , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with New York-based international Russian-language RTVI channel.

"I was reading our political scientists who are well known in the West. The following idea is becoming louder and more pronounced: it is time to stop applying Western metrics to our actions and stop trying to be liked by the West at any cost . These are very reputable people and a rather serious statement. It is clear to me that the West is wittingly or unwittingly pushing us towards this analysis. It is likely to be done unwittingly," Lavrov noted. "However, it is a big mistake to think that Russia will play by Western rules in any case, just like thinking this in terms of China."

As an alliance China and Russia have all the raw materials, energy, engineering and industrial capabilities, agriculture and populations needed to be completely independent from the 'west'. They have no need nor any desire to follow dubious rules dictated by other powers. There is no way to make them do so. As M.K. Bhadrakumar concludes :

The US cannot overwhelm that alliance unless it defeats both China and Russia together, simultaneously. The alliance, meanwhile, also happens to be on the right side of history. Time works in its favour, as the decline of the US in relative comprehensive national power and global influence keeps advancing and the world gets used to the "post-American century."

---
P.S.
On a lighter note: RT , Russia's state sponsored international TV station, has recently hired Donald Trump (vid). He will soon host his own reality show on RT . The working title is reportedly: "Putin's Apprentice". The apprenticeship might give him a chance to learn how a nation that has failed can be resurrected to its former glory.

Posted by b on September 22, 2020 at 17:59 UTC | Permalink


Kali , Sep 22 2020 18:18 utc | 1

The Liberal International Order or Pax Americana are synonyms for The Rules Based Order. The plan that was followed for years was the outline given by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral Commission in The Grand Chessboard to "contain" the ambition of Russia, China, and Iran over their interest to expand into Central Asia and the Middle East. Brzezinski changed in 2016, so did Kissinger, Brzezinski wrote that it was time to make peace and to integrate with Russia, China and Iran. But the elites had changed by then, newer people had taken over and no longer followed Brzezinski.
circumspect , Sep 22 2020 18:27 utc | 2
The rules are follow the dictates of our western neo-colonial institutions like the World Bank, the IMF et all. We will own you and you will do what we say and those are the rules. Any challenge to our authority will lead to war, economic ruin or both.

Its a pretty simple concept backed by the attack dog of the US military.

ptb , Sep 22 2020 18:37 utc | 3
'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. The term was invented to avoid having to say 'rule of law', which invited criticism because even the most minimal amount of law (such as Geneva conventions, ICC etc) was rejected in practice and in policy by the leading members of the actually existing world order.
Patrick Armstrong , Sep 22 2020 18:52 utc | 4
Can't resist tooting my own horn.
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/04/29/the-west-actually-lost-the-cold-war-it-turned-victory-into-defeat/
vk , Sep 22 2020 19:05 utc | 5
Rumor says the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" also envisioned the balkanization of Russia (the document is still classified, but it leaked to a NYT journalist at the time, who published a report on it).

.. .. ..

Passer by , Sep 22 2020 19:43 utc | 9
It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the world. But as the "exceptionalist" western countries decline, they will go even crazier and crazier and there will be full blown hysteria.

In this sense, the rule based order will be over as there will be only disorder and animalistic, crazed western rage and bullying. The West is like a trapped animal. It will start pouncing, raging and snarling like a wild animal. This is the real nature of the West. A hungry wild animal that needs to feed.

All the liberalism is just self-congratulation about how exceptionalist it is. It is born out of narcisism and self-obsession during the "good times" of the West.

But behind the liberal mask, there are hateful eyes and gnashing teeth, and hunger and greed for other people's resources.

The real face of it is hateful and snarling. And it will be fully exposed during the next 10 years, as the West goes crazy and it becomes a hungry wild animal that desperately needs to feed.

Expressed in words, the West's face says "I'm the best and you are nothing! Give me your stuff! And this is how it will forever be!"

Countries need to stay out from the wild animal and carry a big stick just in case, until it succumbs from its internal hatreds and contradictions.

gepay , Sep 22 2020 19:44 utc | 11

As Putin has said, the US is no longer agreement capable. As b. outlines. the US elites no longer follow the rule of law. This is even true within the US. The US inherited the role formerly played by the British Empire after WW2.

The national security apparatus of both the US and the Soviet Union kept the Cold War going. Notice how soon after JFK was assassinated Khrushchev was deposed. Gorbachev rightly stopped the Soviets superpower regime. As Dmitri Orlov points out - Empire hollowed out the Soviet Union and he sees it doing the same to the US.

Instead of bringing Russia into the Western liberal democracies (with the threat of major nuclear war now drastically reduced) the now Anglo-Zionist Empire just looted it. The life expectancy of Russians fell 7 years in a decade until rescued by Putin.

It can now be seen that the Nixon-Kissinger opening up to China was not to gain access to its large market potential but to gain access to hundreds of millions of cheap, disciplined, and educated workers. The elites starting in the 70s became greedier. Jet travel,electronic communication, and computers allowed the outsourcing of manufacture.

The spread of air conditioning allowed even the too hot south to be a location. First in the US as the factories began their march through the non union southern states onto Mexico. Management from the north could now live in air conditioned houses, drive air conditioned cars and work in air conditioned offices.

The 70s oil inflation led to stagnation as the unionized labor were powerful enough to get cost of living raises. With the globalization of labor union power in the US has been destroyed. As Eric X Li points out China's one party rule actually changes policies easier than the Western democracies.

So China's government hasn't joined in with the West in just creating wealth for the top 1% and debt for the real economy.

As b. pointed out, the Anglo Zionist policies created the mutual benefit partnership of Russia and China. The Chinese belt and road initiative appears to be intent on creating a large trading zone that could benefit those involved. The US is just using sanctions and the military to turn sovereign functioning countries that don't go along with it into failed states and their infrastructure turned to rubble

Roy G , Sep 22 2020 20:11 utc | 13
Now, the US is forced into puppeteering the UN in order to maintain the illusion of the 'rules based order,' even as it slides further and further away from any meaningful international cooperation:

Fortunately for the world, the United States took responsible action to stop this from happening. In accordance with our rights under UNSCR 2231, we initiated the snapback process to restore virtually all previously terminated UN sanctions, including the arms embargo. The world will be safer as a result.

The United States expects all UN Member States to fully comply with their obligations to implement these measures. In addition to the arms embargo, this includes restrictions such as the ban on Iran engaging in enrichment and reprocessing-related activities, the prohibition on ballistic missile testing and development by Iran, and sanctions on the transfer of nuclear- and missile-related technologies to Iran, among others. If UN Member States fail to fulfill their obligations to implement these sanctions, the United States is prepared to use our domestic authorities to impose consequences for those failures and ensure that Iran does not reap the benefits of UN-prohibited activity.

https://www.state.gov/the-return-of-un-sanctions-on-the-islamic-republic-of-iran/

Passer by , Sep 22 2020 20:15 utc | 16
Any type of enmity btw the two countries under Trump is pure theater.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Sep 22 2020 20:07 utc | 10

Actually the Trump Administration has done far more against Russia than all US administrations from the last 30 years. Do not listen what they say, look at what they do. Right now the US in a full blown Cold War with Russia with ever increasing attacks.

foolisholdman , Sep 22 2020 20:22 utc | 17
Pompeo talks more or less continually about "China's bullying behaviour". To me it is wonderful that he can say this with a straight face. (Perhaps it is a result of his lessons in the CIA on "how to lie better".)All the countries that have engaged with China have benefitted from it, whether as salesmen or as recipients of aid or loans at advantageous rates. The countries that have engaged with America have mostly (All?) lost. (The fifty+ countries invaded and wrecked since WW2 or the NATO "allies" or the countries attacked with sanctions.) Either their economies were destroyed or billions upon billions of dollars were paid to the US MIC. The NATO member countries have got what from their membership? Formerly, they had "Protection" from an imaginary Soviet threat, more recently "Protection" from an equally imaginary Russian threat! Some bargain, that!
Christian J. Chuba , Sep 22 2020 20:38 utc | 18
Rules based international order .... the U.S. functions as the the Supreme Court for the U.N. , 'we have invoked snapback sanctions and extended the arms embargo on Iran indefinitely and are enforcing it'. UN, 'but your vote failed'.

U.S, 'we have the right to seize cargo between any two countries transported in international waters based on U.S. federal appeals court decision even though the transaction in no way involves the U.S. We call this Freedom of Navigation and why we need to have aircraft carriers in the South China Sea and Arabian Gulf'

We are completely and totally insane.

psychohistorian , Sep 22 2020 20:41 utc | 19
Rules based International Order is the dog whistle for global private finance controlled economies. It is sad that we are in a civilization war with China/Russia about who runs international finance going forward and yet there is no discussion of the subject but instead all sorts of proxy conflicts.

Thanks for the posting b as it gets to the core myths around the global private finance jackboot on the neck of countries in the West.

profk , Sep 22 2020 20:59 utc | 22
The US is not just facing relative decline -- the fact that others are catching up in key ways. The US is also facing absolute decline -- the fact that it is suffering a degradation of capacities and is losing competitive battles in key areas. Examples of absolute decline include the Russian and Chinese military-technological revolutions based on anti-ship and hypersonic missiles and air defense systems; Chinese 5G; China's demonstrative success in suppressing COVID and its overall manufacturing power; the declining quality of life for most Americans; and the collapse of American institutional competence.

Related to this, we can't separate these dynamics from the political economy of the states in question. China, in particular, is showing that an interventionist state, with high levels of public ownership, is essential to qualitative power, human security, and economic and social development.

Capitalism might enrich a few, but it is the primary cause of America's relative and absolute decline.

jayc , Sep 22 2020 21:01 utc | 23
US and allied military analysts have been talking over the last year or so of the need to enter a single focus and total "wartime" posture throughout our societies, with all financial and industrial output directed to the "war". This has influenced the information/ propaganda efforts, but also the uptick in military manoeuvres around Taiwan and renewed NATO pressure directed at Russia (including the recent provocative B52 flights). Don't think Russia/China can be tricked into over-reacting, but some kind of loss-of-life military confrontation may be what the rules-based side is looking for as the population at large will probably not accept a "wartime sacrifice" regimen without such.
Kiza , Sep 22 2020 21:26 utc | 26
Very well written article.

Whilst Russia and China are creating a truly new, unique and creative alliance and a market of everything, in Australia the "authorities" are sicking their police dogs on poor grannies sitting on park benches. This image of five brainless armed state goons in a show of force over two quiet little grannies really puts things into perspective. It must be that New World Order that Soros and puppets always talked about.

Psssst, learning Russian is easier than Chinese and we already know a few Russian words, such as novichok.

Leser , Sep 22 2020 21:42 utc | 29
Great analysis b and connecting the dots.

The post scriptum stopped the clock for me. Has our host slipped into our drink there a profound prophecy, disguised as jesting?

Many agree something big will happen (break?) soon, possibly with the elections. The other thing is the Americans' ability to change course, drop all baggage, and run off in a new, even the opposite direction with unfettered enthusiasm (and ferocity). No people has a greater capacity for almost instant renewal, once it chooses to.

I also notice that the spoof takes good aim at The Donald's peculiarities, though in a fair and human way. The proverbial Russian warmth, or a humorous invitation?

Meanwhile, I enjoy my newfound optimism in these dark times. Thanks b!

uncle tungsten , Sep 22 2020 21:59 utc | 32
Thanks b and on Anatol Lieven in the Prospect story (fairy story?)...
Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. [my emphasis]

Lieven simply does not see it. Has it ever occurred to Lieven that colonialism just might be rejected by both Russia and China and that there might be no competition? Does Lieven watch too much football?

What is it that endangers the world in Lieven's petite cortex? This verbose Lieven tosh is littered with fancy sentences trawled from here and there but always presented to us from a narrow dimensional mind with limited analysis and seemingly zero interrogation.

again:- "then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world"...

So Lieven thinks the current behaviour of the US hegemon and its collaborator the UK is innocuous? These were the two nations that blithely squandered the "peace dividend" from the end of cold war as he describes and have led us to this time of perpetual war. A perpetual war that he does not mention, does not allude to, does not treat as an important driver behind the current global mistrust and disengagement from the USUK drive for global dominance.

Lieven is putting lipstick on his pig and screaming about losing the competition to the imagined wolf outside his prison.

Beneath contempt.

Jackrabbit , Sep 22 2020 22:09 utc | 33
Passer by @Sep22 19:43 #8
It is not over in the sense that the West hasn't given up in its attempts to take over the world.
I agree. The contest between the Empire and the upstarts is not over by a long shot. What the West HAS lost is the "inevitability" argument. But for the upstarts to actually prevail in their "multi-lateral" vision, they have to actually entice countries to join them despite threats and intimidation from the Empire.

_________________________________

Passer by @Sep22 20:15 #14

Right now the US in a full blown Cold War with Russia with ever increasing attacks.
Yes. We still see the narratives like of Trump as Putin-lover despite the debunking of Russiagate and the clear evidence of Cold War tensions. The incessant propaganda reeks of desperation.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Some seem to think that the Empire is cornered.

Aha! We've got you now, you scoundrels!

LOL.

The Empire's power-elite KNOW that Russia, China, and allies of Russia-China don't want to be subject to their "rules-based order". The Empire is actively working to undermine, subvert, and divide the countries that oppose it. While also securing their own territories/population via intimidation and propaganda.

!!

uncle tungsten , Sep 22 2020 22:53 utc | 36
On rules based disorder and the capitulation of Merkel and her BND lapdogs to the 'hate Russia' fulminations of the UKUSA morons. I see that the German Parliament has NOT TAKEN its red pills these days and is reluctant to swallow the BS. It would be satisfying to see the collective wisdom of the Parliament to exceed that of the BND. But then that is a low bar.
karlof1 , Sep 22 2020 22:55 utc | 37
An excellent look into the seemingly mundane but important business of negotiating arms control agreements is offered here: Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov's interview with the newspaper Kommersant, published on September 22, 2020 . Excerpt:

"For our part, we more than once described a balanced and mutually acceptable framework for future agreements in this sphere during our contacts with the American negotiators. Aware of the difficulties on the path forward in light of how widely different our approaches are, we proposed extending the New START as it was originally signed.

"We do not want any unilateral advantages, but we will not make any unilateral concessions either. A deal may be possible if the United States is ready to coordinate a new document on the basis of the balance of interests, parity and without expecting Russia to make unilateral concessions. But this will take time. We can have time to do this if the treaty is extended."

As predicted, the Outlaw US Empire makes an offer it knows will be refused so it can then blame Russia for being an unreliable negotiating partner--a trick we've all seen before.

Lavrov conducted a short interview with Sputnik mostly about Belarus and Ukraine and much of which is a rehash.

Passer by , Sep 22 2020 23:07 utc | 39
@Jackrabbit | Sep 22 2020 22:09 utc | 31

I agree. The contest between the Empire and the upstarts is not over by a long shot. What the West HAS lost is the "inevitability" argument. But for the upstarts to actually prevail in their "multi-lateral" vision, they have to actually entice countries to join them despite threats and intimidation from the Empire.

Yes, the big question remaining is to predict what will happen and when. This is what the real deal is. And I'm sure they are working on that in the Intel agencies. It can certainly be predicted that the US and the EU will be significantly weaker in 2030 that today. Will this be enough is the question.

We now have some new information about US long term health as published by CBO. Very interesting numbers.

They predict lower population growth and lower GDP growth for the US than previously estimated, as well as higher debt rates. US federal debt is to reach 195 % of GDP by 2050 under best case scenario.

http://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-2020-long-term-budget-outlook

Analysts also seem to agree that the Covid 19 crisis further weakened the US vis a vis China, as the Chinese economy significantly outperformed almost everyone else this year, more than expected before the crisis.

I will also mention two important recent numbers. This year:

1. China, for the first time, became the biggest trading partner for the EU, beating the US.

2. China's retail market overtook the one of the US.

kiwiklown , Sep 22 2020 23:41 utc | 41
Posted by: vk | Sep 22 2020 19:05 utc | 4 -- "....Eurasia is where most of human civilization lives, it's the "World Island" - the world island not in the military sense, but in the economic sense. Every path to human prosperity passes through Eurasia - that's why the USA can't "let it alone" in the first place, while the reverse is not true, that is, Eurasia can give to the luxury of letting the Americas alone."

Excellent observation, VK.

Even if the World Island (thanks for your formulation) trades with itself, within itself, there is sufficient mass to last a century, during which the arrogantly exceptional West might just wake up from their Century of Humiliation.

Meanwhile, inertia alone will ensure that the West forgets that their vaunted "civilisation" was fed, watered, enriched by the Silk Route that came from the East -- from the Middle Kingdom (China) and from the Middle East (which is "middle", as you pointed out above, because all wealth passes through that region).

Paul , Sep 23 2020 0:02 utc | 43
Yes there are rules which are observed more by their breach than their observance: The Geneva Conventions. Just ask Julian Assange.

I find it incredible that the Anglo-Zionist captive nations can sign, ratify, incorporate into domestic law and then sign the additional protocol, making themselves high contracting parties, which requires them to report all and any breaches to Geneva, then ignore all the above commitments. One of these commitments includes educating their citizens on the basic provisions of the conventions. Again they haven't bothered, that could expose their hypocrisy to the public.

Even the bandit statelet signed but I am yet to see just one example of its application in the seventy plus years of its barbaric and bloodthirsty occupation of Palestine.

Interestingly, the conventions prohibit the occupied from signing away one iota of their territory to the occupier. So much for what Claude Pictet's Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention calls "alleged annexations." This book is available from the ICRC.

My late father as an army officer prosecuted Japanese war criminals for their atrocities now the Anglo-Zionists are the pre-eminent war criminals and their leaders loudly proclaim "our values" as a pathological and propagandistic form of projection. Is it possible they are unaware of their blatant hypocrisy ?

It seems the New World Order has some familiar and unsurprising antecedents:

https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/452693/New-world-order-pledged-to-Jews-80-years-ago

Hold on tight, hubris is always fatal:

https://asiatimes.com/2020/09/pompeo-threatens-to-light-the-fuse-in-persian-gulf/

Jen , Sep 23 2020 0:09 utc | 44
Uncle Tungsten @ 30:

Anatol Lieven comes from an educated and cultured family in Britain's upper middle class layer. His older siblings - he is the youngest of five children - include a High Court judge (Dame Natalie Lieven), a Cambridge University professor / historian (Dominic Lieven) and a psychologist / linguistics researcher (Elena Lieven). They haven't done badly for a family from the old Baltic German aristocratic elite that used to serve the Russian empire as administrators for the Livonia governorate.

The British Lievens might see themselves as gatekeepers and interpreters of what the ruling classes desire (or appear to desire) and communicate that down to us. Hence their positions in intellectual and academic occupations - no engineers, technicians or academics in the physical or biological sciences among their number.

Anatol Lieven is right though about "competition", in the sense I believe he is using it: it is "competition" for supposed global leadership and influence as only the British and Americans understand it. Life as British and American elites understand it is the annual football competition writ large; there can only be one winner and the worst position to be in is second place and every other place below it. Never mind that what Russia and China have in mind is a vision of the world with multiple and overlapping leadership roles dispersed among nations according to various criteria: this ideal is simply too much for the Anglosphere elites to understand, let alone digest and accept.

Still, I wonder why Anatol Lieven is teaching in a university in Qatar of all places. Family influence and reputation must only go so far.

Richard Steven Hack , Sep 23 2020 0:54 utc | 47
Posted by: lizard | Sep 22 2020 21:59 utc | 29

if you aren't at least a little prepared for a disruption in critical supplies, and choose instead to waste time commenting on online forums, it won't matter how up to date you are on "rules based international order" vs. "international law". at that point the reality will be something like this: if you aren't holding it, you don't have it, and if you can't defend it, you won't be keeping it for long.

Got that absolutely right.

There is no "international law" and no "international order." There is only relative power. And when those powers clash, as seems inevitable, the world is in for a major nuclear war, and probably preceded by several more regional wars. Meanwhile, the US internally is collapsing into economic disaster, social unrest, political and social oppression, infrastructure failure, and medical disasters. We'll probably be in martial law sometime between November 3 and January 21 if not beyond that period, just for starters.

This month is National Preparedness Month. I recommend watching the following videos from well-known "preppers" who have been warning about this stuff for years.

78 Days Will Determine the Fate of America
5 Things You Need To Do Before the U.S. Election

A playlist of 23 videos for National Preparedness Month:
30 Days of Preparedness Collaboration - 2020

And this one from The Urban Prepper, an IT guy who is exceptionally well organized and logical in his videos. I recommend subscribing to his channel. He avoids most of the excessive "doom and gloom" hype that afflicts a lot of prepper channels and is oriented more about urban survival than "backwoods bushcraft" since most people live in cities.
Prepping 101: Prepping Architecture Diagram for Gear Organization

And if you don't watch anything else, watch this one from Canadian Prepper - he's absolutely right in this one and it specifically applies to the barflies here:
What is Really Going On? Its WORSE Than You Think

Jun , Sep 23 2020 1:06 utc | 48
Meanwhile, inertia alone will ensure that the West forgets that their vaunted "civilisation" was fed, watered, enriched by the Silk Route that came from the East -- from the Middle Kingdom (China) and from the Middle East (which is "middle", as you pointed out above, because all wealth passes through that region).
Posted by: kiwiklown | Sep 22 2020 23:41 utc | 39

============================================================================================

Thereby we have the answer to America's longest war:

https://twitter.com/danieldumbrill/status/1290456155286900737?lang=en

Richard Steven Hack , Sep 23 2020 1:19 utc | 50
Oh, and this one from Canadian Prepper in which he muses about whether and why we actually *want* the SHTF situation to occur. This one would resonate with a lot of the commentary here about the social malaise and the psychological reasons for it. Maybe nothing really new for some, but definitely relevant.

Society is Collapsing: Prepare for the Next Phase

uncle tungsten , Sep 23 2020 1:47 utc | 51
Jen #42
Still, I wonder why Anatol Lieven is teaching in a university in Qatar of all places. Family influence and reputation must only go so far.

Thank you that backgrounder explains a lot. Perhaps like Englanders before him he finds Qatar, safe and rewarding PLUS mounds of finest hashish and titillating company. From my understanding it is a grotesque abuser of human rights and everyone has a price.

ak74 , Sep 23 2020 2:15 utc | 52
America's "Rules-Based International Order" is a Goebbelsian euphemism for a Lies-Based Imperial Order, led by the USA and its war criminal allies (aka the self-styled Free World).

The true nature of this America-led order is exposed by the USA's war of aggression against Iraq (which violated international law and had no United Nations sanction) and its decades-long War on Terrorism, which have murdered hundreds of thousands of people and maimed, immiserated, or refugeed millions of more people. These crimes against humanity have been justified by Orwellian American lies about "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "fighting terrorism," or the curious events of Sept. 11th.

This America "Rules-Based" order is one drenched in the blood of millions of people--even as it sanctimoniously disguises itself behind endless propaganda about defending liberal democracy or the rule of law.

Truly, America and its allies can take their malignant Rules-Based Disorder back to Hell, where they all belong.

Two decades of US "war on terror" responsible for displacing at least 37 million people and killing up to 12 million
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/09/09/cost-s09.html?view=print

Erelis , Sep 23 2020 3:01 utc | 53
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 23 2020 0:50 utc | 44

"Thus your "side note" has no "relevance" whatsoever."

You sound like some podunk UN official from a podunk country trying to impress a waitress in a NYC bar. The Empire is very much alive and dangerous. Ask Iran, ask Syria, as the Palestinians, ask the Russians, ask the Chinese. Ask numerous African nations. Even Pangloss was not so stupidly naive.

uncle tungsten , Sep 23 2020 3:02 utc | 54
Jun #46

Thank you - YES that is the answer and always has been PLUS there will be no pipeline from Iran through Afghanistan to Pakistan and on to China. There will be NO overland pipeline or rail route to sound the death knell to the maritime mafia.

milomilo , Sep 23 2020 3:33 utc | 55
Please vote for trump 2020. no president destroy America from inside like what trump did. The goal is to accelerate American empire destruction and grip in this world. What better way to put such clown along his circus in white house. he will make a mess of everything and will definitely bring America down

i hope he win 2020 and America explode into civil war and chaos. With America destroyed internally , they wont have time to invade Venezuela or Iran

milomilo , Sep 23 2020 3:37 utc | 56
Remember , if Biden win 2020 , American foreign policy will revert into normalcy that means seeking alliance with EU and 5 eyes in a more meaningful way , aka giving them preferential treatment on trade..

all that to box in china and russia , reenable TPP , initiate the delayed venezuela overt invasion other than covert

this is dangerous for the whole world , not that it will save US in the long run but it will increase real shooting conflict with china and russia.. So focus on trump victory in 2020 , the more controversial the win the better , lets push america into chaos

defaultcitizen , Sep 23 2020 3:41 utc | 57
I appreciate the time and thought that goes into a post like this; all without a popup ad trying to sell me ANOTHER item I just bought via Amazon, in spite of the fact that I am among the least likely to want another right now. Voice of reason crying in the wilderness and all that.

The rule The Capitalist Ogres promote as the heart of Civilization is simply the age-old Golden Rule. Those with the gold, make the rules.

j. casey , Sep 23 2020 12:28 utc | 75
In the very short-term (3 months?) what is the outcome of US/Nato seizure of ships and cargo in international water?
chris m , Sep 23 2020 13:42 utc | 79
@ptb
quite right. 'Rules based order' was always a euphemism for exceptionalism of one kind or another. ie US and its "allies" is basically asking the rest of the world to finance their (the US et al) version of a welfare state.

as US et al can no longer fund their own unaffordable welfare promises made to their own electorates, they have to call on the rest of the world to do so (China has been effectively funding the US budget deficit since they entered the WTO.
and the EU (mainly Germany) was doing the same before China's entry into WTO)

China and rest of the worlds foreign central banks stopped growing their foreign exchange reserves (on net) in 2014
leaving the US in a sort of limbo.

chris m , Sep 23 2020 13:47 utc | 80
PS addendum: if you've ever wondered who has been financing the GWOT since 2001; it was the Chinese.
karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 15:21 utc | 82
chris m @80--

Well, you're sorta correct; it was all those nations including China that bought Outlaw US Empire debt. China certainly knows better now and for almost a decade now it's purchases--and those of the rest of the world -- of said debt have declined to the point where a huge crisis related to the debt pyramid threatens all those aside from the 1% living within the Outlaw US Empire. The Judo involved was very instructive.

karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 16:21 utc | 85
"Trump's UN address censured" headlines Global Times article that reviews yesterday's UNGA. Domestic BigLie Media didn't like what it heard from Trump:

"Commenting on the US' performance, many Western media tended to view US as being 'isolated,' and its unilateral efforts 'widely derided....'

"Some US media outlets cannot stand Trump's accusations. A WSJ report said many Democrats blamed Trump for "isolating the US and diluting American influence in the WHO or other bodies."

It went on to say Trump's threat of withdrawal is often used as leverage to "influence partner countries, or get allies to pay more for shared defense."

"Some US media linked Trump's address to his widely blamed effort to re-impose sanctions on Iran, saying his address came as 'UN members push back against Washington,' AP reported.

"Wednesday's Washington Post article reported that the Trump administration walked on a 'lonely path' at the UN where the US attacked WHO, and embarked on the 'widely derided' effort to snap back Iran sanctions.

"A week before the UN General Assembly, US media NPR predicted that the US 'appeared to be isolated' at this year's General Assembly, saying that Trump's 'America First' agenda left him out of sync with America's traditional allies as it has a long record of pulling out of international agreements, including one meant to tackle the world's climate crisis."

So, Trump's attack on China's environmental record was beyond hypocritical and ought to be termed psychopathic prevarication. The best comment from the article well describes the Trumptroll @53:

"'Trump's smears and attacks against China were apparently aimed at campaigning for his reelection. Only his die-hard fans - those who do not care about truth but support him - will buy his words ,' Ding Yifan, a researcher at the Institute of World Development of the Development Research Center of the State Council, told the Global Times." [My Emphasis]

And isn't that really the basic issue--the truth? 75 years of lies by the Outlaw US Empire to cover it's continuous illegalities and subversion of its own fundamental law while killing and displacing tens of millions of people. Guardian of the Free World my ass! More like Guardian of the Gates of Hell.

vk , Sep 23 2020 16:40 utc | 86
More on the situation of the "rules based international order":

The Eurozone economy stopped recovering and stagnated in September (PMI)

And here's a more general picture on the state of global capitalism today:

The 90% world economy (UNCTAD report)

karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 16:45 utc | 87
Yes, I'm biased, but anyone seeking truth and invoking the Rule of Law would find themselves at odds with the Outlaw US Empire. Today's Global Times Editorial makes the following key observations:

"Major powers maintaining cooperation, at least not engaging in Cold War-style antagonism, is the important foundation of world peace. China is committed to maintaining cooperation among major powers, as well as being flexible in the balance of interests acceptable to all parties. The problem is the Trump administration is hysterically shaping decoupling and confrontation between Beijing and Washington, and has been mobilizing more forces to its side at home and abroad. Those US policymakers are deliberately splitting the world like during the Cold War.

"The impulse to promote a cold war is the ultimate version of unilateralism, and shows dangerous and mistaken arrogance that the US is almighty. Everyone knows that the US is declining in its competitiveness under the rules-based international system the US itself initiated and created. It wants to build a new system more beneficial to itself, and allow the US to maintain its advantage without making any effort. This is simply impossible."

My research is pointing me to conclude the First Cold War was contrived so the Outlaw US Empire could impose privately owned finance and corporations and the political-economies connected to them upon the world lest the collective forces that were the ones to actually defeat Fascism gain control of their national governments and shape their political-economies into the public/collectively owned realm where the benefits would flow to all people instead of just the already powerful. That's also the intent of imposing a Second Cold War. Some seem to think there's no ideological divide at play, but as I've ceaselessly explained there most certainly is, thus the intense demonization of both Russia and China--the Strategic Competition also is occurring in the realm of Ideas. And the only tools available for the Outlaw US Empire to use are lies, since the truths involved would encourage any neutral nation to join the Win-Win vision of China and Russia, not the Zero-sum bankruptcy pushed by the Parasites controlling the Empire.

psychohistorian , Sep 23 2020 17:07 utc | 88
@ karlof1 | Sep 23 2020 15:56 utc | 84 and forward with the links and quotes...thanks

I do like the confirmation Pepe quote, thanks

It is sad to understand that much of the US population does not have the mental clarity to see that Trump is no different than Biden when it comes to fealty to the God of Mammon. Way too many Americans think that replacing Trump with Biden will make things all better.

The end of the rules based international order/global private finance cannot end soon enough, IMO

Timothy Hagios , Sep 23 2020 17:19 utc | 90
farm ecologist @ 89

Patrick Armstrong publishes the sitreps (and other content) at https://patrickarmstrong.ca/

karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 18:07 utc | 92
psychohistorian @88--

Thanks for your reply! As I discussed with the Missus last night, IMO only the people regaining control over the federal government can rescue themselves from the multiple dilemmas they face--the most pressing being the Debt Bomb and control of the monetary and fiscal systems by private entities as exemplified by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street, both of which employ the Financial Parasites preying on the nation's body-politic. Undoing all the past wrongs requires both Congress and the Executive be captured by The People who can then write the laws to end the wrongs while arresting and prosecuting those responsible for the last 20+ years of massive fraud. The biggest components would be ending the Federal Reserve, Nationalizing all the fraudster banks, writing down the vast majority of debt, and disbanding NATO thus ending the overseas empire. Those are the most fundamental steps required for the USA to avoid the coming calamity brought about by the Neoliberals. I also have finally developed my thesis on where, why and how that philosophy was developed and put into motion.

profk , Sep 23 2020 18:16 utc | 94
karlof,

The first 'Cold War' was entirely contrived. The US knew the Soviet Union was weak and had no agenda beyond maintaining security and its own reconstruction after WW2. There was no threat of a Western European invasion, or of the USSR spreading revolution globally. All that Cold War ideology is a lie. And the same lying is taking place about China today. No difference.

The key issues for the US were:

1. it needed western european capitalist states to buy US manufactured exports. Those states had to remain capitalist and subordinate to the US, i.e. to avoid what Acheson called 'neutralism' in world politics.

2. the US wanted gradual decolonization of the British and French empires so that US firms could access markets and resources in those same territories. but the US feared revolutionary nationalism in the colonies and the potential loss of market access by the former colonial powers, which would need resources from the post-colonial world to rebuild after WW2.

The key event which cemented the 'Cold War' in Europe was the division of Germany, which Carolyn Eisenberg shows was entirely an American decision, in her important book, Drawing the Line.

The driving force of all this, though, was the economic imperatives of US capitalism. The US needed to restore and save capitalism in Western Europe and Japan, and the Cold War was the ideological framework for doing so. The Cold War ideology also allowed the US to frame its meddling in Korea, Guatemala, Iran, etc.

The late historian Gabriel Kolko wrote the best analyses of these issues. His work is much better than the New Left 'revisionist' US historians.

karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 20:01 utc | 96
profk @94--

I agree with your recap and second your appraisal of Gabriel Kolko. Eisenberg's work somehow escaped my view but will no longer thanks to your suggestion.

But I see more to it all as the First Cold War had to occur to promote the financialization of the USA's industrial Capitalism which began within the USA in 1913 and was abruptly interrupted by the various market crashes, the failure of the international payments system and subsequent massive deflation and Great Depression. A similar plan to outsource manufactures to its colonies and commonwealth and financialize its economy was began in the UK sometime after the end of the US Civil War. At the time in England, the school of Classical Political-Economists and their political allies (CPE) were attempting to rid the UK and the rest of Europe of the last vestiges of Feudalism that resided in the Rentier and Banking Classes, the former being mostly populated by Royalty and its retainers. Land Rent was the primary source of their income while it was the stated intent of the CPE to change the tax burden from individuals and businesses to that of Land Rent and other forms of Unearned Income. That movement came swiftly on the heels of the abolition of the Slave Trade which was a vast source of Royal income. Recognizing this threat to the basis of their wellbeing, the Royals needed to turn the tables but in such a manner where their manipulation was secret because of the vast popularity of the CPE's agenda. Thus began the movement to discredit the CPE and remove their ideas from discourse and later completely from the history of political-economy. And there was another problem--German Banks and their philosophy inspired by Bismarck to be totally supportive of German industry, which provided the impetus for its own colonial pursuits primarily in Africa.

Within that paragraph is my thesis for the rise of Neoliberalism, much of which Dr. Hudson documents but hasn't yet gotten to/revealed the root cause of the counter revolution against the CPE. IMO, that reactionary movement underlies far more, particularly the growing animosity between the UK and Germany from 1875 to 1914. As Eisenberg's research proves, there's much more past to be revealed that helps to resolve how we arrived at the times we now face.

karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 20:16 utc | 97
CitizenX @95--

Indeed, as Hudson and Max Keiser ask: Why pay taxes at all since the Fed can create all the credit required. I've written about the pros and cons of Secession here before which are quite similar to those existing in 1861. In Washington for example, how to deal with all the Federal property located there. Just as Ft. Sumter didn't belong to South Carolina, the many military bases there don't belong to Washington. Trying to seize it as the South Carolinians attempted in 1861 merely creates the casus belli sought by Trump. Now if you could get the vast majority of the military stationed in Washington to support your cause, your odds of resisting would greatly improve.

IMO, trying to regain public control over the Federal government would be much easier.

uncle tungsten , Sep 23 2020 21:21 utc | 98
karlof1 #85

Thank you brother karlof1, YES, the minotaur indeed but where is Theseus and Ariadne when we need them? Please don't tell me that Biden and Harris are the 'chosen ones' - that would mock the legend and prove that the gods are truly crazy :))

karlof1 , Sep 23 2020 22:48 utc | 101
ooops *elicit* uncle tungsten @98--

Well, they've clearly been chosen; they're just not THE CHOSEN and IMO would never qualify.

By contrast, here's Maduro's UNGA statement , a man clearly superior in all respects to either Biden or Trump or any of their vassals.

karlof1 , Sep 24 2020 0:31 utc | 103
It seems to me that a review is required, that we need to turn back the clock to an earlier analysis whose veracity has only been boosted by subsequent events. So here from 2011: "On November 3, 2011, Alan Minsky interviewed me on KPFK's program, 'Building a Powerful Movement in the United States' in preparation for an Occupy L.A. teach-in." Here's a brief excerpt to remind people what this is all about:

"Once people realize that they're being screwed, that's a pre-revolutionary situation. It's a situation where they can get a lot of sympathy and support, precisely by not doing what The New York Times and the other papers say they should do: come up with some neat solutions. They don't have to propose a solution because right now there isn't one – without changing the system with many, many changes. So many that it's like a new Constitution. Politics as well as the economy need to be restructured. What's developing now is how to think about the economic and political problems that are bothering people. It is not radical to realize that the economy isn't working. That is the first stage to realizing that a real alternative is needed. We've been under a radical right-wing attack – and need to respond in kind. The next half-year probably will be spent trying to spell out what the best structure would be."

Billosky , Sep 24 2020 6:19 utc | 104
It's good to see discussion here of the nefarious role of the American far-right neocon warmongers in the State Department, intelligence services and military leadership just before the turn of the new century. What I have never seen clearly explained, however, is the connection between these very dangerous forces and the equally cynical and reactionary Israeli politicians and the Mossad, as well as Saudi Arabian officials.

Like many others, I have been slowly won over to the position that the attacks of 9-11, and especially the totally unprecedented collapses of the three WTC towers, could only have been caused by the precisely timed explosion of previously installed demolition materials containing nanothermite. But if one accepts that position the immediately subsequent question is "Who planned and carried out the attacks?" Many people have claimed it was the Mossad, others that it was the Mossad in concert with the US neocons etc., -- many of whom were Israeli/US dual citizens -- but even now, so many years after the horrific events, I can find no coherent account of how such conspirators, or any others for that matter, might actually have carried out WTC building demotions. Do any of you know of sources on the matter that have made good progress on connecting the dots and explaining what precisely happened -- the easier part -- and how exactly it was carried out, by whom, and how they have managed to get away with it for all this time?

Piotr Berman , Sep 24 2020 14:04 utc | 106
Lieven: If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world.[my emphasis]

Uncle Tungsten: Lieven simply does not see it. Has it ever occurred to Lieven that colonialism just might be rejected by both Russia and China and that there might be no competition? Does Lieven watch too much football?

What is it that endangers the world in Lieven's petite cortex?
-------
It is clear to me that Tungsten does not understand Lieven because Lieven does not cross all t's and dot all i's. There can be two reasons for Lieven style: (1) a British style, leaving some conclusions to the reader, it is not elegant to belabor the obvious (2) Lieven works in a pro-Western feudal state and that particular piece appeared in a neo-liberal outfit where it is already a clear outlier toward (what I see as) common sense. Neo-liberals view themselves as liberals, "tolerating a wide spectrum of opinion", but with clear limits about the frequency and content for the outliers of their tolerance.

Back to "endangering the world", how "loosing competition to China" can result in huge mayhem? I guess that Tungsten is a little dense here. The sunset of Anglo-Saxon domination can seem like the end of the world for the "members" of that domination. But a longer historical perspective can offer a much darker vision of the future. First, there is a clash of two blocks, one with superior industrial production, domination of markets of assorted goods -- both as importer and exporter, etc, the other with still superior military technology and combative spirit.

Recall (or check) the situation in east Asia ca. 1240 AD. One of the major power was Song China, after a calamitous defeat roughly 300 years later, diminished Song China succeeded in developing all kinds of practical and beautiful goods and vibrant commerce while having quite inept military. The second major power was the Mongols. You can look up the rest.

USA stresses the military types of pressures, and seeing its position slipping too far, they may resort to a series of gigantic "provocations" -- from confiscation of property by fiat, like they did to Venezuela, to piracy on open seas, no cargoes can move without their approval and tribute, from there things can escalate toward nuclear war.

More generally, western decline leads to decrease of wealth affecting the lower classes first but gradually reaching higher, enmity toward competitors, then hatred, such processes can have dire consequences.

Importantly, these are speculations, so stopping short of spelling them out is reasonable. However, give some credit to Lieven for "the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War".

Noirette , Sep 24 2020 16:24 utc | 108
On the rule-based world order. Scattered thoughts.

The article by Lieven was good in one aspect: it at least mentioned the crazy economic template aka imho 'religion' that lead to a part of this mess. For the rest, hmm. The 'rules based international order' was always pretty much a phoney scaffold, used for presentation to hide, cover up, legitimised many goings on (after WW2 I mean.)

Like a power-point extolling xyz product, with invented or 'massaged' charts and all., with tick boxes for what it positive or followed. (Fairness, Democracy, etc. etc. as 'Natural' 'Organic' etc. Total BS.)

In these kinds of discussions I am always reminded of the 'rights of the child' which in CH are taught in grade 3-5, with a boiled down text, logo type pix, etc. It is very tough on teachers, and they often only pretend to push the content. There are many immigrant children in CH and the natives know that the 'rights' are not respected and not just in 'jungles' (anarchist / animalistic hot spots) as they say. The kids go nuts - as they still more or less believe that they 'have a voice' as it called -- the parents follow the kids, lotsa troubles. OK, these are aspirations - but 'democracy' (purposely used as a calling card following advice from a well-know ad agency..) is so as well. And presenting aspirations that can't possibly be achieved in any way, when not a smiley joke about meeting God or flying to Mars, and is socially important, is not well received.

Anyway, since the invasion of Iraq (totally illegal according to any standards) leading to the biggest demos in the world ever, a loud indignant cry, which invasion the UN condoned, ppl (in my experience, in CH, F, It) no longer have a shred of belief in 'international rules'. Which of course makes them more 'nationalist' in the sense of acting in the community, close at hand, as the Intl order is a shit-scene.

Passer by , Sep 24 2020 20:06 utc | 109
Do you have sources for the last two facts, about China overtaking the US as main trading partner to Europe and as retail market?

Posted by: fx | Sep 24 2020 11:41 utc | 105

China becomes EU's top trading partner from Jan-July: Eurostat

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202009/17/WS5f63070da31024ad0ba7a2fa.html

China retail market expected to overtake US this year

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-overtake-u-world-largest-135614391.html

https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/we-will-be-top-economy-by-year-end-china-media-outlet-says

[Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques

Highly recommended!
Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ashino , Sep 23 2020 9:23 utc | 67

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html
Comment by Reader Dark Fate
EXCERPTs

Following a long line of very arrogant american imperial "negotiators", mr oblivion billingslea used standard "negotiating" techniques like

(a) accusing the other side of crimes Americans have committed first and forever, eg, extreme lying, bad faith argumentation, military aggression, foreign government security breaching, assassination and poisoning [as in american presidents and independent thinkers], and of course, electoral cheating;

(b) putting the opponent in the "negotiation process" on the defensive or back foot by stating false news allegations amplified by the media controlled by the american empire;

(c) offering nothing useful or commitable to be done by the empire, and yet "magnanimously" demanding the moon as opponents' concessions, eg, russian, iranian and chinese nuclear weapons limits, but not for nato's development and deployment, and; (d) after making impossible demands, the imperials accuse the opponents of hostility and unwillingness to "negotiate".

The russians can skillfully agree by stating that they only require the americans to reduce their nukes to 320 pieces like china, and in less than five years.

This is why it is very important for sovereign nations to read the guidebook, called the "idiot's guide on running the american empire", and developing deep and lasting solutions.

As for the other american imperial military "advantages", eg, constellation of "aggression" satellites, andrei forgot to mention that these can be shot or burned down in minutes easily by russia, china and even iran, as these stations cannot hide or run away in earth orbits.

Replenishment of weapons and military supplies after 3 months is rather doomed as the cheap, mass production and manufacturing facilities do not exist. Which must be re-created somehow but now
American lands are the targets. Much, Much Different Than WW2 !!

And of course, russia can always nuke down the USA and its vassal countries, and thus permanently ruin their economies for a decade or more, they don't know how to run defense -- this was always the fatal weakness of all bullies - if they'll have enough time to "learn it"... let's see... I doubt this.

Let's see americans try to start and conduct a nuclear war after too many spy, internet and gps satellites are shot down. Russia can even do this today using conventional explosives, and the world will be shocked how helpless the american military and economy can be made even without using russian nukes.

There are countries still immune to the numerous american imperial diseases that are already documented daily in zerohedge postings. The better countries still have lots of parents telling their kids to study and work hard so they can have better lives than their ancestors.

In oregon and california, they teach unemployable kids to burn something or somebody sometime before dinner.

CdVision • 11 hours ago
I was about to say that what now comes out of the US & Trump's mouth in particular, is Orwellian. But that credits it with too much gravitas. The true comparison is Alice in Wonderland:
"Words mean whatever I want them to mean".

Ashino , Sep 23 2020 9:29 utc | 68
Reminiscence of the Future.. ( http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html)
Russia "Steals Everything" !! (Not just China, oops... ???!!!!)
And Jesus Christ was an American and was born in Kalamazoo, MI. It is a well-known fact. So Donald Trump, evidently briefed by his "utterly competent and crushingly precise aids", knows now that too! !!! LOL

Time For Daily Auto-Hypnosis, Comrades. !!!

https://vz.ru/news/2020/9/19/1061259.html
https://www.Путин-сегодня.ru/archives/108431
https://vk.com/deebeepublic?w=wall-197487820_23447
(Digital Translation)

> US President Donald Trump claims that Russia developed hypersonic weapons after allegedly stealing information from the United States.

> According to him, "Russia received this information from the Obama administration," Moscow "stole this information." Trump said that "Russia received this information and then created" the rocket, reports TASS.

> "We have such advanced weapons that President Xi, Putin and everyone else will envy us. They do not know what we have, but they know that it is something that no one has ever heard of. "

->We are the foremost and always number one. Everything is invented only by us, the rest can only either steal, or be gifted with our developments for good behavior. This situation is eternal, unchanging, everyone lags behind American Tikhalogii at least 50 years (the time frame was chosen so that even a 20-year-old would lose heart, "what's the point of trying to catch up, it won't work anyway, in my lifetime"). It was, is, and will be, this is the natural course of events.

All this is delivered in the format of the classic Sunday sermon of the American provincial Protestant church, coding the parishioners for further deeds and actions. And it worked effectively, creating in some basalt confidence "we are better because we are better", in others - "I don't mind anything for joining this radiant success, I'm ready for anything, I'll go for any hardships and crimes, if only There".

Only now it worked. In a situation where the frequency of pronouncing such mantras is more and more, emotions are invested in them too, but in fact everyone understands that this is what autohypnosis does not work.

The poor have stolen from the United States, if you look at it, literally everything. And 5G and the superweapon of the gods. Moreover, a pearl with a characteristic handwriting is not copy / paste, but move / paste, you bastards. Therefore, the United States does not even have any traces of developments left - the guys just sit in an empty room, shrug their hands, "here we have a farm of mechanical killer dolls, with the faces of Mickey Mouse overexposed, and now look - traces of bast shoes and candy wrappers from "Korkunov" only, ah-ah-ah, well, something like that, ah. "

At the same time, there are no cases of sabotage, espionage - whole projects were simply developed, developed, brought to a working product, and then the hob - and that's it, and disappeared. And this became noticeable only after years. And all the persons involved are like "wow, wow."

Psychiatric crazy fool of the head, no less.

But due to the fact that all of the above theses are driven very tightly into the template for the perception of the world, both those who voiced these theses and the listeners are satisfied.

Because the post-American post-hegemonic world is not terrible because in some ratings another country will be higher there, and Detroit will never be rebuilt "as it was". It is scary because it is not clear how to live for people who had no support in the form of global goals, faith, philosophy of life, and all this was replaced by narcissism on the basis of "successful success is my second self".

This means that the moment when this issue has to be resolved must be delayed to the last. Leaving the whole topic on the plane "we were offended, we are offended, we were dishonest, which means we have the right to any action" is not a bad move.

It's a pity that it doesn't really affect the essence of what is happening.

< >

[Sep 25, 2020] The scenes back at the hotel and the loose lipped egotistical rants from his English minder, Pevchikh and also the BBC are just one enormous debacle.

Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Sep 23 2020 10:56 utc | 73

Bemildred #71
So they say he has been discharged now, but not where he is. He said in the beginning he wanted to go home. I'm guessing he won't do that yet. In the picture he looks spooked, as one can easily understand. I think this whole thing with Navalny since he left the Russian hospital is fake, theater, sort of like Boris Johnson's bout with COVID19, which I think was also fake.

Thank you and I bet he IS spooked. It is possible that he was expatriated without his consent and that he knew what the consequences would be if he ever tried to leave apart from this fiasco. The scenes back at the hotel and the loose lipped egotistical rants from his English minder, Pevchikh and also the BBC are just one enormous debacle.

Read John Helmer's multiple posts on this entire story and it smells like a rats nest of intrigues to set him up or (a more remote possibility) to extricate him.

One thing is certain, if he tries to return to Russia the British bulldog will kill him. Time will tell.

Jen , Sep 23 2020 12:15 utc | 74
Bemildred @ 71, Uncle Tungsten @ 73:

Alexander Sosnovsky, writing for Ekonomiya Segodnya, claims Alexei Navalny was never a patient at the Charite hospital in Berlin!

"A journalist who visited Charite showed signs of Navalny's absence there"

Machine-translated from the Russian language:

... According to [Sosnovsky], the photo of Navalny with his wife on the balcony makes one think about his whereabouts. Sosnovsky, who is well acquainted with the architecture of Berlin, drew attention to the strange urban landscape in the corner of the picture. He pointed out that the Charite building does not have balconies with such a view, as it is located in the central part of Berlin with a completely different architecture.

To confirm his words in practice, Sosnovsky personally went to the Charite and walked around the building with a camera. He drew attention to the construction work near the clinic (it would probably have gotten into the blogger's photo), as well as the complete absence of journalists and security. All of this confirmed Sosnovsky's suspicions about Navalny's absence from the Charité.

In addition to the cityscape, the journalist had questions about the can with cigarette butts on Navalny's balcony. Sosnovsky called such an object impossible in an elite medical institution in Germany with patients of this level. If all the cigarettes in the frame were smoked by Navalny himself, this raises even more questions about his "diagnosis" and the conclusions of German doctors.

The journalist notes that all the shots with Navalny after he emerged from the coma are static and "inanimate." Sosnovsky, a person with a medical education and a practicing doctor, calls this understandable, pointing to the possibility of identifying the signs of specific diseases and influences by movements, speech and other dynamic manifestations. For example, after a tracheostomy (artificial windpipe), a person often has voice problems.

"Any video and audio makes it possible with a high degree of probability to calculate where and how it was done. It is much more difficult from a photo. And if they hide from us the opportunity to determine the location and diagnosis, this is very indicative," Sosnovsky said on the air of Soloviev Live.

Earlier, Navalny demanded that Russia return his clothes , in which the blogger was hospitalized in Omsk. However, Navalny's associates had previously written that all of his belongings were transferred to his wife, and some of the items that the blogger touched and used could be taken out by Maria Pevchikh, a suspect in his poisoning."

Photo of one side of Charite Hospital, Berlin

I have seen the photo of Navalny walking down a staircase with no help and a second photo of Navalny and his wife Julia out on a balcony at the hospital where he is (supposedly?) staying with the can of cigarette butts placed near the bottom of the sliding door. I had my doubts about Navalny being in hospital even before I saw the Sosnovsky article - would a hospital allow a patient just out of a coma to walk around by himself, especially down the stairs, or allow him to smoke cigarettes? Would a hospital even have balconies attached to patients' wards?

Incidentally I've just seen news that Navalny has now been discharged from hospital.

[Sep 25, 2020] Andre Vltchek was a great warrior, the world was kept informed by this wonderful spirit and passionate mind. I am very sad to hear of his passing.

Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Sep 22 2020 22:15 utc | 34

Colm O' Toole #26
Andre Vltchek whose done some great reporting on China, Russia, and the Middle East over the years was found dead today in Turkey.

Vale great warrior, the world was kept informed by this wonderful spirit and passionate mind. I am very sad to hear of his passing.

His works.

David G , Sep 22 2020 22:23 utc | 35
Colm O' Toole | Sep 22 2020 21:41 utc | 26:

I learned about places I've never been reading Vltchek. He will be missed by many.

Jen , Sep 22 2020 23:03 utc | 38
Colm O'Toole @ 26, Uncle Tungsten @ 32, David G @ 33:

I am also sad to hear of Andre Vltchek's passing. He used to be an occasional contributor to Off-Guardian.org.

His death is being treated as suspicious by Turkish police authorities. I myself am rather puzzled by the decision to travel overnight by car from Samsun to Istanbul, given his state of health (according to the report that Colm O'Toole linked to) and the length of the car journey (about nine hours) when he could have travelled by plane.

willie , Sep 23 2020 7:20 utc | 64
R.I.P DR.Stephen Cohen.

R.I.P. Andre Vitchek.

Maybe his latest outcry hindered some :

https://www.opednews.com/articles/Now-West-Should-Sit-On-Its-by-Andre-Vltchek-Brainwashing_China_Colonialism_Denial-200912-597.html

[Sep 24, 2020] How a Senate Inquiry Revealed the Israeli Surveillance Industry's Role in Orchestrating Russiagate

Thos intelligence nets are becoming more and more sophisticated. They essentially represent a hidden political force that influences the elections.
From comments: "This is so convoluted and Byzantine and no one is offering documentation, just allegations."
Notable quotes:
"... Rarely in the news, however, is the role played by Israeli cybersecurity startups in the creation of the Russiagate narrative itself. Incubated within the Israeli military apparatus and benefiting from an uninterrupted stream of billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars, these "private Mossads" have been present behind the scenes throughout the numerous Russia-related scandals fomented by the mainstream press to sow partisan discord among the American electorate and line the pockets of network executives. ..."
"... The Senate's inquiries uncovered a consistent thread of IDF-linked cybersecurity firms and intelligence assets coordinating and facilitating meetings between the coterie of Russian characters that make up the Russiagate universe and the Trump campaign, including protagonists like Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who released Hilary Clinton's infamous emails to Wikileaks via a cell phone registered in Israel. ..."
"... "These guys came out of the military intelligence army unit, and it's like coming out with a triple Ph.D. from MIT. The amount of knowledge these guys have in terms of cybersecurity, cyber-intelligence [is] just so beyond what you could get [with] a normal education that it's just unique there are hundreds and hundreds of Israeli start-up companies that the founders are guys who came out of this unit." ..."
"... Michael Flynn, who was himself also working in an advisory capacity with the "consortium of cyber-spy companies run by former Israeli intelligence officers" known as the NSO Group, that is comprised of several of the Israeli startups summoned before the committee for voluntary, closed-door testimony. ..."
"... One of the NSO companies questioned by the Senate committee in relation to Russian interference, Psy-Group, is currently under investigation in California, where it was caught red-handed actually trying to rig a local election for a paying customer. ..."
"... Butina's former lover, Paul Erickson joked about being a CIA asset and had built a phony reputation as a man of staunch moral Christian values. Erickson worked for several Republican campaigns dating back to the late '80s, including a stint as national policy director for Pat Buchanan's '92 White House run. He first achieved international notoriety as Mobutu Sese Seko's lawyer, reportedly accepting a $30,000 lobbying contract to obtain a U.S. visa for the African despot, which was ultimately denied. ..."
"... It was Erickson's long-standing ties to the NRA and the organization's former president David Keene, which set the stage for the Maria Butina story as a Russian infiltrator looking for " access to U.S. political organizations ." Erickson had worked with Keene as a registered foreign agent since the 1990s and formed part of the NRA's efforts to forge closer ties to Israel since at least 2011. ..."
"... A con-artist by most accounts, Erickson is described by a Republican legislator as "the single biggest phony I've ever met in South Dakota politics." South Dakota was where Yale-educated Erickson came up in the political arena and where he's left a long trail of burned business associates and friends. In 2019, Erickson pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering , admitting he had bilked 78 people of $2.3 Million over 22 years and was sentenced this past July to seven years in federal prison. ..."
Sep 23, 2020 | www.blacklistednews.com

HOW A SENATE INQUIRY REVEALED THE ISRAELI SURVEILLANCE INDUSTRY'S ROLE IN ORCHESTRATING RUSSIAGATE Published: September 13, 2020
Share | Print This

undefined Twitter Facebook Email Pinterest Reddit
SOURCE: MINT PRESS

A Senate investigation reveals that a consortium of Israeli hacking and surveillance firms coordinated and facilitated meetings between Trump campaign operatives and Russia during the 2016 campaign, but they don't really want to talk about it.

Alleged Russian interference in the 2020 presidential election is headline news, once again, as a Ukrainian lawmaker is charged by the Trump administration "in a sweeping plot to sow distrust in the American political process," reports the Associated Press. Microsoft also made claims that it detected "hacking attempts targeting U.S. political campaigns, parties and consultants" by agents from Russia, China, and Iran. In a September 10 blog post , Microsoft's Tom Burt, Corporate Vice President of Customer Security & Trust, listed three groups from each region that Microsoft "observed" carrying out their cyber operations.

Rarely in the news, however, is the role played by Israeli cybersecurity startups in the creation of the Russiagate narrative itself. Incubated within the Israeli military apparatus and benefiting from an uninterrupted stream of billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars, these "private Mossads" have been present behind the scenes throughout the numerous Russia-related scandals fomented by the mainstream press to sow partisan discord among the American electorate and line the pockets of network executives.

Evidence of their activities has been exposed -- though not pursued -- in the latest volume of a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee investigation on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which shows how then-candidate Donald Trump personally embarked on a parallel campaign on behalf of Israel to block a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Originally submitted by Egypt, UNSCR 2334 strips Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders of any " legal validity " in the eyes of the international community and brands them a "flagrant violation under international law." Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, had refused all of the advances made by Trump's operatives to use its veto power against the measure, and Trump himself would prevail upon Egyptian President al-Sisi -- whom Trump calls his " favorite dictator " -- to withdraw the declaration . Together with Israeli pressure, UNSCR 2334 seemed destined to languish in obscurity as Egypt acquiesced and delayed the vote to "permit them to conduct an additional meeting of the Arab League's foreign ministers to work on the resolution's wording."

The Senate's inquiries uncovered a consistent thread of IDF-linked cybersecurity firms and intelligence assets coordinating and facilitating meetings between the coterie of Russian characters that make up the Russiagate universe and the Trump campaign, including protagonists like Guccifer 2.0, the hacker who released Hilary Clinton's infamous emails to Wikileaks via a cell phone registered in Israel.

George Birnbaum, a former chief of staff to Benjamin Netanyahu and GOP operative, told the committee how Trump aide Rick Gates had inquired about using "Israeli technology" to collect dirt on opponent Hillary Clinton at a March 2016 meeting, explaining to the senators what would be so attractive about Israeli companies, specifically:

"These guys came out of the military intelligence army unit, and it's like coming out with a triple Ph.D. from MIT. The amount of knowledge these guys have in terms of cybersecurity, cyber-intelligence [is] just so beyond what you could get [with] a normal education that it's just unique there are hundreds and hundreds of Israeli start-up companies that the founders are guys who came out of this unit."

The unit Birnbaum is referring to is the IDF's Unit 8200, where these "hundreds and hundreds" of tech startups are born right in the bowels of the Israeli national security state and propagate throughout the world and the United States, in particular.

Described as " private Mossads " for hire, many of the Israeli hacking and surveillance firms that moved behind the scenes, brokering meetings between Trump's people and Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska during the height of the so-called Russian "collusion," were working through a "key middle man" with close ties to then-Trump National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, who was himself also working in an advisory capacity with the "consortium of cyber-spy companies run by former Israeli intelligence officers" known as the NSO Group, that is comprised of several of the Israeli startups summoned before the committee for voluntary, closed-door testimony.

While the American public was fed one Russophobic scandal after another, and Robert Mueller held court in the press for two years straight, no one -- especially Mueller -- was paying attention to this perverse network of Israeli surveillance companies who operated the virtual scaffold upon which the Russiagate narrative was being constructed and whose fellow Unit 8200 graduates in other subsectors of the cybersecurity industry are deeply ensconced in highly questionable activities surrounding the coming 2020 election.

THE NSO GROUP

The NSO Group gained notoriety when it was identified as the developer of Pegasus, the iPhone spyware that was found installed on slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi's phone in the days leading up to his gruesome death. NSO's cell phone tracking technology has been associated with other ghastly events, such as the scandal involving Pegasus in Mexico, where a team of international investigators looking into the disappearance of 43 students in Ayotzinapa was targeted by the spyware, as well as Mexican journalists and their families.

One of the NSO companies questioned by the Senate committee in relation to Russian interference, Psy-Group, is currently under investigation in California, where it was caught red-handed actually trying to rig a local election for a paying customer. Another, Circles, was founded by a former Israeli intelligence officer and is "known for covertly intercepting phone calls, text messages, and tracking locations of unaware citizens," according to a report by Forensic News .

In 2018, Haaretz published an expose on the company disclosing the extent to which Circles and the Israeli espionage industry is helping "world dictators hunt dissidents and gays," among other nefarious opportunities available in the "global commerce" of surveillance technologies.

An NSO rep peddles software services at annual European Police Congress in Berlin, April 28, 2020. Hannibal Hanschke | Reuters

The middle man the Senate investigation identified is Walter Soriano; singled out for his association with several Russian oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska and Dmitry Rybolovlev, who bought Trump's West Palm Beach mansion in 2008. The Senate report accuses Soriano and Israeli cybersecurity companies of coordinating "between the Trump Campaign and Russia," but fails to pursue the matter beyond that.

The UN resolution denouncing Israeli settlements would pass on December 23, 2016, after four temporary Security Council members, Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, and Venezuela reportedly took matters into their own hands and moved the vote forward. UNSCR 2334 became official as a result of a historic breach of established pro-Israel policy by the United States, which abstained from the vote. Widely reported as Obama's " parting shot " to Netanyahu and the incoming administration, the passing of the resolution went against Obama's own record of using U.S.' veto power to banish similar proposals .

President-elect Donald Trump would take office in a matter of weeks and the Mueller investigation kicked off the barrage of Russophobic content peddled over the digital airwaves night after night. Stories like Maria Butina's were plastered all over the media to buttress the Russiagate narrative.

THE LEGEND OF MARIA BUTINA

Butina's former lover, Paul Erickson joked about being a CIA asset and had built a phony reputation as a man of staunch moral Christian values. Erickson worked for several Republican campaigns dating back to the late '80s, including a stint as national policy director for Pat Buchanan's '92 White House run. He first achieved international notoriety as Mobutu Sese Seko's lawyer, reportedly accepting a $30,000 lobbying contract to obtain a U.S. visa for the African despot, which was ultimately denied.

It was Erickson's long-standing ties to the NRA and the organization's former president David Keene, which set the stage for the Maria Butina story as a Russian infiltrator looking for " access to U.S. political organizations ." Erickson had worked with Keene as a registered foreign agent since the 1990s and formed part of the NRA's efforts to forge closer ties to Israel since at least 2011.

Prosecutors would paint Butina as a seductress, ensnaring Erickson in a "duplicitous relationship," but it was the cunning GOP operative who first spotted Butina during a 2013 trip to Moscow with Keene. Butina and Erickson would meet again in Israel one year later where they would begin their 'love affair' during which he would become "integral to Butina's activities," assisting the Russian gun enthusiast "in developing relationships with individuals and organizations involved in U.S. politics," according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Maria Butina poses for a photo at a shooting range in Moscow, April 22, 2012. Pavel Ptitsin | AP

A con-artist by most accounts, Erickson is described by a Republican legislator as "the single biggest phony I've ever met in South Dakota politics." South Dakota was where Yale-educated Erickson came up in the political arena and where he's left a long trail of burned business associates and friends. In 2019, Erickson pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering , admitting he had bilked 78 people of $2.3 Million over 22 years and was sentenced this past July to seven years in federal prison.

The NRA has been forging ties to the Israeli security state for years now. In 2013, Trump's former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, joined a delegation of 30 in Jerusalem for a 10-day tour of Israel's police institutions. The honorary NRA member stated on that occasion, that Israel could "serve as a model for American security." The legend of Maria Butina, itself, was seeded in Israel that same year when an "obscure" Israeli gun-rights group posted on Facebook that she had announced to have signed a cooperation agreement with the NRA and "neighboring countries" to promote gun rights at a meeting with its members.

Butina would meet with Erickson and Keene two weeks later in Moscow, along with Alexander Torshin, former deputy governor of Russia's central bank and lifetime NRA member. Torshin, who has been targeted by U.S. sanctions, traveled with Butina to the United States to "discuss U.S.-Russian economic relations" in April 2015. The pair met with several senior American officials, like Federal Reserve vice chairman and former Israel central bank chief, Stanley Fischer; the Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, Nathan Sheets and others in a meeting " moderated " by AIG CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. The details of the high-level meeting, two months before Donald Trump made his announcement to run for president, have never been made public.

Feature photo | Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee business meeting to consider authorization for subpoenas relating to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the FBI in 2016 and 2017 into links between Trump and Russian officials, June 11, 2020. Carolyn Kaster | AP

Raul Diego is a MintPress News Staff Writer, independent photojournalist, researcher, writer and documentary filmmaker.


Billo 9 days ago ,

I always said it was Israeli influence not Russian. How obvious can it get. But we have Trump constantly kissing the Israeli ass while being kicked in the teeth and Congress bending over backwards pedaling lies about Russia for Israeli benefit.
Is there anyone on our side in DC?

Hasin Ascomstein • 9 days ago ,

Ok, so we have the israelis, synonymous with deep state, responsible for wtc '93, wtc 9/11, the arab spring, the afghan conflict, the iraq conflict, problems with Iran, training antifa/blm, equipping and training the messican cartels, the farc, and tupac amaru. Being the worlds controlling supplier of MDMA. As well as giving U.S. technology to the chinese, and direct involvement with the release of covid 19. And hiring osama bin laden to build a highway in the sudan, then embezzling $800 million from bin ladens project, and blaming it on the U.S. It's time for the world to put their collective heads back into where the sun does shine.

Ann Hagan 8 days ago ,

This is so convoluted and Byzantine and no one is offering documentation, just allegations.

[Sep 24, 2020] 'Bizarre deeply disturbing': MSM think that RT's Trump deepfake parody is ADMISSION he is 'Putin's pawn'

Sep 24, 2020 | www.rt.com

A satirical video using "deepfake" technology to show US President Donald Trump as coming to work for RT after the November election was taken very seriously by 'Russiagate' peddlers at the Daily Beast and the Lincoln Project.

[Sep 24, 2020] We have lost a real giant (Stephen F. Cohen has died)! by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen had the courage to take on the entire ruling elites of this country and their messianic supremacist ideology by himself, almost completely alone. ..."
"... He opposed the warmongering nutcases during the Cold War, and he opposed them again when they replaced their rabid hatred of the Soviet Union with an even more rabid hatred of everything Russian. ..."
Sep 24, 2020 | thesaker.is

First, he was a man of immense kindness and humility . Second, he was a man of total intellectual honesty . I can't say that Cohen and I had the same ideas or the same reading of history, though in many cases we did, but here is what I found so beautiful in this man: unlike most of his contemporaries, Cohen was not an ideologue , he did not expect everybody to agree with him, and he himself did not vet people for ideological purity before offering them his friendship.

Even though it is impossible to squeeze a man of such immense intellect and honesty into any one single ideological category, I would say that Stephen Cohen was a REAL liberal , in the original, and noble, meaning of this word.

I also have to mention Stephen Cohen's immense courage . Yes, I know, Cohen was not deported to GITMO for his ideas, he was not tortured in a CIA secret prison, and he was not rendered to some Third Word country to be tortured there on behalf of the USA. Stephen Cohen had a different kind of courage: the courage to remain true to himself and his ideals even when the world literally covered him in slanderous accusations, the courage to NOT follow his fellow liberals when they turned PSEUDO-liberals and betrayed everything true liberalism stands for. Professor Cohen also completely rejected any forms of tribalism or nationalism, which often made him the target of vicious hatred and slander, especially from his fellow US Jews (he was accused of being, what else, a Putin agent).

Cohen had the courage to take on the entire ruling elites of this country and their messianic supremacist ideology by himself, almost completely alone.

Last, but most certainly not least, Stephen Cohen was a true peacemaker , in the sense of the words of the Holy Gospel I quoted above. He opposed the warmongering nutcases during the Cold War, and he opposed them again when they replaced their rabid hatred of the Soviet Union with an even more rabid hatred of everything Russian.

I won't claim here that I always agreed with Cohen's ideas or his reading of history, and I am quite sure that he would not agree with much of what I wrote. But one thing Cohen and I definitely did agree on: the absolute, number one, priority of not allowing a war to happen between the USA and Russia. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Stephen Cohen dedicated his entire life towards this goal.

... ... ...

[Sep 24, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen, 1938–2020 - The Nation

Sep 24, 2020 | www.thenation.com

first "met" Steve through his 1977 essay "Bolshevism and Stalinism." His cogent, persuasive, revisionist argument that there are always alternatives in history and politics deeply influenced me. And his seminal biography, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution , challenging prevailing interpretations of Soviet history, was to me, and many, a model of how biography should be written: engaged and sympathetically critical.

At the time, I was too accepting of conventional wisdom. Steve's work -- and soon, Steve himself -- challenged me to be critical-minded, to seek alternatives to the status quo, to stay true to my beliefs (even if they weren't popular), and to ask unpopular questions of even the most powerful. These are values I carry with me to this day as editorial director of The Nation , which Steve introduced me to (and its editor, Victor Navasky) and for which he wrote a column ("Sovieticus") from 1982 to 1987, and many articles and essays beginning in 1979. His last book, War with Russia? was a collection of dispatches (almost all posted at thenation.com ) distilled from Steve's weekly radio broadcasts -- beginning in 2014–on The John Batchelor Show .

T he experiences we shared in Moscow beginning in 1980 are in many ways my life's most meaningful. Steve introduced me to realms of politics, history, and life I might never have experienced: to Bukharin's widow, the extraordinary Anna Mikhailovna Larina, matriarch of his second family, and to his eclectic and fascinating circle of friends -- survivors of the Gulag, (whom he later wrote about in The Victims Return ) dissidents, and freethinkers -- both outside and inside officialdom.

Top Articles Why LeBron James Scares the Racist Right READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE SKIP AD

From 1985 to 1991, when we lived frequently in Moscow, we shared the intellectual and political excitement, the hopes and the great achievements of those perestroika years. We later developed a close friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev, a man we both deeply admired as an individual and as a political leader who used his power so courageously to change his country and the world. Gorbachev also changed our lives in several ways.

Our marriage coincided with perestroika . In fact, Steve spent the very first day after our wedding, our so-called honeymoon, at the United Nations with Gorbachev and the news anchor Dan Rather (Steve was consulting for CBS News at the time). Then, on our first anniversary, in 1989, we were with President Bush (the first) and Gorbachev on Malta when they declared the end of the Cold War. And we think of our daughter, Nika, now 29 years old, as a perestroika baby because she was conceived in Russia during the Gorbachev years, made her first visit to Moscow in July 1991 and since then has been back some 40 times. In a moving moment, a year after Raisa Maksimovna died, Gorbachev remarked to Steve that our marriage and partnership reminded him of his with Raisa because we too seemed inseparable.

Steve has often regretted that many of the Russian friends he made after 1985 did not know about his earlier Moscow life. He first visited the Soviet Union in 1959. But it was those pre- perestroika years, 1975 to 1982, that gave Steve what he once told me was his "real education. Not only in Russian society but in Russian politics, because I began to understand the connection between trends in society, trends in the dissident movement, and trends in the nomenklatura." They were "utterly formative years for me."

https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/show?displayMode=inline&containerSelector=.inline-counter&templateId=OTFVM3RHWZ0B&offerId=fakeOfferId&showCloseButton=false&trackingId=%7Bjcx%7DH4sIAAAAAAAAAI2Qy27CMBBF_8VrjGwnMTY7WkGD-oiAKFB2QzDgkoQ0dgBR9d_rRKUVUhe1vJk5c65G84FAr1EfveQP4I8v8_AJdVAJW5VodRo3hBFGMJGYec0POGY9HLjavzwulq_hxNYy6MWexSAUJRRAyBUTHhfc831OZLqihIDwlQtW51JVWhWpaqOHi0FEFvJ-QvzBDR2eVVpbfSjaMSqIKHuEHFNM3GM2qEUgge7zADYKpDE029_4g_RHNrvDKVZ5mYFVbDoOIzEJh7N4FLHEKTswV4j6tqpVB9nvurWjeJQ8e9NwviR36JclUGkobDNS1FnWQSnkJehtYa6Noza65eiI_7wgFXgDa_M2Y_BeauPVyew_F9Sli-SiS6XsMsK7QrhmbVQ12KrCOrY-pc2iNkN9yokTORX88wsVekFK5wEAAA&experienceId=EXAO0X9CQ04A&activeMeters=%5B%7B%22meterName%22%3A%22In+article+Meter%22%2C%22views%22%3A3%2C%22viewsLeft%22%3A0%2C%22maxViews%22%3A3%2C%22totalViews%22%3A4%7D%5D&tbc=%7Bjzx%7DvaV6Q-AgGJ_DiTS_QNn8FA6olpAEC_GKej-sdbqQpRIS-Kfr2XuQ_uJ7-VsMBs9sgdDzuDJGAIvwcZFWTCJIbM0i5t_YYdOlPsJmO-rAn6uIfIuoy1Hh_-p5REhASnboV4_aTgrddjKMmaM4SpBJ-g&iframeId=offer-0-EhJo2&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Farticle%2Fworld%2Fstephen-cohen-obituary-russia%2F&parentDualScreenLeft=1536&parentDualScreenTop=0&parentWidth=1536&parentHeight=762&parentOuterHeight=864&aid=NmGa4IzWHL&tags=nation-history%2Cregions-and-countries%2Csociety%2Cworld%2Clived-history%2Cinstagram%2Crussia%2Cunited-nations%2Ckatrina-vanden-heuvel&contentSection=article&contentAuthor=Katrina+vanden+Heuvel&contentCreated=2020-09-21T10%3A34%3A52-04%3A00&pageViewId=2020-09-23-23-56-27-509-4zKXZYHQtu957T3t-a8e101aa89b283686344609cb100a84e&visitId=v-2020-09-23-23-56-27-518-fadsjS2aqpis3uVS-a8e101aa89b283686344609cb100a84e&userProvider=publisher_user_ref&userToken=&customCookies=%7B%22_pc_exit_popup_signup_confirm%22%3A%22true%22%7D&hasLoginRequiredCallback=true&width=640&_qh=a529b52d4f

They also informed his writings, especially his pathbreaking book Rethinking the Soviet Experience , which was published at the very time Gorbachev came to power. "There was a lot of tragedy," Steve used to say, "but also a lot of humor and warmth when people had little more that personal friendships and ideas to keep them company." From 1980, when I first traveled to Moscow with Steve, to 1982 when neither of us could get a visa (until 1985 when Gorbachev became leader), we lived in that Russia, spending many nights in friends' apartments and kitchens drinking into the night, and listening to uncensored, often pessimistic, thinking about the present and future of Russia.

I later became Steve's collaborator in smuggling samizdat manuscripts out of Russia to the West, and bringing samizdat books back to Russia and distributing them. By the time I joined him, Steve had managed to send dozens of such books to Moscow, and satisfying friends with a selection ranging from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Varlam Shalamov, George Orwell, and Robert Conquest to the Kama Sutra and, of course, the samizdat version of Steve's own book on Bukharin. I learned from Steve that one had to keep forbidden documents and manuscripts on one's person at all times, knowing that the KGB frequently searched apartments and hotel rooms. At a certain point, Steve's shoulder bag became so heavy that he developed a hernia on his right side. After surgery, he started carrying his bag on his left side, but developed a second hernia there, as well. He liked to say that the worst the KGB ever did to him was to cause him two hernias!

In fact, it was samizdat manuscripts that first brought us together. In 1978, Steve heard that I had a diplomatic passport, which would have exempted me from a customs search, and was about to travel to Moscow. (At the time my father was the United States representative to the United Nations in Geneva.) Through a mutual friend, Steve asked if I would bring out samizdat documents being held for him in Moscow. I would have been happy to do so, but Steve had been misinformed. I didn't have a diplomatic passport.

S teve could sometimes seem like a tough guy, but those who won his trust knew he was a person of great generosity, loyalty, and kindness. He was known in our New York City neighborhood on the Upper West Side as an impresario/organizer and longtime supporter of basketball tournaments for local, often poor, kids. In the United States and Russia, Steve mentored and supported young scholars. In the last decade, he set up fellowships for young scholars of Russian history at the several universities where he'd he studied and taught: Indiana University, Princeton, New York University, and Columbia. He lent his support to the establishment of Moscow's State Museum of the History of the Gulag -- and to its young director and team.

Life with Steve was never boring. He was supremely independent, the true radical in our family, unfailingly going to the root of the problem. He spoke his mind. He had a CD with a dozen variations of "My Way" -- from Billy Bragg to Frank Sinatra. And as The Chronicle of Higher Education subtitled its 2017 profile of Steve, he "was the most controversial Russia expert in America."

SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation 's work.

Through all our years together, Steve was my backbone, fortifying me for the battles Nation editors must wage (often with their own writers, sometimes including Steve!), and giving me the personal and political courage to do the right thing. But never more so than when we entered what might be called the "Russiagate era."

While Steve liked to say it's healthy to rethink, to have more questions than answers, there was a wise consistency to his political analysis. For example, as is clear from his many articles in The Nation in these last decades, he unwaveringly opposed American Cold War thinking both during the Cold War and since the end of the Soviet Union. He was consistent in his refusal to sermonize, lecture, or moralize about what Russia should do. He preferred to listen rather than preach, to analyze rather than demonize.

This stance was no recipe for popularity, which Steve professed to care little about. He was courageous and fearless in continuing to question the increasingly rigid orthodoxies about the Soviet Union and Russia. But in the last months, such criticism did take its toll on him. Along with others who sought to avert a new and more dangerous Cold War, Steve despaired that the public debate so desperately needed had become increasingly impossible in mainstream politics or media. Until his death he'd been working on a short article about what he saw as the "criminalization of détente." The organization he established, the American Committee on East-West Accord, tried mightily to argue for a more sane US policy toward Russia.

He fared better than I often did confronting the controversies surrounding him since 2014, in reaction to his views on Ukraine, Putin, election interference, and more. Positions he took often elicited slurs and scurrilous attacks. How many times could he be labeled "Putin's puppet"? "Putin's No.1 American apologist"? Endlessly, it seemed. But Steve chose not to respond directly to the attacks, believing -- as he told me many times when I urged him to respond -- that they offered no truly substantive criticism of his arguments, but were merely ad hominem attacks. What he did write about -- he was increasingly concerned about the fate of a younger generation of scholars -- was the danger of smearing those who thought differently about US policy toward Russia, thereby silencing skeptics and contributing to the absence of a needed debate in our politics, media, and academy.

M ikhail Gorbachev often told Steve how deeply influenced he was by his writings, especially his biography of Bukharin. Steve first met Gorbachev in 1987 at the Soviet Embassy in Washington. It was a reception for America's "progressive intelligentsia" -- which Steve found funny, because he considered himself a maverick and didn't like labels. But he was there that day, and within a few minutes a Kremlin aide told Steve that the general secretary wanted to talk to him. Minutes later, Mikhail Sergeevich approached and asked Steve, assuming the author of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution must be eminent and of a "serious" age: " Deistvitelno [really] -- you wrote the book, or was it your father?"

Steve finally achieved that "serious" age Gorbachev spoke of! But his heart, spirit and mind remained youthful till the very end. Maybe it's because of his love of Jerry Lee Lewis's rock and roll, or New Orleans blues or Kentucky bluegrass, or his passion for basketball (shared with our daughter Nika and his 16-year-old grandson, Lucas), or his quest for a good anecdote (his annual anecdote lectures at Princeton and later NYU drew large crowds). Maybe it's because we continued our walks in nearby Riverside Park for as long as was possible -- walks full of loving and spirited argument and talk. Perhaps it's because, while Steve was a very serious person, he didn't take himself seriously.

O n Saturday, Mikhail Gorbachev sent these words about Steve:

Dear Katrina,
Please accept my sincere condolences on Steve's passing. He was one of the closest people to me in his views and understanding of the enormous events that occurred in the late 1980s in Russia and changed the world.
Steve was a brilliant historian and a man of democratic convictions. He loved Russia, the Russian intelligentsia, and believed in our country's future.
I always considered Steve and you my true friends. During perestroika and all the subsequent years, I felt your understanding and unwavering support. I thank you both.
Dear Katrina, I feel deep sympathy for your grief and I mourn together with you and Nika.
Blessed memory for Steve.
I embrace you,
Mikhail Gorbachev
19.09.20

F or 40 years, Steve was my partner, companion, co-conspirator, best friend, fellow traveler, mentor, husband (for 32 years), co-author. I will be forever grateful to him for introducing me to The Nation , to Russia, for a life that has been full of shared adventure, friendship and passion, and for our beloved daughter, Nika. MOST POPULAR 1

FEDERAL AGENCIES TAPPED PROTESTERS' PHONES IN PORTLAND 2

IS TRUMP PLANNING A COUP D'ÉTAT? 3

WHY LEBRON JAMES SCARES THE RACIST RIGHT 4

TRUMP WANTS ANOTHER 'BUSH V. GORE' 5

FASCISM IS THE CORE OF TRUMP'S MESSAGE

https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/show?displayMode=inline&containerSelector=%23tp-meter&templateId=OT6SYOE39OW8&offerId=fakeOfferId&showCloseButton=false&trackingId=%7Bjcx%7DH4sIAAAAAAAAAI2QUW-CMBDHv0ufxbSllNY3E3GaLZoNJ-jbiZ3WYO2goHHZdx-QucVkD2v6cve73z-X-0Cgt2iAZscHYNNrMnlCPWRhp5ZanactoZhiD0uP-u0PuEdDL2hqdn1M16vJs6tkEC5854FQBBMAITdU-FxwnzGOZbYhGINgqglWF6sKrUymuugonbykyWg4fk3jOxpdVFY5fTLdGBFY2BDjOvNw86gLKhFIYJLIQ2hqYZg9sDt_mP3I5f50XqijzcGpdTqKxtE4mcUJ5qQx9lDeGBq4olI95L7rTp4veLyaR76cJwL9siUUGoxrR0yV5z2UwdGC3pny1qh1qTuOau_PAxLhvcG2PMQU3q0u_WoZ_-eA2jaRXPSJlH2KeV-0a1WlKoY7ZVzDtuesXdTlaEA4bkROBP_8AstBlSvmAQAA&experienceId=EXHRXWDAFUXS&activeMeters=%5B%7B%22meterName%22%3A%22PaywallMeter%22%2C%22views%22%3A2%2C%22viewsLeft%22%3A0%2C%22maxViews%22%3A2%2C%22totalViews%22%3A4%7D%5D&tbc=%7Bjzx%7DvaV6Q-AgGJ_DiTS_QNn8FA6olpAEC_GKej-sdbqQpRIS-Kfr2XuQ_uJ7-VsMBs9sgdDzuDJGAIvwcZFWTCJIbM0i5t_YYdOlPsJmO-rAn6uIfIuoy1Hh_-p5REhASnboV4_aTgrddjKMmaM4SpBJ-g&iframeId=offer-2-KEwYv&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Farticle%2Fworld%2Fstephen-cohen-obituary-russia%2F&parentDualScreenLeft=1536&parentDualScreenTop=0&parentWidth=1536&parentHeight=762&parentOuterHeight=864&aid=NmGa4IzWHL&tags=nation-history%2Cregions-and-countries%2Csociety%2Cworld%2Clived-history%2Cinstagram%2Crussia%2Cunited-nations%2Ckatrina-vanden-heuvel&contentSection=article&contentAuthor=Katrina+vanden+Heuvel&contentCreated=2020-09-21T10%3A34%3A52-04%3A00&pageViewId=2020-09-23-23-56-27-509-4zKXZYHQtu957T3t-a8e101aa89b283686344609cb100a84e&visitId=v-2020-09-23-23-56-27-518-fadsjS2aqpis3uVS-a8e101aa89b283686344609cb100a84e&userProvider=publisher_user_ref&userToken=&customCookies=%7B%22_pc_exit_popup_signup_confirm%22%3A%22true%22%7D&hasLoginRequiredCallback=true&width=1519&_qh=98fc21705d

Katrina vanden Heuvel TWITTER Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of The Nation , America's leading source of progressive politics and culture. She served as editor of the magazine from 1995 to 2019.


Herbert Weiner says:

September 22, 2020 at 11:53 pm

My condolences for the passing of Stephen who fought the post Cold War policies against Russia with a balanced analysis--so contradictory to the intellectuals who gloat in our victory and are unrealistic to the "threat" posed by Russia which desperately needs peace and friendship with the West and, especially, us. He has shown that you can criticism and condemn Stalinism while also condemning our anti-Soviet policies. He walked that tightrope which I applaud. May his memory be a blessing.

Erwin Borda says: September 22, 2020 at 10:44 pm

Dear Katrina, at this time of America's political confusion, pain and intellectual despair, the lost of Steve is really big. He has been a source of inspiration to many, and the true defender of Russia in the middle of political adversity. Steve being an intellectual giant always exposed his ideas in a humble and honest way. What a lost for America and for the world!
Rest in Peace Steve! And for you Katrina and Nika my most sincere condolences!
God Bless you all!

Valera Bochkarev says: September 22, 2020 at 8:56 am

Boots, Applebaums, Kristols and Joffes of this world will come and go as specks of dirt clogging up our civilization while never measuring up to courageous moral and intellectual giants like Professor Cohen. His intellect, insight and humility will always be a shining beacon for those that have high hopes for humanity. Rest in peace, Steve Cohen. You've led a righteous and honorable life, Sir.

Pierre Guerlain says: September 22, 2020 at 2:43 am

I started reading Steve's articles in connection with the conspiracy theory that Russiagate is and then I watched many videos of him in interviews. I came to admire such a courageous man who was slandered by people who knew nothing, nothing about Russia, the country Steve knew so well but also nothing about geopolitics, international relations and the tricks of intel services. Always competent and with a gift for clear exposition, Steve warned about what is one of the gravest dangers: war with Russia. I too admired Gorbachev and saw how he was hoodwinked by people who unknowingly prepared Putin's rise. A great courageous thinker is gone and we miss him.

Ann Wright says: September 21, 2020 at 7:53 pm

I admired Steve's perspective from 1992 when I was in the second group that wasIn the US Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and two years later with the Us Embassy in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan for two years from 1994-1996. I've been back to Russia twice in the past three years and I agree totally with His view of the stupidity of another Cold War!!!

John Stewart says: September 21, 2020 at 5:12 pm

Katrina, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I took two courses with Professor Cohen at Princeton in 1973 and 1974, and he was without question the best lecturer I had in seven years of higher education. He became my intellectual mentor, although I was too shy to ever really talk with him. I graduated in Politics and Russian Studies in 1977, and he was an inspiration. I am especially saddened by his death because I have been thinking of picking up Russian studies soon when I retire and I wanted his advice on where I should do a Masters degree, with whom, and what topics needed someone to pick up. He was a great man, and a voice of sense about Russia. He will be greatly missed.

John Connolly says: September 21, 2020 at 3:10 pm

Dear Katrina: Thank You for this personal sharing of Your life with Stephen Cohen; and sincere condolences to You, Nika and Lucas.
I really appreciate Your clarity and candor about the unique position Steve occupied in the academic, intellectual and political firmament ... never completely clear to me until Your explication. Steve regularly engaged and sometimes enraged me with some of his positions -- some of them seeming to me ill-considered defenses of cloddish Stalinist bureaucrats or malevolent Russian authoritarians ... but I read everything he wrote in 'The Nation' and anywhere else I came across him. As a longtime Trotskyist/ Socialist I could find plenty to argue about with Brother Cohen, but also found great appreciation for the fact that almost no one else was currently thinking and writing about Russia or the Soviet experience with the rigor, insight, depth of experience and skill that Stephen owned and shared with us all. It goes without saying he will be missed by You his dearest and closest ones; but he will be sorely missed too by those of us in Your extended 'Nation' Family, and the Progressive millions he so widely taught and influenced to 'think different'.

[Sep 24, 2020] Putin And Trump vs The New World Order- The Final Battle

Sep 24, 2020 | orientalreview.org

When Vladimir Putin got charge of Russia, there was no sign that he would do better than the drunk he had replaced. An ex KGB officer seemed like a choice more driven by nostalgia rather than ideology, but Putin had many more assets going for him than first met the eyes: patriotism, humanism, a sense of justice, cunning ruse, a genius economist friend named Sergey Glazyev whom openly despised the New World Order, but above all, he embodied the reincarnation of the long lost Russian ideology of total political and economical independence. After a few years spent at draining the Russian swamp from the oligarchs and mafiosis that his stumbling predecessor had left in his trail of empty bottles, Vlad rolled his sleeves and got to work.

Because his opponents had been looting the planet for 250 years through colonization insured by a military dominance, Vlad knew that he had to start by building an invincible military machine. And he did. He came up with different types of hypersonic missiles that can't be stopped, the best defensive systems on the planet, the best electronic jamming systems, and the best planes. Then to make sure that a nuclear war wouldn't be an option, he came up with stuff which nightmares are made of, such as the Sarmat, the Poseidon and the Avangard, all unstoppable and able to destroy any country in a matter of a few hours.

Putin said that Russia is the only country in the world that has hypersonic weapons even though its military spending is a fraction of the U.S. military budget. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, left, and Chief of General Staff of Russia Valery Gerasimov, right, attend the meeting.

With a new and unmatched arsenal, he could proceed to defeat any NATO force or any of its proxies, as he did starting in September 2015 in Syria. He proved to every country that independence from the NWO banking system was now a matter of choice. Putin not only won the Syrian war, but he won the support of many New World Order countries that suddenly switched sides upon realizing how invincible Russia had become. On a diplomatic level, it also got mighty China by its side, and then managed to protect independent oil producers such as Venezuela and Iran, while leaders like Erdogan of Turkey and Muhammad Ben Salman of Saudi Arabia decided to side with Russia, who isn't holding the best poker hand, but the whole deck of cards.

Ending in the conclusion that Putin now controls the all-mighty oil market, the unavoidable energy resource that lubricates economies and armies, while the banksters' NATO can only watch, without any means to get it back. With the unbelievable results that Putin has been getting in the last five years, the New World Order suddenly looks like a house of cards about to crumble. The Empire of Banks has been terminally ill for five years, but it's now on morphine, barely realizing what's going on.

Tragedy and hope

Since there is no hope in starting WW3 which is lost in advance, the last banzai came out of the bushes in the shape of a virus and the ensuing media creation of a fake pandemic. The main focus was to avoid a catastrophic hyperinflation of the humongous mass of US dollar that no one wants anymore, to have time to implement their virtual world crypto-currency, as if the chronically failing bankers still have any legitimacy to keep controlling our money supplies. It seemed at first that the plan could work. That's when Vlad took out his revolver to start the Russian roulette game and bankers blew their brains out upon the pressure on the trigger.

He called a meeting with OPEC and killed the price of oil by refusing to lower Russia's production, taking the barrel to under 30 dollars. Without any afterthought and certainly even less remorse, Vlad killed the costly Western oil production. All the dollars that had been taken out of the market had to be re-injected by the Fed and other central banks to avoid a downslide and the final disaster. By now, our dear bankers are out of solutions.

... ... ..

The New World Order is facing the two most powerful countries on the planet, and this fake pandemic changed everything. It showed how desperate the banksters are, and if we don't want to end up with nuclear warheads flying in both directions, Putin and Trump have to stop them now.

Terminate the BIS, the World Bank, the IMF, the European Central bank, the EU, NATO, now. Our world won't be perfect, but it might get much better soon.

Easter resurrection is coming. This might get biblical.

[Sep 23, 2020] How fake media actually works: reporter are given the narrative and they should rehash their stories to fit it

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given topic. ..."
"... I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers," to use the parlance of spooks. ..."
"... Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality". ..."
"... In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try ..."
Sep 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

snake , Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control the narrative?

1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.

2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality".

3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try.

snake , Sep 22 2020 10:19 utc | 36

time2wakeupnow , Sep 21 2020 23:36 utc | 20

Well....as always, and especially if it involves anything even remotely relating to 'Russia', or Iran, or whatever adversarial operational target of the day might be -- one can reliably count on our very own "Izvestia on the Hudson" to faithfully execute their officially sanctioned nation security state propaganda mission by dutifully steno-graphing as much dis/mis-information as their NSA/CIA/Pentagon handlers request (require) from them.

Petri Krohn , Sep 21 2020 22:50 utc | 18

A former editor and correspondent of the The New York Times , Michael Cieply describes how the newspaper works:
Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room.

ak74 , Sep 22 2020 0:14 utc | 22
The blogger Caitlin Johnstone accurately states that these most of these mainstream corporate journalists are really *narrative managers* in that their primary role is to peddle the official narrative of the US corporate/political establishment for any given topic.

I would add that the managing editors of these "journalists"/narrative managers would be more honestly described as "handlers," to use the parlance of spooks.

In fact, it would be apt to described venerable institution of journalism itself as an intelligence operation.

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Richard Steven Heck , Sep 22 2020 4:01 utc | 28

@snake | Sep 22 2020 0:59 utc | 22 can we not invent a method that can counter this tactic of using propaganda to control the narrative?

1) Hack them. Release their planning documents, emails, phone calls, etc. showing how the scam was set up.

2) Waste of time. They control the media. The Internet may have lots of influence, but it still does not set "consensus reality" - that remains with the MSM. The MSM issues one coordinated narrative. The Internet is all over the place. Without one coordinated narrative, you can't set "reality".

3) In addition, those who issue the narrative and control the MSM have the power. People want to believe those in power, due to cognitive dissonance - otherwise they'd have to accept that everyone ruling their lives is a corrupt liar. The electorate may *say* they understand that their rulers are corrupt - but they can't act* on that realization without compromising their own internal belief systems. So again, waste of time to try.

[Sep 23, 2020] The deviousness of Russians is completly off the charts.

Highly recommended!
Sep 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Steverino , Aug 9 2020 13:35 utc | 53

I'll tell you what's really going on here.

Those sneaky Russians are well aware Biden is doing a good enough job of subverting his own campaign.

They know he, like his opponent, offers no relief from the constant militarism and forever wars that the American public is fed up with.

They know he, like his opponent, is corrupt and represents corporate interests and that the American public sees him as out of touch and incapable of offering anything in terms of substantive change.

They know that so long as Biden doesn't offer any kind of viable alternative to the status quo his candidacy is going to be weak and ineffectual and that there isn't much of anything they could do that could possibly enhance that effect.

So, they're content to sit back and let nature take its course. In other words, they realize the best way to interfere in the American elections... is by NOT interfering with them.

And how could the Americans possibly counter such a strategy? The deviousness is off the charts. Damn those Russians!

LOL

[Sep 23, 2020] It's Unrealistic To Speculate That The Kremlin Wanted To Kill Navalny by Andrew KORYBKO

Aug 28, 2020 | orientalreview.org

26/08/2020

The rapid onset of a mysterious illness that almost killed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny last week and ultimately led to his emergency airlifting to Germany for treatment while in a medically induced coma immediately prompted widespread speculation from the Western media that the authorities had tried to poison him, but it's unrealistic to imagine such a scenario since there are several compelling reasons why the government wouldn't ever want to harm him as well as some relevant arguments for why the West wants their targeted audience across the world to think otherwise. The Mysterious Illness

The Western media has been captivated by the curious case of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny after the rapid onset of a mysterious illness almost killed him while he was mid-flight from Siberia to Moscow to face charges of slander after calling a World War II veteran a "traitor" earlier this summer for supporting amendments to the constitution. Navalny was ultimately airlifted to Germany for treatment while in a medically induced coma at his wife's request . Private individuals footed the bill , and the authorities didn't object to his departure. Prior to that, the Russian doctors shared their preliminary diagnosis that his illness was caused by a "metabolic disorder" which might have been triggered by a "sharp drop in blood sugar". They also confirmed that "no poisons or traces of poison have been found in his system", which is why a law enforcement source told TASS that "There are no grounds for opening a criminal case, no crime elements have been identified." An industrial chemical was found on his hands and clothes during testing, but the Omsk Regional Office of the Interior Ministry is of the belief that "it may have appeared after contact with plastic glass".

Assassination Speculations

Those are the facts as they objectively exist at the moment of this article's publication on 24 August, but the political context of the case has fueled speculation about foul play. The most popular theory is that he was poisoned after drinking a cup of tea that was handed to him by his aide while waiting for his flight at the airport. Staff at the cafe in question that were interviewed by police said that they didn't know anything about the incident, and the business has since closed . Despite the Russian doctors concluding that there were "no toxicological substances that could have been described as a poison" in his system, the Western media has speculated that he was poisoned as part of a Kremlin plot. This narrative builds upon the unproven stories of the past two decades, especially the recent Skripal case from two years ago, alleging that President Putin personally orders his critics across the world to be poisoned as punishment for bruising his ego. Despite being ridiculous to countenance for any objective observer, it nevertheless advances the information warfare narrative that the Russian leader is a "dangerous dictator" who must be stopped by all means possible.

Navalny's Real Role In Russian Society

This politically self-serving depiction of events relies on its targeted audience's ignorance of Russian domestic politics since those who are aware of everyday realities there know better than to imagine such a scenario. Navalny isn't the "opposition leader" that he's portrayed as abroad, but is more like an investigative blogger and protest organizer than anything else. His ethno-nationalist views only appeal to the extreme right-wing fringe of society, though Westerners are generally unaware of them since their media mostly only focuses on his occasional liberal rhetoric and regular criticism of the authorities. While his racial beliefs are politically dangerous in terms of threatening to unravel the cosmopolitan country's unity, they're not an electoral threat considering how unpopular they are, hence why the ruling United Russia party isn't too concerned about him. Navalny wouldn't even be that well-known at home had he not repeatedly broken the law by organizing unauthorized rallies, provocations which always receive disproportionate attention from his Western media allies. Exaggerating his political importance is therefore nothing more than a Western infowar tactic.

The "Pressure Valve"

This presumably irks the government, but it in no way threatens it. If anything, the authorities have come to accept the role that Navalny plays in society as a "pressure valve" for people's frustration with corruption and other related issues. They're used to his antics by now, and he's regarded as the "devil that they know". His departure from the scene would actually be counterproductive since it might open up the opportunity for an even more radical individual to replace him, one who's much less "manageable" and might dangerously stir up ethno-nationalist tensions in society under the cover "anti-corruption" rhetoric. Since he's so highly regarded in the West as a result of their long-running infowar, they know that they'd immediately be suspected if anything happened to him. This in turn, as is presently on display as a result of his mysterious medical crisis, could then be twisted into even more devious infowar narratives against their country such as the current one speculating that the authorities tried to assassinate him. They'd never do anything of the sort, but all that matters is that the West's targeted audience believes this false claim after being preconditioned for years to accept it.

Different Infowar Targets, Different Intended Outcomes

The non-Russian audience is having their negative views about the country reinforced by the " media circus " surrounding Navalny's mysterious illness, and their governments might potentially use the incident as a pretext for tightening the sanctions regime against Russia, and especially against specific individuals who they might eventually claim were linked to what's being wrongly portrayed as an "assassination attempt". As for the targeted Russian audience, the West might hope that this incident could spark another wave of protests in Moscow along the lines of the ongoing ones in the Far Eastern city of Khabarovsk and the Belarusian capital of Minsk. That wouldn't be for the purpose of overthrowing the government which is completely unrealistic, but simply to cause some more trouble for it. The German doctors' forthcoming prognosis will be crucial in determining the scenario trajectory since they'll either reaffirm the findings of their Russian counterparts and predictably lead to this manufactured scandal blowing over or possibly challenge them under pressure from Western intelligence agencies and thus exacerbate the situation.

The ambulance that transported Alexei Navalny to Charite Mitte Hospital Complex in Berlin, Germany August 22, 2020
Scenario Forecasting

There are no credible reasons to doubt the Russian doctors' preliminary prognosis that Navalny's medical emergency was caused by a sharp drop in his blood-sugar levels, but their German counterparts might publicly allege a different version of events. Should that happen, then it's almost certain that Western governments will claim that he was poisoned at the behest of President Putin, threaten to impose more sanctions against Russia (most likely targeted ones), and naturally grant Navalny political asylum. Russia would predictably object to that series of events considering the fact that its doctors concluded that there were no poisons found in his system, which would lead to yet another layer of tension in Russia-West relations. Not only that, but since Navalny is currently being treated in Germany, intense pressure might be put upon the authorities by domestic politicians and their American patrons to politicize the final leg of Nord Stream II's construction by potentially delaying it as "punishment to Putin". That would be an unfortunate twist to the situation, but one that definitely can't be ruled out after taking into account just how badly the US wants to sabotage that project.

Concluding Thoughts

As it stands, it looks like Navalny really did experience a genuine medical emergency, one which was naturally occurring and not the result of any foul play. Neither the Russian authorities nor foreign intelligence agencies attempted to assassinate him, but the German doctors might be pressured by Western intelligence agencies to contradict their counterpart's findings in order to provoke a fake crisis in Russia-West relations, one which could then potentially be leveraged to put interfere with the final stage of Nord Stream II's construction. Regardless of how this incident ends, one thing's for certain, and it's that Navalny's mysterious illness was politicized before there were any grounds to do so. The Western media has an interest in making it seem like President Putin ordered his assassination because of his bruised ego, but this is ridiculous to countenance since Navalny fulfills a useful role in Russian society by functioning as a "pressure valve" for people's frustration with corruption and other related issues. The last thing that the Kremlin would ever do is harm him since all Russian authorities already know that their government would immediately be suspected if something happened to him.

Source: OneWorld

[Sep 22, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen -- In Memoriam by Gilbert Doctorow

Unfortunately in his brilliant analysis of USA-Russia relations Stephen Cohen never pointed out that the USA policy toward Russia is dictated by the interests of maintaining global neoliberal empire and the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" which was adopted by the USA neoliberal elite after the collapse of the USSR.
Like British empire the USA neoliberal empire is now overextended, metropolia is in secular stagnation with deterioration standard of living of the bottom 80% of population, so the USA under Trump became more aggressive and dangerous on the international arena. Trump administration behaves behaves like a cornered rat on international arena.
Notable quotes:
"... On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the "dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC Radio. ..."
"... from the start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem attacks. ..."
"... the opposition to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective, not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of Eurasia. ..."
"... Almost no one outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and military confrontation with Russia and China. ..."
"... My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. ..."
"... It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker. ..."
"... In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this day. ..."
Sep 22, 2020 | gilbertdoctorow.com

On Friday, 18 September, professor Steve Cohen passed away in New York City and we, the "dissident" community of Americans standing for peace with Russia – and for peace with the world at large – lost a towering intellectual and skillful defender of our cause who enjoyed an audience of millions by his weekly broadcasts on the John Batchelor Show, WABC Radio.

A year ago, I reviewed his latest book, War With Russia? which drew upon the material of those programs and took this scholar turned journalist into a new and highly accessible genre of oral readings in print. The narrative style may have been more relaxed, with simplified syntax, but the reasoning remained razor sharp. I urge those who are today paying tribute to Steve, to buy and read the book, which is his best legacy.

From start to finish, Stephen F. Cohen was among America's best historians of his generation, putting aside the specific subject matter that he treated: Nikolai Bukharin, his dissertation topic and the material of his first and best known book; or, to put it more broadly, the history of Russia (USSR) in the 20 th century. He was one of the very rare cases of an historian deeply attentive to historiography, to causality and to logic. I understood this when I read a book of his from the mid-1980s in which he explained why Russian (Soviet) history was no longer attracting young students of quality: because there were no unanswered questions, because we smugly assumed that we knew about that country all that there was to know. That was when our expert community told us with one voice that the USSR was entrapped in totalitarianism without any prospect for the overthrow of its oppressive regime.

But my recollections of Steve also have a personal dimension going back six years or so when a casual email correspondence between us flowered into a joint project that became the launch of the American Committee for East West Accord (ACEWA). This was a revival of a pro-détente association of academics and business people that existed from the mid-1970s to the early 1990s, when, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of the Communist Party from power, the future of Russia in the family of nations we call the 'international community' seemed assured and there appeared to be no further need for such an association as ACEWA.

I hasten to add that in the original ACEWA Steve and I were two ships that passed in the night. With his base in Princeton, he was a protégé of the dean of diplomats then in residence there, George Kennan, who was the leading light on the academic side of the ACEWA. I was on the business side of the association, which was led by Don Kendall, chairman of Pepsico and also for much of the 1970s chairman of the US-USSR Trade and Economic Council of which I was also a member. I published pro-détente articles in their newsletter and published a lengthy piece on cooperation with the Soviet Union in agricultural and food processing domains, my specialty at that time, in their collection of essays by leaders in the U.S. business community entitled Common Sense in U.S.-Soviet Trade .

The academic contingent had, as one might assume, a 'progressive' coloration, while the business contingent had a Nixon Republican coloration. Indeed, in the mid-1980s these two sides split in their approach to the growing peace movement in the U.S. that was fed by opposition in the 'thinking community' on university campuses to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars agenda. Kendall shut the door at ACEWA to rabble rousing and the association did not rise to the occasion, so that its disbanding in the early '90s went unnoticed.

In the re-incorporated American Committee, I helped out by assuming the formal obligations of Treasurer and Secretary, and also became the group's European Coordinator from my base in Brussels. At this point my communications with Steve were almost daily and emotionally quite intense. This was a time when America's expert community on Russian affairs once again felt certain that it knew everything there was to know about the country, and most particularly about the nefarious "Putin regime." But whereas in the 1970s and 1980s, polite debate about the USSR/Russia was entirely possible both behind closed doors and in public space, from the start of the Information Wars against Russia during the George W. Bush administration following Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007, no voice questioning the official propaganda line in America was tolerated. Steve Cohen, who in the 1990s had been a welcome guest on U.S. national television and a widely cited expert in print media suddenly found himself blacklisted and subjected to the worst of McCarthyite style, ad hominem attacks.

From my correspondence and several meetings with Steve at this time both in his New York apartment and here in Brussels, when he and Katrina van der Heuvel came to participate in a Round Table dedicated to relations with Russia at the Brussels Press Club that I arranged, I knew that Steve was deeply hurt by these vitriolic attacks. He was at the time waging a difficult campaign to establish a fellowship in support of graduate studies in Russian affairs. It was touch and go, because of vicious opposition from some stalwarts of the profession to any fellowship that bore Steve's name. Allow me to put the 'i' on this dispute: the opposition to Steve was led by experts in the Ukrainian and other minority peoples sub-categories of the profession who were militantly opposed not just to him personally but to any purely objective, not to mention sympathetic treatment of Russian leadership in the territorial expanse of Eurasia. In the end, Steve and Katrina prevailed. The fellowships exist and, hopefully, will provide sustenance to future studies when American attitudes towards Russia become less politicized.

At all times and on all occasions, Steve Cohen was a voice of reason above all. The problem of our age is that we are now not only living in a post-factual world, but in a post-logic world. The public reads day after day the most outrageous and illogical assertions about alleged Russian misdeeds posted by our most respected mainstream media including The New York Times and The Washington Post . Almost no one dares to raise a hand and suggest that this reporting is propaganda and that the public is being brainwashed. Steve did exactly that in War With Russia? in a brilliant and restrained text.

Regrettably today we have no peace movement to speak of. Youth and our 'progressive' elites are totally concerned over the fate of humanity in 30 or 40 years' time as a consequence of Global Warming and rising seas. That is the essence of the Green Movement. Almost no one outside our 'dissident' community is concerned about the possibility of Armageddon in say two years' time due to miscalculations and bad luck in our pursuing economic, informational and military confrontation with Russia and China.

I fear it will take only some force majeure development such as we had in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis to awaken the broad public to the risks to our very survival that we are incurring by ignoring the issues that Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Princeton and New York University was bringing to the airwaves week after week on his radio program.

Postscript

In terms of action, the new ACEWA was even less effective than its predecessor, which had avoided linking up with the peace movement of the 1980s and sought to exert influence on policy through armchair talks with Senators and other statesmen in Washington behind closed doors of (essentially) men's clubs.

However, the importance of the new ACEWA, and the national importance of Stephen Cohen lay elsewhere.

This question of appraising Stephen Cohen's national importance is all the more timely given that on the day of his death, 18 September, the nation also lost Supreme Justice Ruth Ginsburg, about whose national importance no Americans, whether her fans or her opponents, had any doubt.

My point in this discussion is that in the last decade of his life Stephen Cohen became one of the nation's most fearless and persistent defenders of the right to Free Speech. It was not a role that he sought. It was thrust upon him by the expert community of international affairs, including the Council on Foreign Relations, from which he reluctantly resigned over this matter.

It was forced upon him by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other major media who pilloried him or blacklisted him over his unorthodox, unsanctioned, nonconformist views on the "Putin regime." It was forced upon him by university colleagues who sought to deny his right to establish graduate school fellowships in Russian affairs bearing his name and that of his mentor at Indiana University, Professor Tucker.

In the face of vicious personal attacks from these McCarthyite forces, in the face of hate mail and even threats to his life, Steve decided to set up The American Committee and to recruit to its governing board famous, patriotic Americans and the descendants of the most revered families in the country. In this he succeeded, and it is to his credit that a moral counter force to the stampeding bulls of repression was erected and has survived to this day.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2020

[If you found value in this article, you should be interested to read my latest collection of essays entitled A Belgian Perspective on International Affairs, published in November 2019 and available in e-book, paperback and hardbound formats from amazon, barnes & noble, bol.com, fnac, Waterstones and other online retailers. Use the "View Inside" tab on the book's webpages to browse.]

[Sep 22, 2020] The New US-Russian Cold War -- Who is to Blame

It was all about Full Spectrum Domination. McFaul is not intellectual, he is a propagandist. Actually mediocre, obnoxious propagandist. In like Professor Cohen, intellectually he is nothing with academic credentials.
The level and primitivism lies about Ukraine would name any serious academic flash. It was about encircling Russia.
McFaul was behind Magnitsky which in best conspiracy tradition raises questions whether he works for MI6? We now know who Browder was and suspicious that he was Magnitsky killer or facilitator/financer (by hiring the jail doctor who traded Magnitsky) are very strong in view of "cui bono" question.
Notable quotes:
"... He is definitely not at the same level as Stephen F.Cohen. This is very alarming for the US, that people like him could have any power decision on Foreign Policy, and could explain the slow decline of the USA. ..."
"... McFaul is intellectually incoherent and disingenuous. Cohen wasted him ..."
"... We all know the truth... US economy heavily dependent on producing weapons and ammunition ..."
"... Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was. Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are supposedly pumping out? ..."
Sep 22, 2020 | www.youtube.com

TheInstallations , 2 years ago

McFaul is definitely not an academic, but much more a mediocre high civil servant. He is also very post modern in his approach. He is here to sell his book, not to argue ideas. He is incapable of building a rhetorical argument, and of having any political vision or strong analytical intelligence.

He is definitely not at the same level as Stephen F.Cohen. This is very alarming for the US, that people like him could have any power decision on Foreign Policy, and could explain the slow decline of the USA.

Confronted to people like Putin who is obviously an Old fashion politician like de Gaulles or Churchill, the Cold War can only lead us to catastrophe.

Yevgeny Goncharov , 2 years ago

Great facts from Prof. Cohen. Faulty logic from McFaul ("you cannot use those variables..."). McFaul will not get far in understanding Russia with this twisted approach, ie pretending like nothing (NATO, missile treaty, regime changes) happens.

The Maverick Historian , 2 years ago

Very informative debate! I think McFaul has only contributed to the new cold war with the treaties he helped write and the ill-informed advice he provided to the neoconservative Obama administration. Mr. Stephen Cohen is brilliant and I only wish he was more influential in shaping today's foreign policy. Though thankfully, McFaul is also no longer influential in shaping U.S. foreign policy.

Yevgeny Goncharov , 2 years ago

Very low from McFaul. Bringing personal attacks on him from social media as "facts" and "arguments" ("McFaul is a pedophile") . This not a level of academic argument from McFaul. He is no match to Cohen.

Aleksandar Mali , 1 year ago

It's so easy to understand! Russia is doing same thing usa will do when china starts to open military bases in latin America. Its not hard to imagine and in decade or to you will not have to imagine you will have that reality. Many Latin America countries will be interconnected with china with economic and military agreements than one day they will try to brig Mexico in China's sphere of influence if they refuse china can let's say "help" opposition to come in power and sign everything China wants.

I would like to see what American "experts" will say. How many of them will think that Mexico as a sovereign natio have right to sign any agreement it wants maybe even Russia can open military base and bring nuclear weapons to border of USA. So what it's their democratic right, isn't it?

Peace and Love , 2 years ago

McFaul is intellectually incoherent and disingenuous. Cohen wasted him

Salam Ahmed , 10 months ago

1:13:33 - 1:13:58 I swear by the all-powerful Albert Einistine that you are lying AND YOU KNOW IT. Russians said A BILLION times that U.S.A slowly but SURELY preparing for what they called "a calamitous war" by moving its lethal weapons nearer and nearer to the Russian territories.

We all know the truth... US economy heavily dependent on producing weapons and ammunition but the very very very main reason [for harassing Russia and the rest of world] is because the Rothschild family wants GLOBAL DOMINATION. SOLD FACT (ask ANY Russian intelligence officer about it and you will see what i mean).

SvendBosanvovski , 1 year ago (edited)

I have read Professor Cohen's last two works ("Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives" and "War with Russia?") and found them very informative and persuasive, but seeing him here expanding upon his key arguments is even more rewarding.

He shouldn't have to be brave to hold to his position, given his reputation as a scholar, but regrettably he is made to appear out of step with the critical mass of opinion makers who see more value promoting conflict with Russia than working towards a sensible accommodation.

rd264 , 2 years ago

I'm not an "expert" from Stanford, but as I recall the USSR imploded and the US [CIA etc] was totally surprised -so called pundits and experts in the US did not see it coming, then the next thing we get is US mainstream media claimed victory in the cold war, just blanket assertions that US won the cold war because the US is virtuous and clean and good, and we did it by the clear superiority of US way of life or some such crap.

Charles Krauthammer, for example. Now so called media and historians try to convince us that Reagan lead disarmament, but as I recall he blocked it at most points, for example, it was Gorbachev not Reagan who was out front and did all the leading at Reykjavik, and Reagan threw away Gorbachev's historic offer to totally disarm on the grounds that Star Wars was a more important priority, on Richard Perle's advice.

Now we are seeing something similar under Trump in which the US is again uninterested in peace and far more interested in wars by proxies and drones and global hegemony and control running the 7 seas and space to boot.

Dmitriy A , 1 year ago

Michael Foley is a liar of course US was involved I was me in US Army force and my friends used to travel to Georgia way before 2008 and of course everybody knows 2008 Russia and Georgia went to war with each other but our soldiers US government soldiers were teaching Georgians fighting with the NATO forces and all orange resolutions and Geo like him involved in Overturning government was famous Victoria Nuland

a 19 , 9 months ago

Mcfaul should have stayed in Montana

Larry Galearis , 2 years ago

Interesting debate and I hope Cohen is right, and is not the first of its kind. But still the FIRST EVER free debate about the New Cold War in the United States is (so far) still on Youtube. While listening to the two professors I found myself noting the difference in the presentation of facts from a career oriented politician/academic who is influenced by a forced narrative (McFaul) and one (Cohen) who is an academic historian who is in dissent and can speak freely (he is retired).

Keep in mind that Prof. McFaul has a career to worry about. It shows a LOT! Here we can see how political pressure can influence a debate. McFaul is still quite deserving of accolades for his courage to even say what he did in this debate.

And note how much free speech is missing in American society in the fact that this sort of thing is very difficult to achieve in a collapsed democracy. Note also that McFaul also stuck to "the Narrative" big lies like the so-called Crimea "annexation" when he would have known the truth of it....There are other examples. Americans are denied the fact that the public vote taken in Crimea was over 90% IN FAVOUR of joining Russia (again). This fact is simply too large for McFaul to be unaware of and yet most Americans are wallowing in this fake news. Or censored omissions. FWIW, Galearis

blackjackpinoko , 1 year ago

McFaul sounded like Pompeo

Steven Bishop , 2 months ago

The Monroe Doctrine. Has McFly read it?

Davide Sinigoi , 1 year ago

Prof. McFaul is a partisan. He bases his opinion of detailed facts, so detailed that he misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that he claims to be a sovereigns, but only when it comes to the US sovereignty. How about Russia's sovereignty?

Or Ukraine's whose government has been toppled by a (among others) US sponsored coup? How about Syria sovereignty? He furthers the view that the US had a fair posture towards Russia, which is not. This is also demonstrated by his personal deep dislike of Putin, which is something that both a real statesman or a real scholar should not influence opinions and actions.

McFaul's perspective is also flawed by the conflation of his (and Obama's) wishes and reality: that is that they don't like Putin and think to deal with Russia as if Putin was not there, but he is. You deal with the reality, not with your wishes. Putin is legitimate and strong Russia's president, whether McFaul likes him or not. A real respect for sovereignty demands respect for the head of the state you deal with. You don't question his legitimacy, as well as they don't questioned Clinton's, Bush's, Obama or Trump legitimacy. His point of view is that everything goes on in the world should have the US sanction, otherwise is not good.

This is imperial hubris, this is arrogance. This flaws his opinion in so far everything is measured upon american likes and dislikes. THis is not statesmanship, this is not scholarship, this is partisanship. He is also intellectually dishonest because he confuses a debate on right and wrong, which should be based on certain assumptions, with a debate on party interests, which has nothing to do with right and wrong, and is based on different assumptions. Indeed he is the less fit person in a debate on responsibility for the New Cold War because he was involved in its development and acquisition.

Partisanship is admitted, but shouldn't be disguised as neutrality or given any relevance just because of knowledge of technical details he knows - much of them are, frankly, irrelevant. His points are weak and inconsistent with geopolitical and a realist view of the international relations, they are biased by universal-liberal ideology, they are US-centric, he forgets too many essential points about the whole story. For instance he talks about the missed chance for Russian democracy (here a debate about what democracy is: his assumption is that the US democracy is .... please, don't make me laugh), but he doesn't mention that Soviet people voted in referenda and overwhelmingly wanted the USSR to keep on existing, but he forgets this "detail".

He forgets how the so much beloved Elcin sent the tanks against the parliament, many people were killed, how he allowed the pillaging of Russian people and resources by criminal oligarchs (many of them happily hosted by the UK and presented as political dissidents), and how the Russian 1996 were HEAVILY rigged and meddled by the US in order to reconfirm Elcin as a president. He complains about Putin being appointed by Elcin out of nothing. Well I can't recall any American complaints at that time, maybe because they thought he could be an alcoholic puppet like Elcin and that was clearly something the US liked and supported. So what about Obama (fake) words about wishing a strong Russia?

Obama spoke derogatory words about Russia. The only American interests about Russia is that is a militarily and strategically weak provider of cheap natural resources and that is not in tne position of competing for anything. I will stop here, although I could write pages and pages about McFlaws .... ooops! McFaul's inconsistency both as a scholar and even more as a statesman's advisor, but the debate was among a great intellectual with a clear vision of the world, and a small professor taken with insignificant details and too much love for Obama and blind believe in liberal universal ideology.

Alex P. , 9 months ago

Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was. Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are supposedly pumping out?

Bob Trajkoski , 1 year ago

McFaul believes in his own propaganda, irrational person and dangerous at that

Adam Rihak , 3 months ago

Prof. Cohen astonishing realpolitik ingenuity when asked "what the security interests of Ukraine and Georgia are" ( 1:16:21 ) unveils to me his understanding of politics as kind of imperialistic chess game where the US stands against the USSR (or RF for that matter). I have experienced the same feelings from his other debates (I remember one memorable at Munk Debates in 2015) - as if the historic fears, desires and dreams (of NATO or EU membership as the only effective shield against Russian military power) of so many ex-soviet countries means absolutely nothing - as if they were mere puppets of US "regime". As though the legitimate wishes of these sovereign countries means nothing at all. He is so surprised by that question he suddenly can't retrieve even the definition of what security interests of a country actually means - a rather strange quality in a historian. Ultimately he comes up with "they should make peace with their neighbors" - say this to countries that were along their history subjects of Soviet violent repression, military invasions, ethnic genocides and such. "I don't think Russian is a threat to them". Absolutely ridiculous.


Jean-Pierre Delorraine
, 8 months ago (edited)

This Michael McFaul individual is such severe laughing-stock completely out of touch with reality. Stephen Cohen's version of the "new cold war" is much closer to reality and we should not forget the nefarious entities that pull the strings in D.C. U.S. covert involvement throughout eastern Europe and especially the Ukraine is more than evident. Putin and Russia in general is not stupid and see right through U.S. covert meddling on Russia's border. And those "peaceful demonstrators" in Syria that MacFaul dearly praises are mere agents of the CIA/Mossad complex. Where are they now?


Nikhilesh Surve
, 4 months ago

Monroe doctrine doesn't care about the democratic rights of countries in the western hemisphere to enter into any alliance or partnership with USA's rival. Also, there's still no evidence of Russian hacking which is basis of their religion of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA !

Pink Question , 3 months ago

Sure, since in Ukraine you guys didn't push money in mysterious organisations that would support the "democratic" narrative. I don't like NATO in my country and I see nato presence as an existential threat for Russia! Look back at the Cuba crisis it's exactly the SAME! You no good morally and ethically corrupt poor excuses of mouth pieces

Ser Korz , 2 years ago

Interesting how USA wants democracy for (all) others , but USA wants capitalist aristocracy for it self ( Jimmy Carter Tells Oprah America Is No Longer a Democracy, Now an Oligarchy https://mic.com/articles/125813/jimmy-carter-tells-oprah-america-is-no-longer-a-democracy-now-an-oligarchy#.AFxvdOCIa ).


Preben Soe
, 9 months ago

Either that Faul person is delusional or he is outright lying - Did Turkey not get threatened with sanctions when they decided to trade with Russia on anti missile weapons.

Eamonn Wright555 , 1 year ago

You know Obama is a straight faced liar . Furthermore , we genocided innocent Christians and Muslims in three countries and created a diaspora of migrants to Europe. So , we are supposed to believe that all those PhDs did not foresee that , most people think that it was your intentional outcome all along . So it goes now in Venezuela. Mcfaul is one of many who just carry the water and carry out orders . It's almost as if , the powers that be want the USA to fall . Because they can not be this stupid .

Paul Srochenski , 1 year ago

Call Cohen tells the truth the other guy just lying a United States started that whole thing in Syria they backed up Isis they backed up all the terrorists and because they want to split the country up and give Israel that major part of it cuz they want the natural resources the oil out of there and everything else because that's what they do everywhere they go they want a natural Resorts and they don't care how many people they kill

Eamonn Wright555 , 1 year ago

You know Obama is a straight faced liar . Furthermore , we genocided innocent Christians and Muslims in three countries and created a diaspora of migrants to Europe. So , we are supposed to believe that all those PhDs did not foresee that , most people think that it was your intentional outcome all along . So it goes now in Venezuela. Mcfaul is one of many who just carry the water and carry out orders . It's almost as if , the powers that be want the USA to fall . Because they can not be this stupid .

Davide Sinigoi , 1 year ago

Prof. McFaul is a partisan. He bases his opinion of detailed facts, so detailed that he misses the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that he claims to be a sovereignist, but only when it comes to the US sovereignty. How about Russia's sovereignity? Or Ukraine's whose government has been toppled by a (among others) US sponsored coup? How about Syria sovereignty? He furthers the view that the US had a fair posture towards Russia, which is not. This is also demonstrated by his personal deep dislike of Putin, which is something that both a real statesman or a real scholar should not influence opinions and actions. McFaul's perspective is also flawed by the conflation of his (and Obama's) wishes and reality: that is that they donì't like Putin and think to deal with Russia as if Putin was not there, but he is. You deal with the reality, not with your wishes. Putin is legitimate and strong Russia's president, whether McFaul likes him or not. A real respect for sovereignty demands respect for the head of the state you deal with. You don't question his legitimacy, as well as they don't questioned Clinton's, Bush's, Obama or Trump legitimacy. His point of view is that everything goes on in the world should have the US sanction, otherwise is not good. This is imperial hubris, this is arrogance. This flaws his opinion in so far everything is measured upon american likes and dislikes. THis is not statesmanship, this is not scholarship, this is partisanship. He is also intellectually dishonest because he confuses a debate on right and wrong, which should be based on certain assumptions, with a debate on party interests, which has nothing to do with right and wrong, and is based on different assumptions. Indeed he is the less fit person in a debate on responsibility for the New Cold War because he was involved in its development and acutisation. Partisanship is admitted, but shouldn't be disguised as neutrality or given any relevance just because of knowledge of technical details he knows - much of them are, frankly, irrelevant. His points are weak and inconsistent with geopolitical and a realist view of the international relations, they are biased by universal-liberal ideology, they are US-centric, he forgets too many essential points about the whole story. For instance he talks about the missed chance for Russian democracy (here a debate about what democracy is: his assumption is that the US democracy is .... please, don't make me laugh), but he doesn't mention that Soviet people voted in referenda and overwhelmingly wanted the USSR to keep on existing, but he forgets this "detail". He forgets how the so much beloved Elcin sent the tanks against the parliament, many people were killed, how he allowed the pillaging of Russian people and resources by criminal oligarchs (many of them happily hosted by the UK and presented as political dissidents), and how the Russian 1996 were HEAVILY rigged and meddled by the US in order to reconfirm Elcin as a president. He complains about Putin being appointed by Elcin out of nothing. Well I can't recall any American complaints at that time, maybe because they thought he could be an alcoholic puppet like Elcin and that was clearly something the US liked and supported. So what about Obama (fake) words about wishing a strong Russia? Obama spoke derogatory words about Russia. The only American interests about Russia is that is a militarly and strategically weak provider of cheap natural resources and that is not in tne position of competing for anything. I will stop here, although I could write pages and pages about McFlaws .... ooops! McFaul's inconsistency both as a scholar and even more as a statesman's advisor, but the debate was among a great intellectual with a clear vision of the world, and a small professor taken with insignificant details and too much love for Obama and blind believe in liberal universal ideology.

Alex P. , 9 months ago

Mc Faul is clearly not supposed to have been in the positions of power, where he was. Something is fundamentally wrong with America. I think there is a crisis of personnel. Where are all these incredibly smart, high IQ people Harvard, Princeton, and the Ivy Leagues are supposedly pumping out?

Rufus Leaking , 1 week ago

I won't, for a second, try to justify the expansion of N.A.T.O. up to the borders of Russia. But I simply cannot get past the belief that the N.A.T.O. expansion was fueled by a (not implausible) fear that a non-Soviet Russia would eventually try to surround its borders with Moscow-friendly governments, just as Stalin did before, during, and after WWII. Russia has been invaded from the west so many times that the lingering fear of it is almost in the Russian people's genetic code. What the rest of the world sees as Soviet & post-Soviet Russian paranoia and expansionism could plausibly be seen by the Russians as a prudent precaution against further western aggression. I don't AGREE with this, but I can imagine how the Russian psyche might be so inclined. I don't agree with the N.A.T.O. expansion, but I can also see how western paranoia about Russian expansionism would fuel the resulting western "encroachment". Ask people in Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia (and, for that matter, Finland) who were alive in WWII if their fear of Russian expansion is based in reality, or is merely paranoia. Be prepared for "VERY STRONG" answers.

Virgocygni56 , 9 months ago

What is the date of this debate Anyone can suggest?

Bob Trajkoski , 1 year ago

McFaul believes in his own propaganda, irrational person and dangerous at that

Alyson Mc Vitty , 1 year ago

2nd speaker - mcfaul - is and idiot sort of manic.

Jsmes Oercy , 1 year ago

Wow the second guy is such a schmuck ,,z,,trying to be funny and failing

Charles DuBois , 6 months ago

Why does 'our' US/Euro left leave me a pronounced impression that they have some special axe grinding on Russia? Is my take on this wrong? And try as I may to ignore it, my gut reaction to our younger author is highly unfavorable. I shall re-watch tomorrow hoping to listen more obectively.

James Registe , 4 months ago

Who ELSE is to blame, Russia has been making overtures since Kruschev

popiedo , 1 year ago

Mcfaul just rambles and tries to crack jokes.

Colonel Chuck , 1 year ago

McFaul sure runs his mouth about nothing.

Adam Rihak , 3 months ago

Prof. Cohen astonishing realpolitik ingenuity when asked "what the security interests of Ukraine and Georgia are" ( 1:16:21 ) unveils to me his understanding of politics as kind of imperialistic chess game where the US stands against the USSR (or RF for that matter). I have experienced the same feelings from his other debates (I remember one memorable at Munk Debates in 2015) - as if the historic fears, desires and dreams (of NATO or EU membership as the only effective shield against Russian military power) of so many ex-soviet countries means absolutely nothing - as if they were mere puppets of US "regime". As though the legitimate wishes of these sovereign countries means nothing at all. He is so surprised by that question he suddenly can't retrieve even the definition of what security interests of a country actually means - a rather strange quality in a historian. Ultimately he comes up with "they should make peace with their neighbors" - say this to countries that were along their history subjects of Soviet violent repression, military invasions, ethnic genocides and such. "I don't think Russian is a threat to them". Absolutely ridiculous.

Jean-Pierre Delorraine , 8 months ago (edited)

This Michael McFaul individual is such severe laughing-stock completely out of touch with reality. Stephen Cohen's version of the "new cold war" is much closer to reality and we should not forget the nefarious entities that pull the strings in D.C. U.S. covert involvement throughout eastern Europe and especially the Ukraine is more than evident. Putin and Russia in general is not stupid and see right through U.S. covert meddling on Russia's border. And those "peaceful demonstrators" in Syria that MacFaul dearly praises are mere agents of the CIA/Mossad complex. Where are they now?

varro We , 2 years ago (edited)

I think it's fair to say that the US won the cold war, the eastern block was broke, there soviet union was a nightmare for humanity, the west was seen as a bright light and it was. So let's put aside propaganda, ask anyone from the eastern block and they will tell you that what Russia created was a genocide. Just look how fast all of those counties jumped to enter NATO. Soviet union collapsed. It's a very nice discussion and I learn a lot from this, there are a lot of things that US and Russia could have done to prevent another cold war, I think what we are with is with a belief in human wisdom, if there is any left.

[Sep 21, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen- The Ukrainian Crisis - It s not All Putin s Fault

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive) while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time! ..."
Sep 21, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Gerry Cooney , 3 years ago (edited)

Speaking as an Independent, I say that our country, the USA, has engineered past confilcts and wars in order to feed the military industrial complex. Not so much that it results in a nuke-shooting war, but in a regular non-nuke shooting war. The solution? Send the sons and daughters of the politicians into direct combat, every time they approve another war. That should keep things a bit more peaceful.

Playthell Benjamin , 3 years ago

Professor Cohen is this nation's most objective and therefore most valuable thinker on Russia! The charge that his views are "not patriotic" is a compliment rather than the insult they intended. A scholar's views are only valuable to the public and, more importantly, policy makers, if they are OBJECTIVE!!! Which is to say that he follows the FACTS wherever they lead!

Stratus Blue , 4 years ago

Any "discussion" with no mention of the supranational central bank cartel is intentional deceptive omission. The "brass ring" is forced use of petro-dollars. The central bank stock holders and bankers loaning all dollars into existence as national debt, do not care who owns land. They care who pays off national debts and interest on debt. Civil war is their racket. There are no sovereign nations. No genuine nations that create their medium of exchange publicly. No national people. Just participants in an extortion or its victims. The "Elite" collect on money they created as loans in their central banking accounts. All others are only human numbers assigned billing addresses.

Maria Schick , 4 years ago

Welcome to the New World Order ....where Multinational corporations rule & their profits are what are most important..... NOT nation states it's the 99.9% against the .01% and they use MSM propaganda & fear to control the DUMB masses thinking

Madaleine , 9 months ago

Global mafia in the background! Shut down funding cia ET Al

keepinitreal , 2 years ago

So infuriating that videos that carry the truth have 57k views, while nasty lying propaganda has millions!

SJ R , 4 years ago

I just discovered John Batchelor Show on which Cohen has a guest spot- I just was drawn to this man's thinking, probably because I had made up my mind about Russia during the Ukraine crises. Seeing the US has ruin every country we have gone into- I'm on Russia's side, especially where Russia and Ukraine has a history, on that side of the world.

Santos D , 4 years ago (edited)

38:49 - Apologies for the somewhat Utopian question here. I agree with everything Cohen has said, but regarding cause of jihadist terrorism ( ie implosion of the economies in the region), does it make sense to discuss primarily this game of terrorist whack a mole (bombing, invading and crushing Jihadist insurgencies)? Is there any point in talking about a pro active policy of recreating sustainable, stable economies in the region? What would that even look like?

Cezanne Monet , 11 hours ago

Brilliant scholar. RIP Prof Cohen. Watch if you want to understand today's geopolitical situation. The whole situation.

No Names , 4 years ago (edited)

Not very many average Americans would be able to easily access and watch this. Average Americans still consume mainly mainstream media. Too bad, because this lecture would have opened their eyes and have blown up their brain-contaminated minds by the CNN, the New York Times and alike.

Chris Bowers , 4 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly Loane. Have always been extremely impressed with and appreciative of Cohen's carefully & thoughtfully considered contribution. We in the US have gone a bit off the deep end when it comes to this deeply embedded belief in exceptionalism and superiority, and have been extremely rude to much of the rest of the world in the process. It amazes me how patient Russia has been with us, waiting for us to come around to a more sober understanding of the world we live in today. I have to conclude that what we are experiencing here in the US is a perennial phenomenon that comes with the end of all empires throughout history, the mission creep of over-extending resources and the big one, seemingly blind hubris.

M Ch , 4 years ago

There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive) while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time!

Raf Zam , 3 years ago (edited)

NATO'S reason to exist ended when the Warsaw Pact was demolished. It was created to confront the socialist Warsaw Pact but today ALL of the members of the pact are part of NATO, except Russia. So why is it still operating? Who are they confronting? They are a bunch of bureaucrats looking for a reason to stay employed in an organization that lost its excuse to be. However, their behavior has gone from increasing security to actually becoming a menace to trigger a nuclear war to destroy life on earth.

Donald Watts , 4 years ago

It will take a Republican President to turn our relationships with hostile nations around. For some irrational reasoning, the current administration refuses negotiation with it's enemies. Somehow this is going to create understanding. and a less dangerous world. I don't see a continuation of this Administrations policy anything but reckless . I am assuming this policy has been one determined through Clinton, and will remain so. Clinton has said on a number of occasions, it is the Obama Administration's policies that will be hers as well. As an ex cold warrior, who has spent a lot of time chasing Soviet boomers in the North Atlantic, I am not willing to gamble my children and grand children's lives . It is a dangerous and ego driven pissing match. Let us start talking , This administration and families can climb into their luxury nuclear bomb proof bunkers...... My family and most Americans don't have that luxury.

William Carr , 3 years ago

Dr. Cohen, so Putin gave the Northern Alliance to the USA after 911 to bludgeon Afghanistan for hiding Bin Laden? Paul Craig Robert, David Ray Griffin and a growing list of Americans believe 911 was a total bamboozle. If that is true which it looks increasingly like it was, does that mean Putin was playing along with the our Reichstag fire? What does that make Putin? NATO should have been totally remade after 1986, but it wasn't and we simply missed a huge opportunity not for worldwide U.S. hegemony, but for a new umbrella of security by super powers in alliance. Obviously, the proliferation of ethno-religious groups was in Putin's mind when he welcomed us into Afghanistan, but damn it man, tell people EXACTLY why we and the Russians want to be in the Golden Crescent besides the extraction of minerals.

[Sep 21, 2020] Stephen Cohen at the AJC 2017 Forum, about Russia and Terrorism

Highly recommended!
This was a really bright mind
Julia Ioffe is a joke -- she is essentially a typical "national security parasite" and of the level that surprisingly, is lower that Max Boor, although previously I thought this is impossible. Julia Ioffe is very typical of the anti-Russian thinking in the West.
Jun 23, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Stephen Cohen at the American Jewish Committee Forum 2017, about Russia and Terrorism. Full debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0rtr...


alo1, 3 years ago

And again, Cohen smashed these government employers singlehandedly.

Drew Hunkins, 3 years ago

This incessant Russophobia constantly being trumpeted by the Washington militarist imperialists must stop. It's putting the world on the brink of nuclear war.

Stephen Cohen's a godsend along with a handful of the other intellectuals out there speaking and writing the truth that penetrates the miasma of disinformation, half-truths and exaggerations emanating from the state-corporate nexus in the American mass media.

Cohen, along with John Pilger, James Petras, Robert Parry, Michael Parenti, John Pilger, Eva Bartlett, Diana Johnstone and Paul Craig Roberts must be read widely in order for folks to get a grasp of where the Washington imperialist ruling class is driving the world.

mitrovdan, 3 years ago

at 25:40 he just destroys her totally. what a point he made, amazing!! "thank you professor" the guy on the left wants to end Cohen's carnage of the so called experts. Cohen made minced meat out of em. Fact after fact...stonewalled em both. Listen to her, ISIS doesn't have nuke's, she obviously doesn't have a clue.

MrWebster, 3 years ago

Cohen is always cogent and convincing. One area I wish some historian would look into is how "Russia-gate" is not echoing Cold War themes, but echoing themes from the German Nazis in particular their belief about a great Jewish conspiracy against Europe.

Even Putin recently remarked on all these accusations: "It reminds me of anti-Semitism, A dumb man who can't do anything would blame the Jews for everything." Look at how Putin is drawn and pictured on major outlets. The NYTimes blamed resistance to TPP on Putin.

The Russians like the Jews are behind every social problem. Popular culture shows and speaks of Russia in the same way Nazi propagandists wrote about Russia.

Undermining Western liberal democracies, Jews were compared to spiders catching people in the webs. Same with Putin. Pick up Hitler's speech after the invasion of the Soviet Union justifying it., Echos? Accidental rhetoric of conspiracies ?

DSCdaP, 3 years ago

"to look past a long list of transgressions and abuses..." this is what I absolutely hate about America, they are all so stupid and ignorant to their own countries misdeeds it is unbelievable, infuriating beyond belief. The US is currently fighting 7 wars simultaneously, which it all started itself under false pretences and hid the real reason beneath a thick layer of BS propaganda and misinformation.

The secession of Crimea is the least egregious event of the entire conflicts history. The EU and US have pumped billions of dollars into the coup which took place weeks before the Crimean referendum, on the 20th of February 2014, 2 weeks prior to that, an intercepted phone conversation between Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State of the United States to Europe) and Geoffrey Pyatt (US Ambassador to the Ukraine) was leaked on February 4th, 2014. In this phone conversation, they describe key positions within the Ukrainian government being filled by Klitshko and Yatz... fast forward a few weeks, who do we see? Klitsh and Yatz! It was the most obvious sponsored coup in history.

Putin snatched the Crimean peninsula from NATO, who wanted to seize Russias military harbour in Sevastopol (which the Russians have used to supply Syria, this was one and a half years before they entered the conflict directly, apart from being a very important strategic harbour in general), by suggesting a referendum to the local government and they accepted.

Why? Because they were ethnic Russians and knew who gained power in Kiev, the neo-Nazi, Bandera-worshipping OUN, which the US has nourished, supported and developed for the last 100 years within the Ukrainian territory. These Nazis hate Russians, they have a deep seeded hatred of all things Russian which has been indoctrinated and drilled into them by the CIA for decades, the first thing they did after seizing power was to demote the Russian language from the official list of languages of the Ukraine.

They have since honoured Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators from WWII by erecting statues, renaming streets, creating new holidays etc. This is just one example of US misinformation and propaganda, nothing they say accurately describes the truth, nothing, not one thing has it's bases in reality. Be it about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and what have you, it's all lies and propaganda to mask their intentions.

North Korea is another example. North Korea is a hornets nest they kick once in a while to scare the Japanese and South Koreans into tolerating US occupation longer. Everything North Korea does is a direct response to threats and intimidations by the US. They staged a drill off the coast of North Korea which they called "Decapitation" for F's sake.

They have ratcheted up the tension again these past few months to sneak in their THAAD weapons stations, before the new President was chosen. And these THAAD systems have absolutely nothing to do with North Korea, it's against China and Russia, North Korea is a pretext.

The still active war, which has merely been under a seize fire for decades, against North Korea, could have been ended before there was colour television, but the US needs North Korea to exist in order to justify their occupation of S.Korea and Japan.

MrRondonmon , 1 day ago

And by the way, the CrowdStrike guy testified in 2017 that there was ZERO PROOF that the Russians hacked the DNC, but Schiff hid that for 2 years until John Ratcliff threatened to declassify it, then Schiff's sorry ass released the interviews. So, this man was 100 percent right, there is ZERO PROOF the Russians or anyone hacked the DNC. Its a damned lie, and it was always a lie.

Patty Rogers , 3 years ago

As usual, the journalists and leftist have nothing to offer- no facts, no forensic evidence, no truth. Only speculation hyperbole and hysteria. I don't believe Russia are the good guys but give me a break in all this crap!

beija flor , 2 years ago (edited)

why did cohen tell everyone even potential 'terrorists' that there is too much of exactly what 'terrorists' wish to get their hands on in the former soviet states?!!? if he is 'so afraid' of 'terrorism...' WHY did he say THAT?!!? not very bright... or perhaps he is FOS. idk?! wth?! SMH. maybe e is trying to inform people who r not 'terrorists,' so that people know n can figure out how to address the issues...?

Yet, for any terrorists who wanted to know how to get materials he spoke of, now they may know a region where they could potentially go to attain the materials... maybe in 'terrorists' circles they all know this already? it just seems concerning, is all...

Beth Lemmon, 2 years ago (edited)

Love Stephen Cohen, he is spot on and right about most if not all points, he's fair, wicked smart and sober minded. However he isn't right about POTUS Trump. If anyone has been watching this type of discourse about world geopolitics it looks like the NWO wants wars to depopulate the earth, set up a OWG and a utopia. It's so blatantly obvious to those who are honest and not ideologically possessed.

They recruit their stupid Antifa army and zombie possessed minions to do their dirty work in the streets. They want send our amazing military to do the fighting wars that are just to feed the MIC, and does nothing for America's good.

[Sep 21, 2020] Stephen Cohen Has Died. Remember His Urgent Warnings Against The New Cold War by Caitlin Johnstone

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God
"... In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding. ..."
Sep 19, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

Stephen F Cohen, the renowned American scholar on Russia and leading authority on US-Russian relations, has died of lung cancer at the age of 81.

As one of the precious few western voices of sanity on the subject of Russia while everyone else has been frantically flushing their brains down the toilet, this is a real loss. I myself have cited Cohen's expert analysis many times in my own work, and his perspective has played a formative role in my understanding of what's really going on with the monolithic cross-partisan manufacturing of consent for increased western aggressions against Moscow.

In a world that is increasingly confusing and awash with propaganda, Cohen's death is a blow to humanity's desperate quest for clarity and understanding.

I don't know how long Cohen had cancer. I don't know how long he was aware that he might not have much time left on this earth. What I do know is he spent much of his energy in his final years urgently trying to warn the world about the rapidly escalating danger of nuclear war, which in our strange new reality he saw as in many ways completely unprecedented.

The last of the many books Cohen authored was 2019's War with Russia? , detailing his ideas on how the complex multi-front nature of the post-2016 cold war escalations against Moscow combines with Russiagate and other factors to make it in some ways more dangerous even than the most dangerous point of the previous cold war.

"You know it's easy to joke about this, except that we're at maybe the most dangerous moment in US-Russian relations in my lifetime, and maybe ever," Cohen told The Young Turks in 2017. "And the reason is that we're in a new cold war, by whatever name. We have three cold war fronts that are fraught with the possibility of hot war, in the Baltic region where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine where there is a civil and proxy war between Russia and the west, and of course in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen."

Cohen repeatedly points to the most likely cause of a future nuclear war: not one that is planned but one which erupts in tense, complex situations where "anything could happen" in the chaos and confusion as a result of misfire, miscommunication or technical malfunction, as nearly happened many times during the last cold war.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kqQbK_6meM8?feature=oembed

"I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen told Democracy Now in 2017. "And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. Therefore, we -- and then, meanwhile, we have in Washington these -- and, in my judgment, factless accusations that Trump has somehow been compromised by the Kremlin. So, at this worst moment in American-Russian relations, we have an American president who's being politically crippled by the worst imaginable -- it's unprecedented. Let's stop and think. No American president has ever been accused, essentially, of treason. This is what we're talking about here, or that his associates have committed treason."

"Imagine, for example, John Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis," Cohen added. "Imagine if Kennedy had been accused of being a secret Soviet Kremlin agent. He would have been crippled. And the only way he could have proved he wasn't was to have launched a war against the Soviet Union. And at that time, the option was nuclear war."

"A recurring theme of my recently published book War with Russia? is that the new Cold War is more dangerous, more fraught with hot war, than the one we survived," Cohen wrote last year . "Histories of the 40-year US-Soviet Cold War tell us that both sides came to understand their mutual responsibility for the conflict, a recognition that created political space for the constant peace-keeping negotiations, including nuclear arms control agreements, often known as détente. But as I also chronicle in the book, today's American Cold Warriors blame only Russia, specifically 'Putin's Russia,' leaving no room or incentive for rethinking any US policy toward post-Soviet Russia since 1991."

"Finally, there continues to be no effective, organized American opposition to the new Cold War," Cohen added. "This too is a major theme of my book and another reason why this Cold War is more dangerous than was its predecessor. In the 1970s and 1980s, advocates of détente were well-organized, well-funded, and well-represented, from grassroots politics and universities to think tanks, mainstream media, Congress, the State Department, and even the White House. Today there is no such opposition anywhere."

"A major factor is, of course, 'Russiagate'," Cohen continued. "As evidenced in the sources I cite above, much of the extreme American Cold War advocacy we witness today is a mindless response to President Trump's pledge to find ways to 'cooperate with Russia' and to the still-unproven allegations generated by it. Certainly, the Democratic Party is not an opposition party in regard to the new Cold War."

"Détente with Russia has always been a fiercely opposed, crisis-ridden policy pursuit, but one manifestly in the interests of the United States and the world," Cohen wrote in another essay last year. "No American president can achieve it without substantial bipartisan support at home, which Trump manifestly lacks. What kind of catastrophe will it take -- in Ukraine, the Baltic region, Syria, or somewhere on Russia's electric grid -- to shock US Democrats and others out of what has been called, not unreasonably, their Trump Derangement Syndrome, particularly in the realm of American national security? Meanwhile, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has recently reset its Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/owbMRxC382A?feature=oembed

And now Stephen Cohen is dead, and that clock is inching ever closer to midnight. The Russiagate psyop that he predicted would pressure Trump to advance dangerous cold war escalations with no opposition from the supposed opposition party has indeed done exactly that with nary a peep of criticism from either partisan faction of the political/media class. Cohen has for years been correctly predicting this chilling scenario which now threatens the life of every organism on earth, even while his own life was nearing its end.

And now the complex cold war escalations he kept urgently warning us about have become even more complex with the addition of nuclear-armed China to the multiple fronts the US-centralized empire has been plate-spinning its brinkmanship upon, and it is clear from the ramping up of anti-China propaganda since last year that we are being prepped for those aggressions to continue to increase.

We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We should demand a walk-back of these insane imperialist aggressions which benefit nobody and call for détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition to this world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late. Every life on this planet may well depend on our doing so.

Stephen Cohen is dead, and we are marching toward the death of everything. God help us all.

medium.com

lay_arrow

novictim , 55 minutes ago

People are just now starting to realize that possible alternate path. But the Demoncrats in the USA must first be put down, politically euthanized, along with their neocon never-Trump Republican partners. And that cleaning up is on the way. Trump's second term will be the advancement of the USA-Russia initiative that is so long overdue.

PerilouseTimes , 48 minutes ago

Putin won't let western billionaires rape Russia's enormous natural resources and on top of that Putin is against child molesters, that is what this Russia bashing is all about.

awesomepic4u , 1 hour ago

Sad to hear this.

What a good man. It is a real shame that we dont have others to stand up to this crazy pr that is going on right now. Making peace with the world at this point is important. We dont need or want another war and i am sure that both Europe and Russia dont want it on their turf but it seems we keep sticking our finger in their eye. If there is another war it will be the last war. As Einstein said, after the 3rd World War we will be using sticks and stones to fight it.

Clint Liquor , 44 minutes ago

Cohen truly was an island of reason in a sea of insanity. Ironic that those panicked over climate change are unconcerned about the increasing threat of Nuclear War.

thunderchief , 41 minutes ago

One of the very few level headed people on Russia.

All thats left are anti Russia-phobic nut jobs.

Send in the clowns.

Stephen Cohen isn't around to call them what they are anymore.

Eastern Whale , 55 minutes ago

cooperate with Russia

Has the US ever cooperated with anyone?

fucking truth , 3 minutes ago

That is the crux. All or nothing.

Mustafa Kemal , 49 minutes ago

Ive read several of his books. They are essential, imo, if you want to understand modern russian history.

Normal , 1 hour ago

The bankers created the new CCP cold war.

evoila , 19 minutes ago

Max Boot is an effing idiot. Tucker wiped him clean too. It was an insult to Stephen to even put them on the same panel.

RIP Stephen.

Gary Sick is the equivalent to Stephen, except for Iran. He too is of an era of competence which is and will be missed as their voices are drowned out by neocon warmongers

thebigunit , 17 minutes ago

I heard Stephen Cohen a number of time in John Bachelor's podcasts.

He seemed very lucid and made a lot of sense.

He made it very clear that he thought the Democrat's "Trump - Russia collusion schtick" was a bunch of crap.

He didn't sound like a leftie, but I'm sure he never told me the stuff he discussed with his wife who was editor of the left wing "The Nation" magazine.

Boogity , 9 minutes ago

Cohen was a traditional old school anti-war Liberal. They're essentially extinct now with the exception of a few such as Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich who have both been ostracized from the Democrat Party and the political system.

[Sep 20, 2020] Democratic-Defense-Against-Disinformation-2.0.pdf by Alina Polyakova and Daniel Fried

Counter disinformation network can't revive the dead chicken of neoliberal ideology.
Neoliberal elite lost legitimacy and as such has difficulties controlling the narrative. That's why all this frantic efforts were launched to rectify the situation.
Anti-Russian angle of Atlantic council revealed here quite clearly
Sep 20, 2020 | www.brookings.edu

The paper's biggest single recommendation was that the United States and EU establish a Counter-Disinformation Coalition, a public/private group bringing together, on a regular basis, government and non-government stakeholders, including social media companies, traditional media, Internet service providers (ISPs), and civil society groups. The Counter-Disinformation Coalition would develop best practices for confronting disinformation from nondemocratic countries, consistent with democratic norms. It also recommended that this coalition start with a voluntary code of conduct outlining principles and agreed procedures for dealing with disinformation, drawing from the recommendations as summarized above.

In drawing up these recommendations, we were aware that disinformation most often comes from domestic, not foreign, sources. 8 While Russian and other disinformation players are known to work in coordination with domestic purveyors of disinformation, both overtly and covertly, the recommendations are limited to foreign disinformation, which falls within the scope of "political warfare." Nevertheless, it may be that these policy recommendations, particularly those focused on transparency and social resilience, may be applicable to combatting other forms of disinformation.

[Sep 20, 2020] CJ Hopkins Exposes The Final Act In 'The War On Populism'

Highly recommended!
These sociopaths are messed up world again.
Sep 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored (mostly satirically) by CJ Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

So, it appears the War on Populism is building toward an exciting climax. All the proper pieces are in place for a Class-A GloboCap color revolution , and maybe even civil war. You got your unauthorized Putin-Nazi president, your imaginary apocalyptic pandemic, your violent identitarian civil unrest, your heavily-armed politically-polarized populace, your ominous rumblings from military quarters you couldn't really ask for much more.

OK, the plot is pretty obvious by now (as it is in all big-budget action spectacles, which is essentially what color revolutions are), but that won't spoil our viewing experience. The fun isn't in guessing what is going to happen. Everybody knows what's going to happen. The fun is in watching Bruce, or Sigourney, or "the moderate rebels," or the GloboCap "Resistance," take down the monster, or the terrorists, or Hitler, and save the world, or democracy, or whatever.

[Sep 19, 2020] The Kremlin Plans to Modernize Russia, Again - The Nation

Sep 19, 2020 | www.thenation.com

Putin's quest for a transformed nation and his own legacy. By Stephen F. Cohen FEBRUARY 21, 2020 fb tw mail Print Flag of Russian Federation with gilded coat of arms waving on the dome of Senate Palace of Moscow Kremlin

(Vladimir Zhupanenko / Shutterstock)

Ready To Fight Back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week.

You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation's journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.

T he US media's three-year obsession with the mostly fictitious allegations of "Russiagate" has all but obscured, even deleted, important, potentially historic, developments inside that nation itself, still the world's largest territorial country. One of the most important is the Putin government's decision to invest $300-to-$400 billion of "rainy day" funds in the nation's infrastructure, especially in its vast, underdeveloped provinces, and on "national projects" ranging from education to health care and family services to transportation and other technology. If successfully implemented, Russia would be substantially transformed and the lives of its people significantly improved.

Not surprisingly, however, the plan has aroused considerable controversy and public debate in Russia's policy elite, primarily for two reasons. The funds were accumulated largely due to high world prices for Russia's energy exports and the state's budgetary austerity during the decade after Putin came to power in 2000, and they have been hoarded as a safeguard against Western economic sanctions and/or a global economic depression. (Russia's economic collapse in the Yeltsin 1990s, perhaps the worst modern-day depression in peacetime, remains a vivid memory for policy-makers and ordinary citizens alike.)

There is also the nation's long, sometimes traumatic, history of "modernization from above," as it is termed. In the late 19th century, the czarist regime's program to industrialize the country, "to catch up" with other world powers, had unintended consequences that led, in the accounts of many historians, to the end of czarism in the 1917 revolution. And Stalin's "revolution from above" of the 1930s, based on the forced collectivization of the peasantry, which at the time accounted for more than 80 percent of the population, along with very rapid industrialization, resulted in millions of deaths and economic distortions that burdened Soviet and post-Soviet Russia for decades.

Top Articles Countdown to Election: 52 Days READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE READ MORE SKIP AD

Nor are Russia's alternative experiences of modernization from below inspiring or at least instructive. In the 1920s, during the years known as the New Economic Policy, or NEP, the victorious Bolsheviks pursued evolutionary economic development through a semi-regulated market economy. It had mixed -- and still disputed -- results, and it was brutally abolished by Stalin in 1929. Decades later, Yeltsin's "free-market reforms" were widely blamed for the ruination and widespread misery of the 1990s, which featured many aspects of actual de-modernization.

With all this "living history" in mind, Putin's plan for such large-scale (and rapid) investment has generated the controversy in Moscow and resulted in three positions within the policy class. One fully supports the decision on the essentially Keynesian grounds that it will spur Russia's annual economic growth, which has lagged below the global average for several years. Another opposes such massive expenditures, arguing that the funds must remain in state hands as a safeguard against the US-led "sanctions war" (and perhaps worse) against Russia. And, as usual in politics, there is a compromise position that less should be invested in civilian infrastructure and less quickly.

Running through the discussion is also Russia's long history of thwarted implementation of good intentions. To paraphrase a prime minister during the 1990s, Viktor Chernomyrdin , "We wanted things to turn out for the best, but they turned out as usual." In particular, it is often asked, what will be the consequences of putting so much money into the hands of regional and other local officials in provinces where corruption is endemic? How much will be stolen or otherwise misdirected?

https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/show?displayMode=inline&containerSelector=.inline-counter&templateId=OTFVM3RHWZ0B&offerId=fakeOfferId&showCloseButton=false&trackingId=%7Bjcx%7DH4sIAAAAAAAAAF2Q3VLCMBCF3yXXhNk0aZrlrioijNrRUWC8S5MAkbbUNgjo-O4Wxp_Rvdv9zjlzZt-J9pYMyG050mL8Nru6Jj1S66WbercbH0kEEVBAypBGEWWScqQxT2jdXvJmeHjaNEatx21KmQEu0ERKKOQoYpcvYpNEOmFCJtwsumC3r13jXWXcKXo4TzOY4_kdiPQPHe6d2Qa_qU4ylgtVmCWUikI3UYgRV02N-Yt9rsqysl6H9R9_an7M7Wqze3BlXejg1GTCZ3LGs1Gazee8s6x0-w3JIDRb1yPhaz-5s4fL6Q2_v5o9wRn5ZVPdeF2Fo6TaFkWPGF3W2i-r9vvw6lt_4uSV_vsgUKZoLDh9dCo7wEUo7kGfsVGHMJcJWLDoEmYtSqvB4MJaqWPLTd418HUXKVWfIfYjkH2luuO2dU26dFXomN2ZY9FQkAGTADIWMYqPT-ywOHvnAQAA&experienceId=EXAO0X9CQ04A&activeMeters=%5B%7B%22meterName%22%3A%22In+article+Meter%22%2C%22views%22%3A2%2C%22viewsLeft%22%3A1%2C%22maxViews%22%3A3%2C%22totalViews%22%3A2%7D%5D&tbc=%7Bjzx%7DvaV6Q-AgGJ_DiTS_QNn8FA6olpAEC_GKej-sdbqQpRIS-Kfr2XuQ_uJ7-VsMBs9sgdDzuDJGAIvwcZFWTCJIbM0i5t_YYdOlPsJmO-rAn6uIfIuoy1Hh_-p5REhASnboV4_aTgrddjKMmaM4SpBJ-g&iframeId=offer-0-3Bn8A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Farticle%2Fworld%2Fthe-kremlin-plans-to-modernize-russia-again%2F&parentDualScreenLeft=1536&parentDualScreenTop=0&parentWidth=1536&parentHeight=714&parentOuterHeight=864&aid=NmGa4IzWHL&tags=foreign-policy%2Cmedia-analysis%2Cworld%2Cworld-leaders%2Ccold-war%2Ceconomic-development%2Crussia%2Csanctions%2Cvladimir-putin%2Cstephen-f-cohen&contentSection=article&contentAuthor=Stephen+F.+Cohen&contentCreated=2020-02-21T11%3A22%3A45-05%3A00&pageViewId=2020-09-19-22-16-39-537-psF3rEyZorc8kIsA-1c0349c284893945ebf5c72a714673cf&visitId=v-2020-09-19-22-10-18-543-Ue8Oy0DtlR0aB1G2-19b670d0d9e71dd96da0c9fdd6a5d3cb&userProvider=publisher_user_ref&userToken=&customCookies=%7B%22_pc_aclu_light_box_signup_confirm%22%3A%22true%22%2C%22_pc_exit_popup_signup_confirm%22%3A%22true%22%7D&hasLoginRequiredCallback=true&width=640&_qh=778f7c0f82

Nonetheless, Putin seems to be resolute. He is also insistent that his ambitious plan to transform Russia requires a long period of international peace and stability. Here again is plain evidence that those in Washington who insist Putin's primary goal is "to sow discord, divisions, and instability" in the world, especially in the West, where he hopes to find "modernizing partnerships," do not care about or understand what is actually unfolding inside Russia -- or Putin's vision of his own historical role and legacy.

Listen to the podcast here .

https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/show?displayMode=inline&containerSelector=%23tp-meter&templateId=OT6SYOE39OW8&offerId=fakeOfferId&showCloseButton=false&trackingId=%7Bjcx%7DH4sIAAAAAAAAAF2Q3U_CMBTF_5c-U3L7sa7lbcpQopFEPuWttGU0bmNuRUDj_-5GxETv272_c05O7ifS3qIBeiruNB9_LO8fUQ9VOnML747jjlCggEFhojClmAjMFI5YjKtmxOr0vN7XRr6OmwQTA4wrQyWXiikeuc02MjHVMeEiZmbbBrtT5WrvSuMu0enq_nm1HCaj-Wr6h6YnZw7B78uLjGy4zE0GhcTQDg2RUru6siCBFhp2ufBv_I8_Mb_mZrc_zlxR5To4NkxgePM0X98-PAjZOna6uTI0CPXB9VD42S_myUxMXyYpU5NlJ7-yha69LkMnKQ953kNGF5X2WdlcD---8ReO3vG_BwImEkec4bmTkzMMQ_4M-obctUhtRAwWrHIxsVYJq8GorbVCR5aZTdvAV22kkH2iVJ-C6Muu1qFxdZK5MrTMHk1XNORoQASAiHik-Nc3m0Kac-YBAAA&experienceId=EXHRXWDAFUXS&activeMeters=%5B%7B%22meterName%22%3A%22PaywallMeter%22%2C%22views%22%3A2%2C%22viewsLeft%22%3A0%2C%22maxViews%22%3A2%2C%22totalViews%22%3A2%7D%5D&tbc=%7Bjzx%7DvaV6Q-AgGJ_DiTS_QNn8FA6olpAEC_GKej-sdbqQpRIS-Kfr2XuQ_uJ7-VsMBs9sgdDzuDJGAIvwcZFWTCJIbM0i5t_YYdOlPsJmO-rAn6uIfIuoy1Hh_-p5REhASnboV4_aTgrddjKMmaM4SpBJ-g&iframeId=offer-1-0qx8T&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Farticle%2Fworld%2Fthe-kremlin-plans-to-modernize-russia-again%2F&parentDualScreenLeft=1536&parentDualScreenTop=0&parentWidth=1536&parentHeight=714&parentOuterHeight=864&aid=NmGa4IzWHL&tags=foreign-policy%2Cmedia-analysis%2Cworld%2Cworld-leaders%2Ccold-war%2Ceconomic-development%2Crussia%2Csanctions%2Cvladimir-putin%2Cstephen-f-cohen&contentSection=article&contentAuthor=Stephen+F.+Cohen&contentCreated=2020-02-21T11%3A22%3A45-05%3A00&pageViewId=2020-09-19-22-16-39-537-psF3rEyZorc8kIsA-1c0349c284893945ebf5c72a714673cf&visitId=v-2020-09-19-22-10-18-543-Ue8Oy0DtlR0aB1G2-19b670d0d9e71dd96da0c9fdd6a5d3cb&userProvider=publisher_user_ref&userToken=&customCookies=%7B%22_pc_aclu_light_box_signup_confirm%22%3A%22true%22%2C%22_pc_exit_popup_signup_confirm%22%3A%22true%22%7D&hasLoginRequiredCallback=true&width=1519&_qh=1386bd0691

Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book, War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate , is available in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show , now in their seventh year, are available at www.thenation.com .

[Sep 19, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen, Influential Historian of Russia, Dies at 81 - The New York Times

Sep 19, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

By Robert D. McFadden

Stephen F. Cohen, an eminent historian whose books and commentaries on Russia examined the rise and fall of Communism, Kremlin dictatorships and the emergence of a post-Soviet nation still struggling for identity in the 21st century, died on Friday at his home in Manhattan. He was 81.

His wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the publisher and part owner of The Nation, said the cause was lung cancer.

From the sprawling conflicts of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and the tyrannies of Stalin to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Vladimir V. Putin's intrigues to retain power, Professor Cohen chronicled a Russia of sweeping social upheavals and the passions and poetry of peoples that endured a century of wars, political repression and economic hardships.

A professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, he was fluent in Russian, visited Russia frequently and developed contacts among intellectual dissidents and government and Communist Party officials. He wrote or edited 10 books and many articles for The Nation, The New York Times and other publications, was a CBS-TV commentator and counted President George Bush and many American and Soviet officials among his sources.

ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

In Moscow he was befriended by the last Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, who invited him to the May Day celebration at Red Square in 1989. There, at the Lenin Mausoleum, Professor Cohen stood with his wife and son one tier below Mr. Gorbachev and the Soviet leadership to view a three-hour military parade. He later spoke briefly on Russian television to a vast audience about alternative paths that Russian history could have taken.

Loosely identified with a revisionist historical view of the Soviet Union, Professor Cohen held views that made him a controversial public intellectual. He believed that early Bolshevism had held great promise, that it had been democratic and genuinely socialist, and that it had been corrupted only later by civil war, foreign hostility, Stalin's malignancy and a fatalism in Russian history.

Subscribe for $1 a week.

A traditionalist school of thought, by contrast, held that the Soviet experiment had been flawed from the outset, that Lenin's political vision was totalitarian, and that any attempt to create a society based on his coercive utopianism had always been likely to lead, logically, to Stalin's state terrorism and to the Soviet Union's eventual collapse.

Professor Cohen was an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Gorbachev, who after coming to power in 1985 undertook ambitious changes to liberate the nation's 15 republics from state controls that had originally been imposed by Stalin. Mr. Gorbachev gave up power as the Soviet state imploded at the end of 1991 and moved toward beliefs in democracy and a market economy.

Image
Mr. Cohen first came to international attention in 1973 with his biography of Lenin's protégé Nikolai Bukharin.

A prolific writer who mined Soviet archives, Professor Cohen first came to international attention in 1973 with "Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution," a biography of Lenin's protégé Nikolai Bukharin, who envisioned Communism as a blend of state-run industries and free-market agriculture. Critics generally applauded the work, which was a finalist for a National Book Award. Editors' Picks Who Gets Hurt When the World Stops Using Cash Films Hit Festivals Trying to Create Buzz Without a Crowd A Timely Collection of Vital Writing by Audre Lorde Continue reading the main story

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story

"Stephen Cohen's full-scale study of Bukharin is the first major study of this remarkable associate of Lenin," Harrison Salisbury's wrote in a review in The Times. "As such it constitutes a milestone in Soviet studies, the byproduct both of increased academic sophistication in the use of Soviet materials and also of the very substantial increase in basic information which has become available in the 20 years since Stalin's death."

After Lenin's death, Mr. Bukharin became a victim of Stalin's Moscow show trials in 1938; he was accused of plotting against Stalin and executed. His widow, Anna Mikhailovna Larina, spent 20 years in exile and in prison camps and campaigned for Mr. Bukharin's rehabilitation, which was endorsed by Mr. Gorbachev in 1988.

Ms. Larina and Professor Cohen became friends. Given access to Bukharin archives, he found and returned to her the last love letter that Mr. Bukharin wrote her from prison.

In "Rethinking the Soviet Experience" (1985), Professor Cohen offered a new interpretation of the nation's traumatic history and modern political realities. In his view, Stalin's despotism and Mr. Bukharin's fate were not necessarily inevitable outgrowths of the party dictatorship founded by Lenin.

Richard Lowenthal, in a review for The Times, called Professor Cohen's interpretation implausible. "While I do not believe that all the horrors of Stalinism were 'logically inevitable' consequences of the seizure of power by Lenin and his Bolshevik Party," Mr. Lowenthal wrote, "I do believe that Stalin's victory over Bukharin was inherent in the structure of the party's system."

As Professor Cohen and other scholars pondered Russia's past, Mr. Gorbachev's rise to power and his efforts toward glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) cast the future of the Soviet Union in a new light, potentially reversing 70 years of Cold War dogma.

[Sep 19, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen, pre-eminent contemporary American scholar of Russia USSR, friend of Gorbachev advisor to Bush, dies at 81 -- RT Russia Former Soviet Union

Sep 19, 2020 | www.rt.com

19 Sep, 2020 11:44 / Updated 4 hours ago Get short URL Stephen F. Cohen, pre-eminent contemporary American scholar of Russia & USSR, friend of Gorbachev & advisor to Bush, dies at 81 Prof. Stephen F. Cohen © Getty Images via AFP / Eugene Gologursky 118 Follow RT on RT Stephen F. Cohen, the leading American Russia expert of his generation and a celebrated historian of Russia and the Soviet Union, who became a vocal critic of Washington's "new Cold War" with Moscow, has died at the age of 81.

Cohen succumbed to lung cancer at his home in Manhattan, on Friday, according to his wife Katrina vanden Heuvel, who is also the part-owner and publisher of The Nation magazine, where he worked as a contributing editor.

A native of Kentucky, he was a prolific and prominent scholar in his field, serving as a professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. As a frequent visitor to Russia, Cohen became well-connected among leading Soviet dissidents, politicians and thinkers in the 1980s, even befriending Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev.

Cohen also advised former US President George Bush, senior, in the late 1980s, and assisted Anna Larina, the widow of Nikolai Bukharin, to rehabilitate her husband's name during the Soviet era. He had earlier written a biography of the journalist and politician, which argued that had Bukharin succeeded Vladimir Lenin as Bolshevik leader, rather than Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union would have enjoyed greater openness, and perhaps even democracy.

//www.youtube.com/embed/-wc94DRFCik

Breaking with many American academics and political commentators, Cohen was highly critical of Washington's approach to Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He warned of the dangers of NATO expansion and argued that much of the economic devastation seen in Russia during the 1990s could be traced to bad-faith policies and advice from the United States.

His principled, and patriotic stand, led to smears from members of the think tank racket and both liberal and neoconservative interventionists, keen to stoke tensions with Moscow. Cohen was labelled a Putin apologist. He responded by saying that he saw him as being "in the Russian tradition of leadership, getting Russia back on its feet."

READ MORE Will the Mueller report make the New Cold War even worse? (by Stephen Cohen) Will the Mueller report make the New Cold War even worse? (by Stephen Cohen)

After the election of Donald Trump, Cohen found himself in the crosshairs of the mainstream media for challenging the now-debunked Russiagate narrative, which he said was being used to sabotage bilateral relations and trigger a "new Cold War" with Moscow.

The unsubstantiated claim that Trump's presidential campaign "colluded" with the Kremlin would likely make a US-Russia detente "impossible" and could even help fuel an actual war between the two nations, Cohen argued. He lamented that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into the conspiracy theory, which found no evidence of collusion, would do little to tone down the fiery rhetoric and anonymously sourced media hysteria concerning Russia and its alleged influence over the US political system.

The author of numerous books and countless articles, Cohen was a frequent guest on RT, where he often used his air time to sound the alarm over the dangerous state of US-Russia relations, lamenting that the hostility was both unnecessary and potentially calamitous.

//www.youtube.com/embed/pQK7M7_GMDc

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Sep 19, 2020] The Twilight of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - CounterPunch.org

Sep 19, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 The Twilight of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by MELVIN GOODMAN Facebook Twitter Reddit Email

Photograph Source: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-P098967 – CC BY-SA 3.0 de

It is time for the United States to debate the downsizing, if not the dissolution, of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. national security would be strengthened by the demise of NATO because Washington would no longer have to guarantee the security of 14 Central and East European nations, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. European defense coordination and integration would be more manageable without the participation of authoritarian governments in Poland and Hungary. Key West European nations presumably would favor getting out from under the use of U.S. military power in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia, which has made them feel as if they were "tins of shoe polish for American boots."

Russia would obviously be a geopolitical winner in any weakening -- let alone the demise -- of NATO, but the fears of Russian military intervention outside of the Slavic community are exaggerated. The East European and Baltic states would protest any weakening of NATO, but it would be an incentive for them to increase their own security cooperation.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created seven decades ago as a political and military alliance to "keep the United States in Europe; the Soviet Union out of Europe; and Germany down in Europe." The collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989; the Warsaw Pact and the East European communist governments in 1990; and the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the high water mark for the alliance.

For the past three decades, however, the United States has weakened NATO by forcing a hurried and awkward expansion on the alliance. Most recently in 2020, North Macedonia was admitted as its 30th member, further weakening the integrity of the alliance. Did President Donald Trump actually believe that the presence of North Macedonia as well as 13 other Central European states would strengthen U.S. security?

The enlargement of NATO demonstrated the strategic mishandling of Russia, which now finds the United States and Russia in a rivalry reminiscent of the Cold War. President Bill Clinton was responsible for bringing former members of the Warsaw Pact into NATO, starting in the late-1990s; President George W. Bush introduced former republics of the Soviet Union in his first term. German Chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for dissuading Bush from seeking membership for Ukraine and Georgia.

The United States justified the expansion of NATO as a way to create more liberal, democratic members, but this has not been the case for the East European members. Russia, moreover, views the expansion as a return to containment and a threat to its national security. Russia was angered by the expansion from the outset, particularly since President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that the United States wouldn't "leap frog" over Germany if the Soviets pulled their 380,000 troops out of East Germany.

NATO's success from 1949 to 1991 was marked by a common perception of the Soviet threat, which is the key to solidarity in any alliance framework. In 2020, however, the 30 members of NATO no longer share a common perception of the Russian threat in Europe. The United States has one view of Russia; the key nations of West Europe have a more benign view; and the East Europeans perceive a dire threat that the others do not share. The United States has always expressed some dissatisfaction with the asymmetric burden sharing and risk sharing within the alliance, and the Trump administration has threatened to withdraw from NATO over the burden sharing issue.

Turkey has rapidly become the outlier within NATO, and there have been a series of confrontations in the eastern Mediterranean that threaten the integrity of the alliance. Greek and Turkish warships collided in August, creating the first such confrontation between the two navies since 1996, when the Clinton administration mediated the problem. The United States no longer acts in such diplomatic capacities, so French President Emmanuel Macron has stepped into the breach by sending jet aircraft to the Greek island of Crete as well as warships to exercise with the antiquated Greek navy. Greece and Turkey, which joined NATO together in 1952, are rivals over economic zones in the Mediterranean where there are important deposits of oil and natural gas. Greece and Turkey have squabbled since 1974 over the divided island of Cyprus.

Turkey and France have additional differences over Turkey's violations of the UN arms embargo on Libya. The two NATO allies had a confrontation in the Mediterranean when a French warship tried to inspect a Turkish vessel. Last week, France joined military exercises with Greece and Italy in the eastern Mediterranean following a Turkish maritime violation of contested waters. Paris backs Athens in the conflicting claims with Ankara over rights to potential hydrocarbon resources on the continental shelf in the Mediterranean.

President Macron took a particularly tough line in stating that he was setting "red lines" in the Mediterranean because the "Turks only consider and respect a red-line policy," adding that he "did it in Syria" as well. Macron's tough stance is somewhat surprising in view of the concern of France and other European NATO countries regarding Turkey's ability to turn on the refugee spigot, which would cause economic problems in southern Europe. Turkey has been using the refugee issue as leverage since 2015, when huge numbers of refugees in West Europe led to a rightward shift in European politics.

There is also the problem of Turkey's purchase of the most sophisticated Russian air defense system, the S-400, which was developed to counter the world's most sophisticated jet fighter, the U.S. F-35. As a result of the purchase of the S-400 system, the United States reneged on the sale of eight F-35s to Turkey at a loss of $862 million, creating additional problems between Trump and Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey had planned to buy 100 F-35s over the next several years, and had begun pilot training in the United States.

Trump's constant harangues about burden sharing have created more friction within NATO. Trump falsely takes credit for increased European defense spending, but it was the Obama administration that successfully arranged greater Canadian and European defense spending in 2014 in the wake of Russia's seizure of Crimea. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg panders regularly to Trump on the issue of increased defense spending, ignoring Trump's false claims that NATO spending will increase by $400 billion annually. The $400 billion is in fact the increased spending over an eight-year period.

With Trump's drift toward isolationism and unilateralism ("America First"), there is incentive for the European Community to take control of its own "autonomous" defense policy. The Europeans have reason to believe that a second presidential term for Trump could lead to a sudden U.S. withdrawal from NATO. The unilateralist character of U.S. foreign and defense policy strengthens the case for building European defense cooperation along side of an undetermined transatlantic relationship with the United States.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism . and A Whistleblower at the CIA . His most recent book is "American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump" (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming "The Dangerous National Security State" (2020)." Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org .

[Sep 19, 2020] Novichok In Navalny's Water Bottle -

Sep 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Novichok In Navalny's Water Bottle by Tyler Durden Sat, 09/19/2020 - 09:20 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Stephen Lendman,

Alice's "curiouser and curiouser" remark in Lewis Carroll's Adventures in Wonderland applies to dubious twists in the Navalny novichok poisoning hoax.

No evidence or motive links Russia to what happened to him.

Was the August 20 Tomsk, Russia incident made-in-the-USA?

Was Germany pressured, bullied or bribed to go along -- at the expense of its own self-interest?

Clearly Angela Merkel, other German officials, their Western counterparts, and establishment media know the claim about Navalny's novichok poisoning is a colossal hoax.

They know that anyone exposed to the toxin, the world's deadliest, would be dead in minutes.

The same goes for others in close proximity to the exposed individual.

about:blank

about:blank

me title=

Navalny is very much alive and recovering nearly a month after falling ill.

No one he came in contact with developed novichok poisoning symptoms.

Russian doctors treating him with state-of-the-art equipment and tests found no toxins of any kind in his system.

They saved his life and stabilized his condition, enabling him to travel to Berlin for further treatment.

If the Kremlin wanted him dead, he'd have been left untreated in Russia to die.

He's recovering because of heroic treatment by Russian doctors.

On Thursday, elements close to Navalny shifted the fake news novichok poisoning narrative from tea he drank in the Tomsk, Russia airline terminal to the deadly nerve agent in his hotel room water bottle.

Are other versions of what happened to him coming ahead?

Claiming novichok traces were found in a hotel water bottle he drank from doesn't pass the smell test.

The deadly substance in an opened hotel room bottle would likely contaminate and kill anyone near it.

If, in fact, Navalny was poisoned by novichok in his hotel room overnight, he'd have died in minutes, clearly not what happened.

The novichok in a hotel room bottle scenario is implausible on its face.

Claiming members of his team entered his hotel room after learning of his illness, found it uncleaned, and examined everything potentially useful for an investigation -- "recording, describing, and packing" everything would have exposed them to novichok if it existed by touching the alleged bottle with the toxin.

Whatever happened to Navalny wasn't from novichok poisoning in a bottle or from any other source.

On Thursday, Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow's representative to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin requested copies of files the organization received from Germany on Navalny's condition, but got no response, adding:

"According to our data Germany and a whole number of (other Western) countries (are) cultivating the OPCW" with regard to the Navalny incident.

Since he arrived in Berlin for treatment over three weeks ago, Merkel's government stonewalled Russia by refusing to provide evidence it claims to have about novichok poisoning because there is none.

On Thursday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said "(t)here is too much absurdity about this whole situation to take anyone's word on trust, so we are not going to take anyone's word," adding:

"(T)he situation is as follows: the OPCW Technical Secretariat says 'we know nothing. Talk to the Germans,' and the Germans say 'we know nothing. Talk to the OPCW."

Russian lower house State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin suggested foreign intelligence responsibility for what happened to Navalny.

On Thursday, majority Russophobic European Parliament (EP) MPs adopted a resolution that calls for an "immediate launch of an impartial international investigation (sic)" on the Navalny incident by the EU, its allies, the UN, Council of Europe, and OPCW -- to frame Russia for what happened to Navalny.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

The resolution also calls for (unjustifiably and unlawfully) sanctioning Russia and suspending Nord Stream 2 construction.

EP resolutions are non-binding. The EP, Council of the European Union, European Council, and European Commission operate separately from individual member states.

Time and again earlier, they irresponsibly bashed Russia in cahoots with the US, adopting non-binding resolutions.

According to Zakharova earlier, anti-Russia propaganda is based on "paranoia phobias, fictitious messages (and) myths."

Interviewed by Radio Sputnik in Moscow, Sergey Lavrov said Western governments want Russia "punished both for what is happening in Belarus and for the incident with Navalny," adding:

They refuse to fulfill mandated obligations under the European Convention on Legal Aid by not responding to official requests by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office for documented information on Navalny's condition.

"Germany says that it cannot tell us anything. They say, go to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)."

"We went there several times. They say go to Berlin."

"They loudly declare that the fact of poisoning has been established. Except for Russia nobody could have done it. Admit it."

"All this has already happened with the" fake news Skripals novichok poisoning incident.

Russia is a valued ally of all world community countries.

Instead of fostering cooperative relations with Moscow, actions by Germany and other EU countries risk rupturing them.

[Sep 19, 2020] Who organized this provocation? Is this a part of gas war?

Were Khodorkovsky or Browder among people involved? To what extent Trump administration and MI6 were involved? Looks more and more line a bad replay of Skripals poisoning
Notable quotes:
"... Germans and "the whole world", to quote Pompeo, know the truth: Russians simply deny the truth, and the more they deny, the more truthful the accusations appear. And the elephant in the room: Why isn't the poisoned by "Novichok" bullshitting bastard of a US agent dead? And the answer given by the Germans, that is ironic in the extreme: because Russian doctors saved his life in Omsk. ..."
"... There are undeniable advantages to accusations for which no substantiation is offered – as we saw with the Skripals, you can await public comment, identify where you went wrong from scornful rejections of the narrative, and then modify it so that it makes more sense. ..."
"... I hope Germany offers residency to the Navalnys, and that they accept. Russia can't really refuse to let him back in, he's a citizen. But as long as he is there he will cause trouble, and he'll be recharged with all the PR he has received from this latest caper. ..."
"... But it is suggested that Russia is bargaining for his return; the story also expands on Lavrov's recent statements, and introduces a villain in the woodpile I would not have personally suspected: Poland. ..."
"... I recall Lavrov querying the other day Pevchikh's presence in Germany, her refusal to be interviewed by investigators in Omsk and how come she managed to fly to Germany with Navalny? He also said that other supporters of Navalny had also turned up in Germany. ..."
"... I lay a pound to a pinch of shit that Pevchikh is a British agent. ..."
"... Looking good for almost a corpse. COVID-19, a flu virus, is a deadly killer, and Novichok, a deadly nerve agent, is not a killer. ..."
"... Dances with Bears: THE PEVCHIKH PLOT – NAVALNY BOTTLE, LONDON WITNESS FLEE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, BERLIN TOO http://johnhelmer.net/the-pevchikh-plot-navalny-bottle-london-witness-flee-the-scene-of-the-crime-berlin-too/ ..."
"... I reckon Khordokovsky has a hand in this. He has the same moral compass as dead Berezovsky. None. And he has refused to stick to agreements (keep out of politics). If the British or someone else get fingered for this cunning plan , would they serve him up on a silver platter? Almost certainly so. ..."
"... We certainly did well to focus on Maria Pevchikh as soon as we discovered that in addition to being the one who evaded questioning by Russian authorities by flying out to Germany, she also had British residency. She certainly has become a "person of interest" and could well be the major individual in the plot to incapacitate Navalny and use him to pressure Germany over NSII and Russia over the Belarus unrest. ..."
"... It is still unknown whether Pevchikh is a British citizen. I think she is and probably must be, in fact, for if she is only a visa holder or an applicant for UK citizenship, she could be told by the Home Office to go take a hike if it is proven that she was instrumental in the poisoning plot. ..."
"... Ask Pevchikh! Only she is now probably undergoing debriefing in London at UK Secret Intelligence Services HQ, 85 Albert Embankment. ..."
"... There was considerable risk involved in the deception. I doubt that Navalny went into the deception willingly. There was a very real risk that he could have suffered some brain damage going into the first coma and that's sure to compromise his health in the long term in other ways. ..."
"... More likely it seems a lot of the deception was planned behind Navalny's back and people were waiting for an opportunity to carry it out. It may have been planned years ago for someone else and then switched to Navalny once he was in the Omsk hospital. Julia Navalnaya may have been pushed into demanding that Navalny be transferred to Berlin and while the Omsk hospital doctors were stabilising him for the transfer, the deception then started going into action in Germany. ..."
"... Lavrov smelt a rat several days ago -- last week, I'm sure -- when he stated that suspicions had been aroused by one of Navalny's gang refusing to answer investigators' questions in Omsk and then scarpering off to Germany. ..."
"... I'm quite sure the FSB already knew of Pevchikh's comings and goings between London and Moscow (over 60 flights there and back I read somewhere) and her activities with the Navalny organization. ..."
"... if Washington thinks it can actually halt Nord Stream II – with the understanding that the Russians would probably give up after such a stinging second rebuke – then the sky is the limit, and they will scornfully reject any other solution. The one who stands to get hurt the most is Europe. But I don't think they realize it. ..."
Sep 19, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 11:07 pm

Russian librag Vedomosti reports NYT:

NYT сообщила о планах Навального вернуться в Россию
15 сентября 2020

NYT has announced Navalney's to return to Russia
15 September 2020

Founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, Alexei Navalny, who is undergoing treatment in Germany, has discussed his poisoning with the German prosecutor and announced that he plans to return to Russia, The New York Times has reported, citing a source in the German security forces.

According to the source, Navalny is fully aware of his condition, of what happened and where he is. In a conversation with the prosecutor, he refused that his case be jointly investigated by Germany and Russia. Navalny said he planned to return to Russia immediately after his recovery and continue his mission, the newspaper notes.

https://vedomosti-ru.turbopages.org/vedomosti.ru/s/society/news/2020/09/15/839918-o-planah-navalnogo?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=mobile

Mission accomplished.

I notice that the Navalny fake story has gone off the radar in the Western MSM.

Now there just remain the lies and innuendos fixed in the minds of the sheeple.

Only an investigation by the Germans.

No investigation by the Russians.

Germans and "the whole world", to quote Pompeo, know the truth: Russians simply deny the truth, and the more they deny, the more truthful the accusations appear. And the elephant in the room: Why isn't the poisoned by "Novichok" bullshitting bastard of a US agent dead? And the answer given by the Germans, that is ironic in the extreme: because Russian doctors saved his life in Omsk.

Other elephants lurking in the shadows:

Why hadn't everyone who had been in contact with the piece of shit, including fellow passengers on the Tomsk-Moscow flight died?

Where were the hazmat-suit-wearing specialists that should have detoxified the aeroplane on board of which the Bullshitter threw a wobbler?

So many elephants, all ignored.

Total fabrication.

When the liar returns here, how about arresting him for breach of his bail conditions?

Not technically but absolutely legally he was not allowed to leave the country.

How about arresting him for perverting the course of justice? You can get life for doing that in the UK!

He refuses to allow the Russian state to investigate his case but he and his controllers and supporters maintain that the Russian state attempted to murder him with the most deadly nerve agent known to man -- but it didn't work.

ET AL September 15, 2020 at 1:32 am

Jesus has Risen!

And on the plus side he can sell expensive 'blessed' trinkets to his hamsters help subsidize his interesting lifestyle. Think holy relics, think Medjigorje, Lourdes etc.

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 8:58 am

Having survived Novichok poisoning, is he now immune?

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 4:16 am

A long read:

VESTI RU

Навальный, "Новичок" и "белая коробка"
13 сентября 2020

Navalny, "Novichok" and the "White Box"
13 September 2020

Why is not a single Berlin doctor ready to personally confirm the announced poisoning of Navalny?

A Russian patient is recovering in the "White Box" of the Charité hospital. During the three weeks of Navalny's stay within these walls, no one shouted at the doctors that they were murderers, no one demanded from them hourly reports on the patient's state of health. At the beginning of the week, the hospital's press service informs the press that the personal guest of the Federal Chancellor has been withdrawn from an artificial coma and is reacting to other people. A couple of days later, "Spiegel" magazine publishes encouraging information: "More progress has been made. If his health continues to improve, Navalny will begin to receive more visitors". According to "Bellingcat" and "Der Spiegel", Navalny can already speak and can probably recall the events that happened before he lost consciousness on an aeroplane flying from Tomsk to Moscow.

In general, the latest Charité press releases are in clear contradiction to the horror that the German press had been gathering all week. The already poisoned underpants have been forgotten, the newspaper "Die Zeit" returns the reader to a famous photograph: morning in a café at the Tomsk airport, a passenger for the flight to Moscow flight peers into a cup that he has raised in order to drink out of it. In it,, according to a "Die " source, is not just a chemical warfare agent from the "Novichok" group: in there is a "Novichok" on steroids.

"Before this assassination attempt, the world did not know about this poison, which is said to be even more deadly and dangerous than all known substances from the Novichok group. Scientists found corresponding traces on the Navalny's hands and on the neck of a bottle from which he had drunk. This "modified Novichok" allegedly acts more slowly than previous versions. The Germans assume that one of the FSB agents monitoring Navalny, or an undercover agent, added drops of poison to his tea or applied a substance to the surface of a cup. Navalny was supposed to die on board the aircraft", writes "Die Zeit".

Everything is just fine and dandy here: for example, about agents who had to perform the necessary manipulations with a super-poison in a crowded place. A remarkable and suddenly appeared bottle -- no bottle was seen in Omsk at all. The story goes on about the fact that, apart from tea, Navalny did not drink anything. It turns out that those accompanying the blogger took the bottle out of the plane, hid it, and then transported it to Germany and handed it to Bundeswehr chemists Concealing evidence is pure criminality. But the most interesting thing is the super-"Novichok".

After the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury (let us recount the usual version of events that happened there), about 50 more people sought medical help. Houses were taken apart, pets were destroyed. But here no one except Navalny was hurt: neither the people at Tomsk airport, nor the fellow travellers with whom he, having the terrible poison in his hands, took a selfie on a bus, nor the passengers on board the aircraft, and he also touched things there. Symptoms of poisoning should have appeared amongst the passengers, but they did not. This should raise questions from the authors of the serious newspaper "Die Zeit", but it does not. A weapon of mass destruction by any reasoning, but the longer the German press examines the Navalny case, the more mediaeval and grotesque it becomes. And it works -- you can see it even from the reaction of quite moderate politicians.

Already a week and a half ago, Merkel announced the results of a toxicological examination, allegedly carried out in a secret laboratory of the Bundeswehr (yes, Navalny was poisoned), opponents of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline have intensified their onslaught against the federal government in order to stop the construction, they say, this is the only way to punish Russia. At the head of the column are the party leaders of the Greens and those associates of Merkel who are friendly with Washington and have plans for higher party or administrative posts after the Chancellor leaves.

These voices were at least heard. In an evening talk show on ZDF, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas made it clear that the shutdown of Nord Stream 2 could be one response.

"We cannot say that since the sanctions do not work, then there is no need to introduce any. Sometimes we have to put up with the risk of the consequences, thereby saying that we do not want to live in a world without rules", Maas said.

Now Herr Maas, along with many members of the government and administration and the Chancellor, lives in a world of very strange rules. Merkel's press secretary Seibert reiterated that Germany will interact with Russia exclusively at the site of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), where all the documents allegedly have already been sent.

The OPCW Technical Secretariat informed our permanent representative, Alexander Shulgin, that Berlin had only sent a notification about Navalny's poisoning, a sheet of A4 paper, but there is still nothing that the experts could work on. But the Germans had to formulate a response to the proposal of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office on exchange of information: any information about the state of Navalny can be transferred to Russia only with his permission.

This was the case in 2004. The Charité clinic then diagnosed the presidential candidate of the Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko with dioxin poisoning -- no one ever saw documentary evidence. Yushchenko then for 4 years, while he was of interest he was to the public, promised to show everything, but he never did.

This trick can be repeated again, the main thing is to find the answer to an urgent task: to inflate the level of confrontation between Russia and Germany, and therefore the entire West, in order to force the Russian authorities to be as cautious as possible in their domestic and foreign policy, for example, in the Belarusian direction.

However, the fact that Nord Stream 2, for which the German federal government was ready to support unto death, suddenly became an instrument of blackmail -- admit the poisoning, otherwise we can close it down -- openly outraged German business and regional elites.

"It seems that the verdict has already been given -- there are demands that construction of the pipeline be stopped. I strongly oppose such measures", said Michael Kretschmer, Prime Minister of Saxony.

"We have had absolutely trusting cooperation with Russia in the energy sector for 50 years. And even in the most difficult political times, which were probably even more difficult during the Cold War, we managed to maintain this trust", emphasized Michael Harms, executive director of Eastern Committee of the German economy.

Even a true transatlantist, the president of the Munich Security Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, stood up for Nord Stream 2 (and Denmark had joined the renewed US incitement against it the day before).

Political games will not pass themselves of as force majeure. Investors will go to the German government for their money. Here you need to think ten times, because along with the demands of multibillion-dollar compensation, there will definitely be asked unpleasant questions about the reasons that made the German authorities abandon a project that was profitable to all sides. So you can go to Navalny's analyses. In a normal court, bureaucratic excuses will not work. And, by the way, in Germany there are politician-lawyers who can professionally draw up a claim and conduct a case.

"I want to investigate this. One of the developers of Novichok is in the US. It is known that many special services have this poison. Of course, the Russian have it as well, but if Putin did it, then why give Navalny to Germany? So that we can establish all this here? A crime must have some logic", says Bundestag deputy Gregor Gizi.

The logic that we now see is somehow not German. One gets the impression that the compassion and humanism of the German politician, brought up on the lessons of the past, are now being tried out by smart and cynical people who know how to competently fabricate, substitute and cover their tracks. And not too far away, we already had Britain.

At the end of May 2003, the BBC released material that Prime Minister Blair and his cabinet had made a decision to enter the war in Iraq based on falsified intelligence. The person who passed on this information to reporters was David Kelly, a leading chemical weapons specialist at the British Department of Defence. His speech at the parliamentary hearings threatened the prime minister, the military and the secret services with big problems, Hiwever, on July 18, 2003, Kelly was found dead in the woods near his home. Suicide, the investigation stated, but in 2007, a group of parliamentarians conducted an unofficial investigation -- there were no legal consequences, but now all British people know that Kelly was murdered in cold blood.

In 2015, Blair was forced to admit that he lied to citizens about Iraq, and escaped trial only because no one wanted to get involved with it. Nevertheless, Blair has gone down in history with this lie. And history is important to remember in order to do it right. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov calls on the Germans to leave emotions and turn on their brains.

"I hope that these absurd actions will be stopped and Germany, at least for the sake of the reputation of German punctuality, will fulfill its obligations under the agreement with the Russian Federation. Moreover, they are demanding an investigation from us, but it turns out that all those who accompanied Navalny are slowly moving to Germany too. this is very unpleasant and leads to serious thoughts. Therefore, it is in the interests of our German colleagues to protect their reputation and provide all the necessary information that would somehow shed light on their so far absolutely unfounded accusations", Lavrov said.

Another proposal has gone from Moscow to Berlin: to send a Russian investigation team to Germany in order to jointly study the circumstances of the case, the victim of which is a Russian citizen. So far, there is no reason to believe that Berlin will respond with consent.

Some German politicians and almost all the SMS likes to moralize against Russia, periodically recalling the Stalinist repressions and the GULAG. But now Germany itself behaves like an investigator during interrogation in the dungeons of the NKVD. Confession is the queen of proof.*

https://yandex.ru/turbo/vesti.ru/s/article/2457559?promo=navbar&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com%2F%3Ffrom%3Dspecial&utm_source=YandexZenSpecial

Yeah, we got a confession in the end!

That's all the bastards demand of Russia: Confess and then we'll be pals.

*Признание -- царица доказательств

"Confession is the Queen of proof."

From Latin: Сonfessio regina probationum est)

Roman legal principle of criminal procedural law.

Слава России!

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 10:04 am

There are undeniable advantages to accusations for which no substantiation is offered – as we saw with the Skripals, you can await public comment, identify where you went wrong from scornful rejections of the narrative, and then modify it so that it makes more sense.

In this case, people wonder why such a potent nerve agent did not fell Navalny instantly like a poleaxed ox, before he ever left the terminal, instead of 40 minutes or so into the flight. Ahhh but this, we later learn, was a specially-modified Novichok, engineered to be slow-acting. Just what you want in a nerve agent. Hint – no, it isn't. Just like you don't want it specially engineered to be 'persistent', like that chemical-warfare expert tit for Bellingcat claimed was the reason the poison daubed on Skripal's doorknob did not wash away in the rain and was still deadly weeks afterward. You want a nerve agent to quickly and efficiently kill enemy troops caught in the open and unprotected, and then as quickly degrade and disperse so your own forces can move in and occupy the objective. The last thing you want is it hanging about for weeks, or being 'slow-acting' so those troops can come in and wax your ass and then later fall down dead. One of the first casualties of these silly stories must be that the agent is 'military grade'. The military would say, if you want to use that useless shite, spread it yourself – we want nothing to do with it.

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 4:46 am

Just appeared, posted from Charité -- Bullshitter with statuesque wife and kiddie acolytes:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFJwV0Dly0Z/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=12&wp=822&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fthenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com&rp=%2F2020%2F07%2F31%2Fthe-ceaseless-lies-of-eva-bartlett-or-the-partisan-scrubbing-of-western-consciousness%2F#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A3146.465000000717%7D

Another bungled FSB wet job!

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 4:56 am

It reads:

navalny Hi, this is Navalny. I miss you all 😍. I still can hardly do anything, but yesterday I was able to breathe on my own all day. Generally myself. I did not use any outside help, not even the simplest valve in my throat. I liked it very much. An amazing, underestimated by many thing. Would totally recommend.

What, no tracheotomy scar?

Why aren't you dead, you wanker?

Thinking about thanking the Omsk doctors who "saved your life" after you had taken a dose of salts in the aircraft shithouse?

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 10:07 am

"I still can hardly do anything "

I'm still waiting for the difference to become evident. Navalny does perhaps less than any man in Russia who enjoys such a leisurely lifestyle.

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 10:05 am

I take it that the kiddie Navalnyites in the above Instagram are all Russian citizens and part of the Bullshitter's entourage that turned up in Berlin, hot on the heels of their comatose hero.

So how did they get the documentation that enabled them to leave the Mafia State and enter Germany, the coronavirus shamdemic notwithstanding?

Are they all guests of Frau Kanzelerin Merkel?

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 10:34 am

I thought they were the Bullshitter's kids.

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 10:49 am

Yes, they are his children. Navalnaya clearly got permission for their son to travel to Germany. His daughter has flown in from the USA.

However, the question still remains as regards those Navalnyites who rolled up in Germany following their leader's private flight there: how did they get the appropriate documentation to do so at such short notice, not to mention Pevchikh, who flew with the comatose Navalny to Berlin -- and then vanished?.

Seibert was asked about this and said he knew nothing about her.

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 11:22 am

Ah, yes; that's a good point. I just assumed the hamsters were blathering from a distance, as in Russia. I did not realize some of them had turned up in Germany, except for the mysterious Masha.

I hope Germany offers residency to the Navalnys, and that they accept. Russia can't really refuse to let him back in, he's a citizen. But as long as he is there he will cause trouble, and he'll be recharged with all the PR he has received from this latest caper.

But it is suggested that Russia is bargaining for his return; the story also expands on Lavrov's recent statements, and introduces a villain in the woodpile I would not have personally suspected: Poland.

https://www.stalkerzone.org/lavrov-offered-merkel-a-choice-between-russia-navalny/

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 11:54 am

And get this:

Does he want to end his political ambitions? Top Eurocrat Borrell calls for Navalny's name to be attached to EU 'Magnitsky List'

https://www.rt.com/russia/500766-borrell-navalny-sanctions-russia/

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 12:03 pm

I recall Lavrov querying the other day Pevchikh's presence in Germany, her refusal to be interviewed by investigators in Omsk and how come she managed to fly to Germany with Navalny? He also said that other supporters of Navalny had also turned up in Germany.

I lay a pound to a pinch of shit that Pevchikh is a British agent.

MOSCOWEXILE September 16, 2020 at 11:35 am

Note how the monitor in the Navalny Instagram above has been censored.

It's because, they say, it displays personal data about Putin's intended Novichok victim, such as body temperature, pulse, blood pressure etc.

Wouldn't like the world to know that there is nothing wrong with him, would they?

Source:

Эксперт объяснил ретушь прикроватного экрана на фото Навального
15 сентября 2020

An expert has explained the retouching of the bedside monitor in the Navalny photo
15 September 2020

https://vz-ru.turbopages.org/vz.ru/s/news/2020/9/15/1060574.html?promo=navbar&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

MARK CHAPMAN September 16, 2020 at 12:26 pm

Too late to get smart now.

MOSCOWEXILE September 16, 2020 at 10:51 pm

NAVALNY: HIDDEN AND OVERT SIGNALS
Stalker Zone
September 16, 2020

Staged???

Why on earth should one think that?

MOSCOWEXILE September 16, 2020 at 10:54 pm

Comment to the above C/Z article:

anymouse • 8 hours ago

Looking good for almost a corpse. COVID-19, a flu virus, is a deadly killer, and Novichok, a deadly nerve agent, is not a killer.

ET AL September 15, 2020 at 11:36 am

Dances with Bears: THE PEVCHIKH PLOT – NAVALNY BOTTLE, LONDON WITNESS FLEE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, BERLIN TOO
http://johnhelmer.net/the-pevchikh-plot-navalny-bottle-london-witness-flee-the-scene-of-the-crime-berlin-too/

British and other international toxicological experts say that without technical reporting by the laboratory of the spectrometric composition of the chemical, and without identifying the compound by the international naming protocol there is no evidence at all;..

the US Army had recently manufactured its own Novichok types: "A230, A232 and A234 A232 has a CAS number of 2308498-31-7. A230 and A234 have no known CAS numbers."
####

A lot more at the link.

ET AL September 15, 2020 at 11:40 am

I reckon Khordokovsky has a hand in this. He has the same moral compass as dead Berezovsky. None. And he has refused to stick to agreements (keep out of politics). If the British or someone else get fingered for this cunning plan , would they serve him up on a silver platter? Almost certainly so.

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 3:29 pm

Helmer always delivers. It looks very much as if the Germans have stepped in the shit.

JEN September 15, 2020 at 7:10 pm

We certainly did well to focus on Maria Pevchikh as soon as we discovered that in addition to being the one who evaded questioning by Russian authorities by flying out to Germany, she also had British residency. She certainly has become a "person of interest" and could well be the major individual in the plot to incapacitate Navalny and use him to pressure Germany over NSII and Russia over the Belarus unrest.

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 7:17 pm

Agreed; she does indeed look to have played a far bigger part in the operation than she lets on.

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 9:44 pm

It is still unknown whether Pevchikh is a British citizen. I think she is and probably must be, in fact, for if she is only a visa holder or an applicant for UK citizenship, she could be told by the Home Office to go take a hike if it is proven that she was instrumental in the poisoning plot.

When Berezovsky got cocky in the UK after a judge there had prevented his being forced to leave Misty Albion because Berzovsky had persuaded him that were he to return to Mordor, he would face an unfair trial and his life would be in danger -- the erstwhile "Godfather of the Kremlin" had arrived in the with a 6-month visitor's visa -- he started bragging to the "Guardian" that he was organizing with his chums still in the Evil Empire the overthrow of the tyrant Putin.

The Home Secretary at the time was none other than "Jack" Straw -- another odious pile of ordure -- who promptly summonsed Berezovsky to the Home Office for an official bollocking. He was told that if, while resident in the UK, he continued to engage himself with the overthrow of a foreign head of state, he was out.

Be that as it may, I am quite sure he was working with British state security, as was his once favoured acolyte Litvinenko.

Litvinenko was poisoned. Berezovsky committed suicide -- they say.

Like

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 1:32 pm

Россия задала ЕС девять вопросов об обвинениях в ситуации с Навальным

Постоянное представительство России при Евросоюзе указало на ключевые нестыковки в версии об отравлении Алексея Навального
15 сентября 2020

Russia has asked the EU nine questions about accusations in the situation with Navalny

The Permanent Representative of Russia to the European Union has pointed out the key inconsistencies in the version about the poisoning of Alexei Navalny
15 September 2020

https://yandex.ru/turbo/tass.ru/s/politika/9466401?sign=80f97b564d197b55161b94400f4ff187026d184af0581f365926a5271a89189a%3A1600204510&utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=mobile&trbsrc=neo-news

In the eighth question, Russian diplomats drew attention to a bottle of water, on which, according to Germany, traces of poison had been found: "Not a single surveillance camera recorded how Navalny drank from a similar bottle at the Tomsk airport [before departure]. from this bottle earlier or on board the plane, how did this bottle get to Berlin? "

Ask Pevchikh! Only she is now probably undergoing debriefing in London at UK Secret Intelligence Services HQ, 85 Albert Embankment.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 15, 2020 at 4:41 pm

Navalny, if indeed he was close to death, must now realize he was set up by one of his own benefactors. What would be his next move? Going back to Russia would make the most sense as the Russians may actually protect him from another show-assassination and he would have freedom to prance around to his heart's content.

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 6:54 pm

I don't believe he was ever 'close to death', rather that he was an active part of the deception. He is a grifting idiot who puffs up like a toad upon being flattered. He could never win power in Russia legitimately, as he is mostly a figure of contempt in Russia save for the perennially-discontented children of the liberal elite and the few Americaphiles who don't know enough to keep their heads down. I believe he played his role by taking something that would nauseate him but not seriously hurt him, rolling about and screaming, and that the introduction of the phony 'poison bottle' was with his full knowledge. I wish Russia would just disown him and tell the Germans they can have him.

However, I could be wrong. We will know from the tone of his remarks when he feels he is strong enough to once again assume his president-in-waiting role, and starts spouting off about what happened to him. He is the most likely candidate to be selected to get the water-bottle narrative back on track, so if he comes out with an explanation for how he drank from the bottle somewhere there were no surveillance cameras, and noticed a sketchy-looking guy in a leather jacket and a "Vote For Putin!" T-shirt standing nearby just before he drank, it will be a pretty good indication that he is as full of shit as ever.

JEN September 15, 2020 at 10:53 pm

There was considerable risk involved in the deception. I doubt that Navalny went into the deception willingly. There was a very real risk that he could have suffered some brain damage going into the first coma and that's sure to compromise his health in the long term in other ways.

More likely it seems a lot of the deception was planned behind Navalny's back and people were waiting for an opportunity to carry it out. It may have been planned years ago for someone else and then switched to Navalny once he was in the Omsk hospital. Julia Navalnaya may have been pushed into demanding that Navalny be transferred to Berlin and while the Omsk hospital doctors were stabilising him for the transfer, the deception then started going into action in Germany.

MOSCOWEXILE September 15, 2020 at 11:18 pm

Lavrov smelt a rat several days ago -- last week, I'm sure -- when he stated that suspicions had been aroused by one of Navalny's gang refusing to answer investigators' questions in Omsk and then scarpering off to Germany.

I'm quite sure the FSB already knew of Pevchikh's comings and goings between London and Moscow (over 60 flights there and back I read somewhere) and her activities with the Navalny organization.

Perhaps they allowed Navalny to leave for Germany -- with Pevchikh flying out with him, I may add -- because they knew what was afoot and would later expose the Germans for liars, or if not that, then for their falling to a sucker punch off the British secret service.

They certainly allowed Pevchikh to leave Russia: she didn't sneak on board Navalny's private flight.

Just Pevchikh, note, not Navalnaya, who is not a British agent, I'm sure.

MARK CHAPMAN September 16, 2020 at 8:49 am

Certainly possible – as I say, we will know more from his blabber once he starts giving interviews, which he lives to do. His tone will have changed considerably if he believes his erstwhile chums in politics intended to martyr him. Otherwise I read his expressed desire to return at once to Russia as simply remaining in character – the selfless hero risking all for freedom and democracy.

I wonder how he will thank the doctors in Omsk for saving his life, as it is generally acknowledged they did. He cannot go into transports of admiration for their professional skills, because they claimed to have found no trace of poisoning in his samples. He faces the choice, then, of simply passing over it without mention, or accusing the people who saved his life of 'being part of the machine'. Doing either will certainly not increase his popularity in Russia. And it makes no difference at all how popular he is in the west – something the west seemingly cannot be taught.

Like

MOSCOWEXILE September 16, 2020 at 4:41 am

Die Zeit сообщила о предложении США от ФРГ по "Северному потоку -- 2"
RT на русском, 16 сентября 2020

Die Zeit announced the proposal of the USA from Germany for the "Nord Stream – 2
RT in Russian, September 16, 2020

The German government has offered the United States a deal in exchange for Washington's waiver of sanctions against Nord Stream 2.

This is reported by the newspaper Die Zeit, citing sources

It is noted that Berlin has expressed its readiness to invest up to € 1 billion in the construction of two terminals in Germany for receiving liquefied natural gas from the United States.

"In response, the United States will allow the unhindered completion and operation of Nord Stream 2", TASS quotes the text of a letter from German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz, which was sent on August 7 to the head of the US Treasury, Stephen Mnuchin.

In early August, US senators sent a letter to the operator of the German port of Sassnitz calling for an end to work to support the construction of Nord Stream 2.

https://russian-rt-com.turbopages.org/russian.rt.com/s/business/news/783868-predlozhenie-frg-ssha?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=mobile

PAULR September 16, 2020 at 5:07 am

This would suggest that the Germans are not planning to cancel North Stream 2 themselves in response to the Navalny case.

MOSCOWEXILE September 16, 2020 at 5:57 am

The USA won't like the offer. Zero-Win for them -- always.

Americans have to be winners -- expect to be winners: it's their birthright and what made America great. To be a loser is un-American.

In my experience, the worst thing ever for many US citizens is to be accused of being a "loser".

PATIENT OBSERVER September 16, 2020 at 9:05 am

Very true about the term "loser" being a harsh insult for Americans. The "loser" tag starts to be applied to kids in early grade school and only intensifies from that point. The glorification of success (defined by the level of conspicuous consumption) further sharpens the divide between losers and winners. Our "feel-good" stories are often about individuals who were able to transform themselves from "losers" to "winners". American culture is one-dimensional in that way.

PATIENT OBSERVER September 16, 2020 at 5:12 pm

Building an LNG terminal is one thing, buying US LNG is another thing. In addition, I believe that Russia could provide LNG to Germany as well and likely at a substantially lower price.

The US may settle for this gesture as it does hold the door open, however slightly, for future developments to be leveraged by the US to force Germany to reduce or stop gas purchases from Russia. Having the terminal in place could make a future change in suppliers more feasible and faster but nevertheless representing an economic disaster for Germany. Lets call it step 1 in Plan B.

MARK CHAPMAN September 16, 2020 at 10:49 pm

I'm pretty sure the Americans will not take this offer, but will instead – correctly – interpret it as weakness and increase their pressure.

ET AL September 16, 2020 at 11:56 pm

On the other hand any diplomatic/economic success plays well in this presidential erection year. So a) is it worth it?; b) can they reverse the decision the day after? I assume they can have their cake and eat it as Brussels is mostly spineless. Borrell can squeal about Russia, but that's because he can do f/k all about the USA's behavior, being spokeshole and all

MARK CHAPMAN September 17, 2020 at 8:51 am

That's what people seem not to get – the decision would not ever be 'reversible' once Nord Stream II is complete. That pipeline quad alone can carry all of Europe's gas supply that it receives from Russia. None through Ukraine, not a whiff, if that is Moscow's will, although the Russians have agreed to transit token amounts, which the Ukrainians say are not enough to make the system's continued operation viable – without the large volumes they are accustomed to handling, they will have to progressively begin shutting down, bypassing and dismantling sections they can no longer afford to maintain.

So long as the pipeline's future remains in doubt, Uncle Sam can sell the philosophical possibility of supplying Europe with large volumes of cheap LNG via tankers, made desirable – although it will cost a little more, no getting around that – for political reasons. Once Nord Stream II is complete, the reality of a reliable supply of cheap pipeline gas would have to be countered with a concrete offer from the USA; this many cubic meters times this many Euros. Any housewife can do a cost-benefit analysis at that level. Do you want to pay more for American gas just because it comes from America? Well, let me think about it – what are the benefits? Well, it comes from America! What, you mean, that's it? There would be no possibility the Americans would use their status as a major energy supplier as leverage to bring about economic or political changes in Europe that they desired, would there? Well I can't guarantee that.

You know what? I'm okay with Russian gas, thanks just the same. Maybe I'll use the money I save to buy a Ford – how's that?

MARK CHAPMAN September 16, 2020 at 9:20 am

Pathetic. After declaring forcefully that American extraterritorial sanctions are illegal – which, technically, they are, only America has a right to threaten to limit European trade in America if it wishes; although that, too is illegal under WTO rules – Germany is now cowering and trying to 'make a deal'. With Trump, in case anyone missed that, whose 'Art of the Deal' consists of destroying the opponent until he is happy to have escaped with his life, and will never publicly complain about a 'deal' which came out very much to his disadvantage. Put another way, offering America a 'deal' only highlights that you believe you are in a weak position, are looking for mercy, and are ripe for the plucking. Germany was already planning to build the heaviest concentration of LNG terminals in Europe; a far better strategy would have been to threaten to cancel them all if Uncle Sam did not back off. The Americans are certainly smart enough to figure out – in about 2.5 seconds – that more LNG terminals means diddly when Russia can also supply LNG far cheaper than the USA because it has teensy transport costs by comparison, being much closer. Two more LNG terminals buys America precisely zero advantage, but the willingness to 'deal' reveals vulnerability. The only American response to rolling on your back to expose your belly is to step on your head.

I swear, it is hard to recognize Germany as the country which once frightened the world.

A Trump counter-offer might be a commitment from Germany to buy X amount of American LNG at a locked-in price, said amount to be sufficient that extra Nord Stream capacity would not be utilized. It depends on whether the Americans really think they can actually stop Nord Stream II, because even that would ultimately be a loser strategy. Unless a term far into the future were specified, the Americans know that once the pipeline is finished, their product is no longer competitive and cannot ever be unless it is unprofitable to themselves. They could satisfy themselves with gutting the Germans for a year or two (if they accepted), but it would be short-term satisfaction at best. Might be enough to win Trump the election, though.

But if Washington thinks it can actually halt Nord Stream II – with the understanding that the Russians would probably give up after such a stinging second rebuke – then the sky is the limit, and they will scornfully reject any other solution. The one who stands to get hurt the most is Europe. But I don't think they realize it.

MOSCOWEXILE September 16, 2020 at 8:31 am

WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO KILL THE "OPPOSITION" TORCH-BEARER NAVALNY?
Stalker Zone
September 15, 2020

CORTES September 17, 2020 at 12:41 am

The Borgias are history. Well, obviously, they ARE history. But now they have been relegated to the Second Division/Championship (football joke) of Poisoners by Sergei Lavrov and his chef de cuisine:

Voici le mindfuck (pardon my French):

https://thesaker.is/us-deputy-secretary-of-state-was-afraid-to-eat-russian-soup-navalny-and-swift-ruslan-ostashko/

Contains a smidgeon of addled Navalny. Delish!

https://c0.pubmine.com/sf/0.0.3/html/safeframe.html REPORT THIS AD

MOSCOWEXILE September 17, 2020 at 12:53 am

Oh look! The Navalnyites have shown a video, shot in Tomsk, of Navalny drinking from the allegedly poisoned water bottle that earlier nobody had seen or made mention of before it turned up in Berlin and was sent to the Bundeswehr lab.

Recall that his loud-mouth spokeswoman had from the very start insisted that Navalny had been poisoned by laced-with-poison tea that he had drunk at Tomsk airport.

Change of story line -- as persistently happened in the Skripal fake.

Video Showing Water Bottle That 'Poisoned' Alexei Navalny Shared by His Team
17 September, 2020: 10:17

https://sputniknews.com/russia/202009171080484058-navalny-was-poisoned-by-water-bottle-in-his-hotel-room-his-team-claims/

MOSCOWEXILE September 17, 2020 at 12:56 am

That Sputnik headline should read, I think, "shared with his team".

And if that is the case, why didn't his team also start howling and screaming and rolling around on the deck some time later on board the Tomsk-Moscow flight?

MOSCOW EXILE September 17, 2020 at 3:15 am

gazeta.ru

Соратники Навального сообщили, что забрали бутылки из номера в Томске
17.09.2020 | 10:57

Navalny's companions have reported that they took bottles from a hotel room in Tomsk

Alexei Navalny's companions have said that a bottle of mineral water, on which German experts had allegedly found traces of poison from the Novichok group, had been brought from a hotel room in Tomsk.

On an Instagram, they have posted a video in which, according to them, an hour after news of Navalny's deteriorating condition, they examine the room and seize all the items which he had been able to touch.

On August 20, the aeroplane in which Navalny was flying urgently landed in Omsk, from where the blogger was taken to hospital. On August 21, doctors announced that the main diagnosis was metabolic disorders.

At the moment, Navalny is in Germany, where he has been taken out of an artificial coma. German doctors announced that he had been poisoned with substances from the Novichok group, but did not provide any relevant evidence.

So why didn't the Navalny hamsters, who dutifully sought out the poison bottle and most certainly handled it, throw wobblers as did Navalny when performing what he thought were the effects of nerve agent poisoning?

And whom did the hamsters hand the bottle to -- Navalnaya or Pevchikh? And who handled the bottle after its arrival in Berlin and before the obliging Bundeswehr said it had been dosed with the most lethal nerve agent (weapons grade) known to man?

Why isn't there a trail of stiffs from Tomsk to Berlin and beyond?

Who's going to believe this shite?

"Why, the whole world knows it's true!" will Imperial Plenipotentiary Pompeus Fattus Arsus surely say.

MOSCOW EXILE September 17, 2020 at 3:36 am

One of the developers of Novichok, Leonid Rink, commented on reports that a bottle in the Tomsk hotel where Alexei Navalny had stayed could [have been] Novichok [contaminated] .

"This is a situation where no one would have been allowed to touch the bottle -- you would have died if you had done so. If this had really been the case, then there would have basically been a deceased person, and everyone who had carried this bottle without gloves and protection would also have died", he told RIA Novosti.

Ah, but . . . Rink is forgetting that it was a special, delayed action Novichok made to take effect on "Putin's Fiercest Critic" when he was on board the Tomsk-Moscow flight.

Rink's an old Soviet has-been and knows nothing about the latest developments in diabolical weaponry that issues forth from secret Orc laboratories.

Эксперт прокомментировал сообщения о бутылке с "Новичком"
12:27

Expert comments on statements about the bottle with "Novichok"
12:27

CORTES September 17, 2020 at 6:20 am

Maybe the cunning developers have produced a Novichok variant safe to those who have sinned but fatal (or liable, at least, to provoke a severe tummy upset, occasionally) to the purest of heart?

JENNIFER HOR September 17, 2020 at 12:43 pm

I like this idea of the special edition of Novichok with the delayed kick. Maybe we could call it Brawndo and speculate that the poison only goes into action when it does because the added electrolytes take time to work to release the poison.

MOSCOWEXILE September 17, 2020 at 7:56 am

kp.ru

Alexei Navalny's team immediately after his departure from Tomsk airport, went to the hotel room in that city where he had spent the night, and packed all the items (including water bottles) so as to deliver them for analysis (of course, not in Russia). A video about this was posted on the oppositionist's Instagram.

Everything in this story is beautiful. Navalny's supporters were collecting "evidence" on a case that had not yet happened -- but it was already supposed to have happened? Together with them, there went a lawyer to the hotel -- he was also at the ready. But why were none of the "trackers" hurt if on the "evidence", as is said, they found traces of the "Novichok" military poison? And how did the "people of Navalny" end up in a room where cleaning up should have been done after the guest's departure? There are other questions as well. Some of them "KP" asked FSB reserve general Alexander Mikhailov .

MARK CHAPMAN September 17, 2020 at 9:06 am

And the person shown handling the bottle is wearing gloves – they made sure to show that. But as others have pointed out, this was well before anyone knew 'an attempt had been made on the Opposition Leader's life'. What, all Lyosha's shit was still in his hotel room, towels on the floor, the next day, after he checked out? Pretty crappy service in those Russian hotels. He didn't even leave Russia for several days, and the first suggestions he had been poisoned came from his 'press agent', who claimed he had been poisoned with tea at the airport.

Skripals II.

Like

MOSCOWEXILE September 17, 2020 at 7:26 am

Навального выдвинули на Нобелевскую премию мира

Navalny nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Sergei Yerofeyev, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA, has spoken about this.

According to Yerofeyev, Navalny has been nominated for the prize by "a number of professors from recognized universities who deal with Russia". He did not give specific names, but noted that there are "great people" amongst the scientists who have nominated Navalny.

A professor of any university in the world can nominate a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize: there are no specific requirements for a candidate. In addition, members of national governments and parliaments, heads of state and some other categories of persons can nominate candidates.

The oppositionist will have to fight for the main prize of the planet with venerable rivals.

This is, first of all, US President Donald Trump, who was nominated by Christian Tubring-Jedde, a member of the Norwegian parliament from the far-right Libertarian Progress Party. As the MP said in an interview with Fox News, Donald Trump should be awarded for his role in concluding an agreement on the full normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE.

And why not? O'Bummer was awarded the peace prize, wasn't he?

Same story in Yukie news:

Navalny nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Navalny nominated for Nobel Peace Prize – Kyiv Post

MOSCOWEXILE September 17, 2020 at 7:42 am

I wonder how the Kiev Post evaluates Navalny's position on the Crimea?

The status of the Crimea is a problem that a new democratic Russia will inherit from its former government. The Russian position on this problem will be determined by the recognition of the right of the citizens of the Crimea to determine their own destiny -- Navalny 20!8

TIMOTHY HAGIOS September 17, 2020 at 8:26 am

I say give it to him. Let him join the prestigious ranks of Obama, the OPCW, the EU.

I also propose starting a Nobel War Prize, to be awarded to whatever individual or organization is responsible for the highest body count in a given year. Although that may be redundant, considering that it would probably be given to the same people as the Peace Prize.

MARK CHAPMAN September 17, 2020 at 9:13 am

Ha, ha!! And it all descends into farce, again. Navalny has arrived – he has gone global, beyond his wildest dreams. The nothing from Wherever He Is From who could not even break 5% in presidential election polling is now a major star, glittering in the western firmament. As Saint Lily Tomlin once remarked, no matter how cynical you get, you can never keep up.

All the west is going to be able to get out of this is the satisfaction of showing its ass to the neo-Soviets, the way it does when it re-names the street the Russian Embassy is – or was – located on after some prominent Russian dissident. Beavis and Butthead level, at best.

MOSCOWEXILE September 18, 2020 at 9:17 am

On Navalny, a Russian blogger writes:

That's it! This is a farewell article. A real goodbye to the topic. More precisely, parting with Navalny as a topic. His political role has been played to the end. And even lethal doses of Novichok have not caused a mass movement. Furgal's arrest caused an explosion of civil consciousness in Khabarovsk. The poisoning of Navalny, sending him abroad, the discovery of Novichok, official accusations from Germany did not cause any rally, no procession, no movement. No excitement in civic consciousness has occurred and will never happen.

[Sep 18, 2020] Novichok, Navalny, Nordstream, Nonsense, by Craig Murray

Novichok is now a visit card of MI6
Notable quotes:
"... As soon as Novichok was mentioned, I knew it was geopolitics and not internal Russian politics. ..."
"... NOVICHOK is a highly toxic and contagious substance. The reason why "it didn't kill the Skripals" is because it was never used on the Skripals just as it has not been used on Navalny. In both cases there would have been dozens of collateral victims. From the moment Navalny started to reel with pain during the domestic commercial flight to 4 days later when amid treatment in Berlin it is reasonable to estimate that 300 to 400 people had been in his proximity. Not one of them has shown or known to have contaged symptons. Let us list the narrative. ..."
"... I think my estimate of a total 300 to 400 people within the first 3 to 4 days having been within close proximity to Navalny is quite reasonable. If he was really was infected with an horrific chemical warfare agent, why would he even be allowed into Germany ? ..."
"... In political terms he is a cult leader of an SPB/Moscow elitist metropolitan cult that does not give a damn about most of Russia. ..."
"... Who benefits? For certain not the Joe Publics of UK, Russia and Germany but maybe the likes of Exxon, chevron, bp etc might. ..."
"... I suspected Navalny may be connected to our 'trusted friend' Browder. Now I know for sure. ..."
"... At some point, as background noise, there was some news read out on the radio. After the segment about the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, NordStream 2 and possible EU sanctions the taxi driver shook his head and said thoughtfully: "Yeah, mommy is stuck " ..."
"... "What mommy?" asked the taxi driver. "That same one, Angela Merkel. You know why Navalny was surrendered to Germany? Let me explain." And then, for a quarter of an hour, the taxi driver presented a coherent theory of what happened, worthy of study at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which answered all the questions that had been bothering me. ..."
"... Operatives at the German Ministry of International Affairs, who sympathized with Schröder's SPD, got in touch with Yulia Navalny (his wife) and offered to hospitalize him in a clinic in Germany. Yulia agreed, and appealed to Putin. ..."
"... The next day Berlin announced that analysis results showed poisoning with a cholinesterase inhibitor. This was its last warning shot. Then there was another phone call, to warn that the next time "Novichok" will be found. Moscow refused, and promised Minsk a billion dollars on that very day. ..."
"... There followed an attempt by Fritz Merz, Angela Merkel's deputy in the DCU, to lean on Merkel to shut down NordStream 2, but he swiftly got his ears boxed by the business lobby of German companies that invested in this pipeline and, whining and whimpering, crawled back into his hole. ..."
"... Then Lukashenko, being a tough nut to crack, presented an intentionally amateurish intercept of secret diplomatic communications between Poland and Germany in which they discussed their plans for poisoning Navalny. Now they are sitting in Warsaw and Berlin and have no idea how to respond to this movie -- to deny or to pretend that they didn't notice it. What a dilemma! ..."
"... If Merkel announces that it is the crime of the century in which a great Russian opposition figure has been fiendishly poisoned with "Novichok," then she would be obligated to sever all relations with the bloody regime and present evidence. But there won't be any evidence to present. And nobody will allow her to freeze the completion of the pipeline. Otherwise German companies, which invested in NordStream 2 will take the Reichstag even ahead of the irate German citizens. In either case, DCU/CSU will face a defeat. ..."
"... But what about Russia's friend Gehrhard Schröder? Being the chairman of the board of the NordStream 2 company and head of the SPD, he looks into the future with confidence and optimism. In any case, CDU/CSU will be deflated and SPD will reinforce its position in the Bundestag and either independently or in coalition with other parties will install its own leader as Bundeskanzler. NordStream 2, which has been in political limbo for a few years, will be completed and enter into service at full rated capacity very quickly. ..."
Sep 03, 2020 | craigmurray.org.uk

Matt , September 5, 2020 at 13:08

As soon as Novichok was mentioned, I knew it was geopolitics and not internal Russian politics.

Tatyana , September 5, 2020 at 17:01

Information about a mysterious woman appeared in the ru-net.
https://life.ru/p/1341159
https://aif.ru/society/people/kto_takaya_mariya_pevchih

A 33-year-old young woman who recently flew in from London. On August 15 she celebrated her birthday and then went with Navalny on the working trip. When the plane urgently landed in Omsk for Navalny's hospitalization, the woman also remained on the ground in the 'Ibis Siberia Omsk' hotel, waiting for Alexei to recover. She left from Russia to Britain on August 22.

Maria Konstantinovna Pevchikh (Мария Константиновна Певчих) born in 1987, russian. In 2010 she graduated from the sociological faculty of Moscow Lomonosov State University.

Lives in London. Fond of sports, trains under the program of "Navy Seals", an elite US military unit, owns bookstores in the UK and Australia.

Have close ties with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yevgeny Chichvarkin. Joined Navalny's activity in 2009. At that time, she was 22-year-old and worked as an assistant to one of the British parliamentarians.

It is alleged that the family and relatives do not know this woman.

Her photo
https://static.life.ru/publications/2020/7/21/17582829481.74346.jpg
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2020/9/%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0.jpg

The investigation previously published a chronology of events here
https://ria.ru/20200821/khronologiya-1576110899.html
They discovered that in Tomsk the blogger's company has booked seven rooms for four people, Navalny himself spent the night in a different room that was recorded in his name.

Laguerre , September 5, 2020 at 21:13

"The USA is perfectly willing to fight Russia to the last European NATO member.." That may be right, but I don't see why you're vituperative.

Republicofscotland , September 5, 2020 at 21:23

"WTF are you talking about? The USA is perfectly willing to fight Russia to the last European NATO member.."

Peter. An Ex-CIA man, of whom I've long forgotten his name used to say the same thing about Saudi Arabia, that the Saudis were willing to fight Iran down to the last American soldier.

Squeeth , September 6, 2020 at 17:06

Myth, the US state blames the pusillanimity of the public for its tactics of ultraviolence. The Russians would be drowning in their own blood were it not for Russian military power and the Chinese alliance.

Wikikettle , September 5, 2020 at 19:25

Sorry, they had the cheek to fly over Russian Air space many times taking pics.

Peter Moritz , September 5, 2020 at 18:20

and here some info about the lovely rogue Navalny:

"Recall that Alexei Navalny has two suspended sentences and is involved in several criminal cases at once.

"In December last year, he was sentenced in the case of embezzlement of money from the Yves Rocher company to a three and a half years suspended sentence. His brother Oleg was sentenced to a real three and a half years in prison.

In 2013, Navalny, who in 2009 worked as an adviser to the governor of the Kirov region, was found guilty of embezzling property of the state-owned company Kirovles and sentenced to five years in a general regime colony. He was taken into custody in the courtroom and placed in a pre-trial detention center, but the very next day the Kirov regional court changed the measure of restraint to a recognizance not to leave. As a result, the sentence was changed to a suspended one.

In addition, the Investigative Committee is investigating the case of the theft of 100 million rubles from the SPS party against Alexei Navalny since the end of December 2012.

Activists of Navalny's team – deputy of the Zyuzino metropolitan area Konstantin Yankauskas, as well as entrepreneurs Nikolai Lyaskin and Vladimir Ashurkov – are suspected of fraud related to violation of the procedure for financing the campaign in the election of the mayor of Moscow.

Navalny has repeatedly found himself in the role of a defendant in claims for the protection of honor and dignity – for throwing slanderous publications into the Internet. So, recently, the Lublin Court of Moscow satisfied such a claim by the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Economic Policy, Innovative Development and Entrepreneurship Igor Rudensky."

(machine translated from here: https://vz.ru/news/2015/10/8/771336.html )

https://i2.wp.com/en.eurobelarus.info/files/175/225/navalny_kollag_1_.jpeg
The last picture should make clear what type of person the West again associates with .

Border Bus , September 5, 2020 at 19:31

If it comes to it, we must make sure that the likes of steele, urban, stoltenberg etc are right out there at the FRONT

Giyane , September 6, 2020 at 05:30

Tatyana

I have the same feeling as you. Russophobia simply indicates the bastards are working together against us the steeple. Chinaphobia maybe indicates the Chinese leadership and US leadership jointly want to cull the older generation with bio warfare.

Since none of UK , US. Russia nor China are democracies, their only task is to manage the narrative they tell the people. If I was to go out and buy a product made in China, half the cost would be for transport or profit to the dealer. That is a shared enterprise. One party for example manufactures a diesel generator, while the Western parties sit on their bums and take profit.

Sounds too cosy to me.

Mr Howard S Marks , September 7, 2020 at 01:24

You are really missing the point. NOVICHOK which you should know was developed (though not originally invented) in a lab in Soviet Uzbekistan, which following post Soviet independence, was dismantled by the CIA who took the samples back home to the USA. So it is the Americans not the Russians who have the original well-spring.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/25/world/us-and-uzbeks-agree-on-chemical-arms-plant-cleanup.html

NOVICHOK is a highly toxic and contagious substance. The reason why "it didn't kill the Skripals" is because it was never used on the Skripals just as it has not been used on Navalny. In both cases there would have been dozens of collateral victims. From the moment Navalny started to reel with pain during the domestic commercial flight to 4 days later when amid treatment in Berlin it is reasonable to estimate that 300 to 400 people had been in his proximity. Not one of them has shown or known to have contaged symptons. Let us list the narrative.

  1. Original domestic commercial flight, passengers, crew & colleagues travelling with him
  2. Ambulance to Russian hospital in Omsk ambulance crew
  3. Doctors, nurses, officials, press and Navalny family at hospital in Omsk
  4. German doctors arrived the next day, working along side Russian doctors whom they praised and credited with saving Navalny's life.
  5. Russian doctors agree to release Navalny for medivac transport against their own medical advice, respecting Navalny family wishes.
  6. Ambulance crew once again takes Navalny in the reverse direction back to the airport where the private jet was waiting. Introducing the patient with the "military grade nerve agent" oozing out of his skin to a new flight crew.
  7. Plane lands in Berlin and a German ambulance crew now handles the human chemical warfare torpedo. Note the German ambulance crew members had short sleeves. If the German Gov believed there was a possibility of a Novichok type substance at play why was the official greeting party not all dressed up like those Mi5 Salisbury central casting extras in Hazmat suits?
  8. The convoy arrives at the hospital in Berlin handing Navalny over to the German team no doubt comprised of endless staff members.

I think my estimate of a total 300 to 400 people within the first 3 to 4 days having been within close proximity to Navalny is quite reasonable. If he was really was infected with an horrific chemical warfare agent, why would he even be allowed into Germany ?

Howard Marks , September 7, 2020 at 01:38

As for Navalny and the Russian administration and the Russian public, they both view him as useful but not likeable. The Putin administration has made good use of reports by Navalny's anti-corruption group to expose both people in government and in business.

The Russian public watches the Youtube videos of Navalny's reports to the tune of millions of hits & clicks. However as a person Alexei Navalny is not like and for good reason. This is reflected in his 2% poll rated that due to all the current focus has moved up to 4% for Navalny as a potential "politician" (he is actually already a failed one) 4% is his high water mark.

The likes of The Guardian and The Independent have portrayed Navalny over the years as some kind of Russian Nelson Mandela when in fact Navalny is a better educated more sophisticated Tommy Robinson. Only Navalny is even more racist than so-called "Tommy Robinson" as I don't even recall him ever saying "All Muslims are cockroaches" as Navalny was once quoted to have said.

In political terms he is a cult leader of an SPB/Moscow elitist metropolitan cult that does not give a damn about most of Russia. He and his political cohorts such as Ms Sobol offer not one single policy for the people of the Russian Heartland. Who are far better cared for and better represented by Valdimir Putin, whom the Heartland people lovingly address as Vladimirovich, President Putin's middle name. Navalny is even more Neo-Liberal and far less small "l" liberal in general values and mindset than President Putin.

Tatyana , September 7, 2020 at 09:17

The description is very accurate, and the definition of "elite metropolitan cult" hit the bull's eye. Young people think that being an oppositionist is being active, fashionable, trendy (also at protests you can post photos on Instagram!) Unfortunately, if they are asked specific questions, they cannot answer. They are there for self-expression.

--

People follow ideas, Navalny's idea is not clear, where is the plan, where is the perspective? Looking at Navalny's activity, I feel they are trying to sell me something.

E.g. his website promotes the Smart Voting system
https://navalny.com/p/6418/
the title is "Do you want it like in Belarus? Here is a list of candidates, find yours"
the first paragraph point is "to support the rebellious people in word, action and money is very right, but you may do even more right thing "
the second "it is impossible to use your vote wisely without our smart voting system", a call to action "register"
the third "a few brave Spartans (sic!) broke through Putin's evil cordons and you can support them here is how:
1. Check out the list of candidates. Transfer money to someone you like

Well, actually I sell something myself and I wright similar marketing texts. Compare:
"Are you in search of Boho, Ethnic or Tribal fashion? You're in the right place Our unique *** is the way to express your style!

Does your daughter think of cutting off her gorgeous long hair? Get a pair of our *** for her to show your love and care Here is how: visit our shop *** Choose the one you like and let us work on the perfect *** crafted especially for you "

When people create an online store of political candidates, it is not credible. Our electoral system means collecting signatures, real signatures of living people, not collecting money.

Ryszard Daniel , September 7, 2020 at 17:16

Thank you for your courage to speak the truth Mr. Murray. I am trying to do it sometimes too here in the Netherlands, but I am an engineer, not a politician or journalist, so my means and persuasive talents are limited. However – to stay on the topic of poison – it feels good to see that the anti-Russian propaganda has not poisoned all minds in West Europe yet.

Tatyana , September 7, 2020 at 19:30

It's only today that I've realised who is Prigozhin. He is the owner of Concord group, they were those russian with whom Trump conspired to win elections!

Prigozhin sent 1 million roubles to Charite for Navalny.

Uncle Sam , September 8, 2020 at 09:02

He sent 1 million rubles while at the same time demanding 29 million rubles from Navalny's group. Это было издевательство

Tatyana , September 8, 2020 at 09:42

He demands 88 millions, I wrote about it previously. It is a demand due to court's decision. I don't think it was издевательство, it looks more like Prigozhin is afraid of being accused of poisoning 🙂

Nigel , September 9, 2020 at 17:18

Russophobes these days, which is an enormous section of the population, will believe anything dastardly about that country and its leadership. The narrative here, that doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny as Murray shows, is that the Russians are bumbling villains that couldn't kill a wet paper bag.

Another narrative is that they didn't kill Navalny on purpose. It's just "a warning", etc.. A villain is a villain.

One BS story is as good as another. Of course, there should be a delay between one fiction and the next one. However, the old saying still applies: throw enough sh*t and something is bound to stick.

At the interpersonal level, it's sometimes simpler to simply exaggerate the exaggeration: e.g., Putin is a villain and look at what he did to dirty my underwear; there's a Putin under your bed; yeah, and what about the bad weather we've been having? Putin, of course.

And it's not like any of this is new, e.g., US President Reagan: "Russia has been outlawed forever. Bombing begins in 5 minutes."

Border Bus , September 11, 2020 at 17:16

Who benefits? For certain not the Joe Publics of UK, Russia and Germany but maybe the likes of Exxon, chevron, bp etc might.

banagher , September 11, 2020 at 17:44

Interessant, ein Bericht aus der Prwda:

https://www.pravda.ru/society/1528118-Alexey_Navalny/

Tatyana , September 11, 2020 at 19:03

banagher, thanks a lot for the link! I suspected Navalny may be connected to our 'trusted friend' Browder. Now I know for sure.

banagher , September 12, 2020 at 09:37

In einem kritischen Bericht in Deutschland wird auch auf die investigative Tätigkeit von "Bellincat" erwähnt,

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Nawalny-hat-sich-angeblich-fast-vollstaendig-erholt-und-soll-noch-staerker-bewacht-werden-4890152.html

banagher , September 12, 2020 at 09:39

sorry soll heissen: investigativen Bericht ..

George Craik , September 13, 2020 at 07:31

This is copied from Dimitry Orlov

Taxi Drivers Know Everything

It so happened that yesterday I was coming home in a taxi. The taxi driver, who looked like Bill Murray, turned out to be very talkative: during the trip, as often happens, we touched on all subjects, from the weather to blondes behind the wheel.

At some point, as background noise, there was some news read out on the radio. After the segment about the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, NordStream 2 and possible EU sanctions the taxi driver shook his head and said thoughtfully: "Yeah, mommy is stuck "

"What mommy?" I inquired.

"What mommy?" asked the taxi driver. "That same one, Angela Merkel. You know why Navalny was surrendered to Germany? Let me explain." And then, for a quarter of an hour, the taxi driver presented a coherent theory of what happened, worthy of study at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which answered all the questions that had been bothering me.

This is how it all came down.

At the beginning of August everybody was preparing for the elections in Belarus -- Belarus itself, as well as Russia and countries in the EU. It was an exciting game in which everybody placed bets on their own candidate. But I must immediately warn you that what we were observing was just the visible part of the iceberg, while the underwater currents were known only to a few.

Moscow and Minsk were demonstratively smashing dishes, shouting at each other and pulling each other by the hair, creating the illusion of a complete break in relations. This was as intended!

Europe, content and relaxed, was rubbing its hands and already seeing how it will very soon kick out "Europe's last dictator" and install a Belorussian Juan Guaido clone in Minsk, grabbing this delectable piece for itself.

The elections were held. Everybody froze. Not bothering to wait for the election results to come in, on orders from the Polish provocateur [Telegraph channel] Nexta the Belorussian white-red-white [Nazi occupation flag] opposition marched into battle.

At first everything was going to plan. Excited white-red-white crowds flooded the streets and started threatening the police, officials and journalists, starting skirmishes and strikes. Slovak and Spanish ambassadors in Belarus spoke out in support of the protesters and "came over to the side of the people." This was also as intended. It looked like just a bit more of this and ["Europe's last dictator"] Lukashenko would fall.

But then Moscow entered into the game. It recognized the outcome of the elections [which Lukashenko won] and started to support him organizationally, informationally and financially. Europe had to ramp up pressure. But how?

Nexta was crapping bricks and exhorting the white-red-white activists to get more active, but they just couldn't get any traction in their attempts to seize power. They turned out to be too weak compared to their own people.
And then, luckily, Navalny was poisoned. In any case, that's what some people imagined.

Operatives at the German Ministry of International Affairs, who sympathized with Schröder's SPD, got in touch with Yulia Navalny (his wife) and offered to hospitalize him in a clinic in Germany. Yulia agreed, and appealed to Putin.

Then the German minister of foreign affairs walked into Bundeskanzlerin's office and laid his joker on the table: "We can take away Navalny for treatment. If Moscow tries to prevent this, we will cause a loud scandal. We'll get his body and then decide how to play this." Merkel found this proposal attractive and, not thinking too long, agreed. Moscow did not object to Navalny's transfer.

After Navalny was brought to Germany and delivered to the Charité clinic in a cortège consisting of 12 cars, mommy Angela called Moscow and demanded: Russia must stop supporting Lukashenko, otherwise we will announce that Navalny had been poisoned with "Novichok." Moscow refused and increased support of Lukashenko, declaring that it has created a reserve of special forces to be sent into Belarus and take control -- just in case anyone makes a sudden move.

The next day Berlin announced that analysis results showed poisoning with a cholinesterase inhibitor. This was its last warning shot. Then there was another phone call, to warn that the next time "Novichok" will be found. Moscow refused, and promised Minsk a billion dollars on that very day.

At that point, Berlin's patience ran out. Navalny was immediately transferred to a military hospital, where it was immediately "discovered" that he had been poisoned with "Novichok." It was not possible to find "Novichok" while he was at Charité because journalists and officials could demand to see the test results, while at a military hospital such requests would be denied: the information is secret. But not even "Novichok" could force Moscow to stop supporting Minsk. Russia's prime minister Mikhail Mishustin was dispatched to Minsk with a briefcase bulging with papers to sign.

There followed an attempt by Fritz Merz, Angela Merkel's deputy in the DCU, to lean on Merkel to shut down NordStream 2, but he swiftly got his ears boxed by the business lobby of German companies that invested in this pipeline and, whining and whimpering, crawled back into his hole.

Then Lukashenko, being a tough nut to crack, presented an intentionally amateurish intercept of secret diplomatic communications between Poland and Germany in which they discussed their plans for poisoning Navalny. Now they are sitting in Warsaw and Berlin and have no idea how to respond to this movie -- to deny or to pretend that they didn't notice it. What a dilemma!

The interim result is thus as follows: Navalny is alive and well, sitting quietly in a German military hospital and inquiring periodically when he will be allowed to go home. But he won't be allowed to go home any time soon.

Now, a year ahead of elections, parliamentary electoral campaign is starting in Germany. Merkel's DCU/CSU coalition doesn't have a lot of popular support as it is. Some people are even now ready to take the Reichstag with their bare hands and put their own flag on top of it. And then we have this toxic story with "Novichok"!

If Merkel announces that it is the crime of the century in which a great Russian opposition figure has been fiendishly poisoned with "Novichok," then she would be obligated to sever all relations with the bloody regime and present evidence. But there won't be any evidence to present. And nobody will allow her to freeze the completion of the pipeline. Otherwise German companies, which invested in NordStream 2 will take the Reichstag even ahead of the irate German citizens. In either case, DCU/CSU will face a defeat.

But if she slams the transmission into reverse, apologizes and returns Navalny to Russia, claiming that what happened was an unfortunate series of errors, and punishes everybody who had put her in this situation to the full extent of German law, this won't save the situation either. German voter's won't forgive Merkel over the loss of Germany's international authority, loss of influence in Europe and total incompetence in handling foreign affairs, and will still punish her at the polls.

Therefore, her only choice is to bide her time, sitting with one buttock on each of two chairs -- blaming Russia for deploying "Novichok" and simultaneously supporting the completion of NordStream 2. But we are about to see a flood of eyewitness reports, photographs and documents from the various hospitals where the VIP patient has been treated, knocking out one of the two chairs. And so the possibility that Merkel's retirement will occur before her term is up should not be dismissed. In that case, she will have been unable to beat Helmut's Kohl's 16-year record as Bundeskanzler.

But what about Russia's friend Gehrhard Schröder? Being the chairman of the board of the NordStream 2 company and head of the SPD, he looks into the future with confidence and optimism. In any case, CDU/CSU will be deflated and SPD will reinforce its position in the Bundestag and either independently or in coalition with other parties will install its own leader as Bundeskanzler. NordStream 2, which has been in political limbo for a few years, will be completed and enter into service at full rated capacity very quickly.

When we rolled up to my house, the taxi driver asked: "Do you play chess?"

"Sometimes," I nodded.

In chess, there is a variation called "poisoned pawn." Your opponent, trying to gain material advantage, takes this pawn, ends up trapped and inevitably loses.

As I was getting out of the taxi, somewhat perplexed, I asked the taxi driver where he got all this information. He smiled a sad Bill Murray smile and answered: "From my brother. He lives in Germany and also works as a taxi driver." It was at this moment that I realized that taxi drivers know everything.

Source: SKonst https://aftershock.news/?q=user/182

[Sep 18, 2020] New Documents Reveal Secret British Efforts To Arm, Assist And Propagandize 'Moderate Rebels' In Syria

Notable quotes:
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
Sep 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

New Documents Reveal Secret British Efforts To Arm, Assist And Propagandize 'Moderate Rebels' In Syria

In November 2018 some anonymous people published a number of documents that had been liberated from a clandestine British propaganda organization, the Integrity Initiative .

The same group or person who revealed the Integrity Initiative papers has now released several dozens of documents about another 'Strategic Communication' campaign run by the British Foreign Office. The current release reveals a number of train and assist missions for 'Syrian rebels' as well as propaganda operations run in Syria and globally on behalf of the British government.

Moon of Alabama , as well as other sites , had published a series of pieces about the Integrity Initiative . There were also connections between the Integrity Initiative and the Skripal 'novichok poisoning' affair.

They newly released documents about British operations in Syria are accessible under:

All the now published documents archived in one file are available for download under:

Most of the documents are detailed company responses to several solicitations from the Foreign Office for global and local campaigns in support of the 'moderate rebels' who are fighting against the Syrian government and people.

The documents lay out large scale campaigns which have on-the-ground elements in Syria, training and arming efforts in neighboring countries, command and control elements in Jordan, Turkey and Iraq, as well as global propaganda efforts. These operations were wide spread.


bigger

Most of the documents are from 2016 to 2019. They detail the organization of such operations and also portrait persons involved in these projects. They often refer back to previous campaigns that have been run from 2011/2012 onward. This is where the documents are probably the most interesting. They reveal what an immense effort was and is waged to fill the information space with pro-rebel/pro-Islamist propaganda.

The documents are not about the 'White Helmets' which were a separate British run Strategic Communication campaign financed by various governments. While the operations described in the new documents were coordinated with U.S. efforts they do not reference the CIA run campaigns in Syria which included similar efforts at a cost of $1 billion per year.

The various projects and the detailed commercial offers to implement them from various notorious companies are roughly described in the above two links. I will therefore refrain from repeating that here. Some of the documents' content will surely be used in future Moon of Alabama posts. But for now I will let you rummage through the stash.

Please let us know in the comments of the surprising bits that you might find.

Posted by b on September 18, 2020 at 15:51 UTC | Permalink


james , Sep 18 2020 16:22 utc | 1

thanks b... i will look at them and get back on this..
Red Ryder , Sep 18 2020 16:32 utc | 2
Documents the "war crimes industry" of the UK, and others, as expressed in Libya and Syria.

Assad has indicated he will pursue reparations from the nations that have killed 400,000 citizens, destroyed or stolen his industrial infrastructure (whole factories broken down and trucked into Turkey).

One reason why the US and UK and France want Assad dead is the tens of billions of dollars they will have to pay the Syrian people for the genocidal war waged for a decade in order to kill Assad and break Syria into pieces.

vk , Sep 18 2020 16:53 utc | 3
This confirms the UK has essentially kept the same military doctrine it adopted by necessity in 1945, which is: attach itself to the USA, focus on intelligence, punch above your weight. Ideologically, they rationalize that by attributing themselves the role of the cultured province of the USA; "Greece to the USA's Rome".

The British were always fascinated with intelligence/paramilitary forces. In their vision, it gives you (a nation) an air of sophistication, a civilizing aspect to the nation that wages this kind of warfare.

After the Suez fiasco of 1956, the UK gave up direct interventions in the Middle East. It now only intervenes there under the skirt of the USA. Of course, whenever they can, they do that with their weapon of choice, which is intelligence. So, yeah, these documents don't surprise me.

[Sep 18, 2020] Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with RTVI television, Moscow, September 17, 2020 - The Vineyard of the Saker

Sep 18, 2020 | thesaker.is

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with RTVI television, Moscow, September 17, 2020 839 Views September 18, 2020 1 Comment

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Question: I'll start with the hottest topic, Belarus. President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko visited Bocharov Ruchei. Both sides have officially recognised that change within the Union State is underway. This begs the question: What is this about? A common currency, common army and common market? What will it be like?

Sergey Lavrov: It will be the way our countries decide. Work is underway. It relies on the 1999 Union Treaty. We understand that over 20 years have passed since then. That is why, a couple of years ago, upon the decision of the two presidents, the governments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus began to work on identifying the agreed-upon steps that would make our integration fit current circumstances. Recently, at a meeting with Russian journalists, President Lukashenko said that the situation had, of course, changed and we must agree on ways to deepen integration from today's perspective.

The presidential election has taken place in Belarus. The situation there is tense, because the opposition, backed by some of our Western colleagues, is trying to challenge the election outcome, but I'm convinced that the situation will soon get back to normal, and the work to promote integration processes will resume.

Everything that is written in the Union Treaty is now being analysed. Both sides have to come to a common opinion about whether a particular provision of the Union Treaty is still relevant, or needs to be revised. There are 31 roadmaps, and each one focuses on a specific section of the Union Treaty. So, there's clearly a commitment to continue the reform, a fact that was confirmed by the presidents during a recent telephone conversation. This is further corroborated by the presidents' meeting in Sochi.

I would not want that country's neighbours, and our neighbours for that matter, including Lithuania, for example, to try to impose their will on the Belarusian people and, in fact, to manage the processes in which the opposition is unwittingly doing what's expected of it. I have talked several times about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's situation. Clearly, someone is putting words in her mouth. She is now in the capital of Lithuania, which, like our Polish colleagues, is strongly demanding a change of power in Belarus. You are aware that Lithuania declared Ms Tikhanovskaya the leader of the Republic of Belarus, and Alexander Lukashenko was declared an illegitimate president.

Ms Tikhanovskaya has made statements that give rise to many questions. She said she was concerned that Russia and Belarus have close relations. The other day, she called on the security and law-enforcement forces to side with the law. In her mind, this is a direct invitation to breach the oath of office and, by and large, to commit high treason. This is probably a criminal offense. So, those who provide her with a framework for her activities and tell her what to say and what issues to raise should, of course, realise that they may be held accountable for that.

Question: Commenting on the upcoming meeting of the presidents of Russia and Belarus in Sochi, Tikhanovskaya said: "Whatever they agree on, these agreements will be illegitimate, because the new state and the new leader will revise them." How can one work under such circumstances?

Sergey Lavrov: She was also saying something like that when Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin went to Belarus to meet with President Lukashenko and Prime Minister Golovchenko. She was saying it then. Back then, the opposition was concerned about any more or less close ties between our countries. This is despite the fact that early on during the crisis they claimed that they in no way engaged in anti-Russia activities and wanted to be friends with the Russian people. However, everyone could have seen the policy paper posted on Tikhanovskaya's website during the few hours it was there. The opposition leaders removed it after realising they had made a mistake sharing their goals and objectives with the public. These goals and objectives included withdrawal from the CSTO, the EAEU and other integration associations that include Russia, and drifting towards the EU and NATO, as well as the consistent banning of the Russian language and the Belarusianisation of all aspects of life.

We are not against the Belarusian language, but when they take a cue from Ukraine, and when the state language is used to ban a language spoken by the overwhelming majority of the population, this already constitutes a hostile act and, in the case of Ukraine, an act that violates its constitution. If a similar proposal is introduced into the Belarusian legal field, it will violate the Constitution of Belarus, not to mention numerous conventions on the rights of ethnic and language minorities, and much more.

I would like those who are rabidly turning the Belarusian opposition against Russia to realise their share of responsibility, and the opposition themselves, including Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and others – to find the courage to resist such rude and blatant manipulation.

Question: If we are talking about manipulation, we certainly understand that it has many faces and reflects on the international attitude towards Russia. Internationally, what are the risks for us of supporting Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko? Don't you think 26 years is enough? Maybe he has really served for too long?

Sergey Lavrov: The President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, did say it might have been "too long." I believe he has proposed a very productive idea – constitutional reform. He talked about this even before the election, and has reiterated the proposal more than once since then. President of Russia Vladimir Putin supports this attitude. As the Belarusian leader said, after constitutional reform, he will be ready to announce early parliamentary and presidential elections. This proposal provides a framework where a national dialogue will be entirely possible. But it is important that representatives of all groups of Belarusian society to be involved in a constitutional reform process. This would ensure that any reform is completely legitimate and understandable for all citizens. Now a few specific proposals are needed concerning when, where and in what form this process can begin. I hope that this will be done, because President Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly reaffirmed carrying out this initiative.

Question: Since we started talking about the international attitude towards Russia, let's go over to our other partner – the United States. The elections in the US will take place very soon. We are actively discussing this in Russia. When asked whether Russia was getting ready for the elections in the US at the Paris forum last year, you replied: "Don't worry, we'll resolve this problem." Now that the US elections are around the corner, I would like to ask you whether you've resolved it.

Sergey Lavrov: Speaking seriously, of course we, like any other normal country that is concerned about its interests and international security, are closely following the progress of the election campaign in the US. There are many surprising things in it. Naturally, we see how important the Russian issue is in this electoral process. The Democrats are doing all they can to prove that Russia will exploit its hacker potential and play up to Donald Trump. We are already being accused of promoting the idea that the Democrats will abuse the mail-in voting option thereby prejudicing the unbiased nature of voting. I would like to note at this point that mail-in voting has become a target of consistent attacks on behalf of President Trump himself. Russia has nothing to do with this at all.

A week-long mail-in voting is an interesting subject in comparing election systems in different countries. We have introduced three-day voting for governors and legislative assembly deputies in some regions. You can see the strong criticism it is subjected to, inside Russia as well. When the early voting in the US lasts for weeks, if not months, it is considered a model of democracy. I don't see any criticism in this respect. In principle, we have long proposed analysing election systems in the OSCE with a view to comparing best practices and reviewing obviously obsolete arrangements. There have been instances in the US when, due to its cumbersome and discriminatory election system, a nominee who received the majority of votes could lose because in a national presidential election the voting is done through the Electoral College process rather than directly by the people. There have been quite a few cases like that. I once told former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in reply to her grievances about our electoral system: "But look at your problem. Maybe you should try to correct this discriminatory voting system?" She replied that it is discriminatory but they are used to it and this is their problem, so I shouldn't bother.

When the United States accuses us of interference in some area of its public, political or government life, we suggest discussing it to establish who is actually doing what. Since they don't present any facts, we simply recite their Congressional acts. In 2014, they adopted an act on supporting Ukraine, which directly instructed the Department of State to spend $20 million a year on support for Russian NGOs. We asked whether this didn't amount to interference. We were told by the US National Security Council that in reality they support democracy because we are wreaking chaos and pursuing authoritative and dictatorial trends abroad when we interfere in domestic affairs whereas they bring democracy and prosperity. This idea is deeply rooted in American mentality. The American elite has always considered its country and nation exceptional and has not been shy to admit it.

I won't comment on the US election. This is US law and the US election system. Any comments I make will be again interpreted as an attempt to interfere in their domestic affairs. I will only say one thing that President Vladimir Putin has expressed many times, notably, that we will respect any outcome of these elections and the will of the American people.

We realise that there will be no major changes in our relations either with the Democrats or with the Republicans, as representatives of both parties loudly declare. However, there is hope that common sense will prevail and no matter who becomes President, the new US Government and administration will realise the need to cooperate with us in resolving very serious global problems on which the international situation depends.

Question: You mentioned an example where voters can choose one president and the Electoral College process, another. I even have that cover of Time magazine with Hillary Clinton and congratulations, released during the election. It is a fairly well-known story, when they ran this edition and then had to cancel it.

Sergey Lavrov: Even the President of France sent a telegramme, but then they immediately recalled it.

And these people are now claiming that Alexander Lukashenko is an illegitimate president.

Question: You mentioned NGOs. These people believe that NGOs in the Russian Federation support democratic institutions, although it is no secret to anyone who has at least a basic understanding of foreign and domestic policy that those NGOs act exclusively as institutions that destabilise the situation in the country.

Sergey Lavrov: Not all of them.

Question: Can you tell us more about this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have adopted a series of laws – on public associations, on non-profit organisations, on measures to protect people from human rights violations. There is a set of laws that regulate the activities of non-government organisations on our territory, both Russian and foreign ones.

Concepts have been introduced like "foreign agent," a practice we borrowed from "the world's most successful democracy" – the United States. They argue that we borrowed a practice from 1938 when the United States introduced the foreign agent concept to prevent Nazi ideology from infiltrating from Germany. But whatever the reason they had to create the concept – "foreign agent" – the Americans are still effectively using it, including in relation to our organisations and citizens, to Chinese citizens, to the media.

In our law, foreign agent status, whatever they say about it, does not prevent an organisation from operating on the territory of the Russian Federation. It just needs to disclose its funding sources and be transparent about the resources it receives. And even that, only if it is engaged in political activities. Initially, we introduced a requirement for these organisations that receive funding from abroad and are involved in political projects to initiate the disclosure process. But most of them didn't want to comply with the law, so it was modified. Now this is done by the Russian Ministry of Justice.

Question: Do you think that NGOs are still soft power?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course. In Russia we have about 220,000 NGOs, out of which 180 have the status of a foreign agent. It's a drop in the ocean. These are probably the organisations, funded from abroad, that are more active than others in promoting in our public space ideas that far from always correspond to Russian legislation.

There is also the notion of undesirable organisations. They are banned from working in the Russian Federation. But there are only about 30 of them, no more.

Question: Speaking about our soft power, what is our concept? What do we offer the world? What do you think the world should love us for? What is Russia's soft power policy all about?

Sergey Lavrov: We want everything that has been created by nations and civilisations to be respected. We believe nobody should impose any orders on anyone, so that nothing like what has now happened in Hollywood takes place on a global scale. We think nobody should encroach on the right of each nation to have its historical traditions and moral roots. And we see attempts to encroach upon them.

If soft power is supposed to promote one's own culture, language and traditions, in exchange for knowledge about the life of other nations and civilisations, then this is the approach that the Russian Federation supports in every way.

The Americans define the term "soft power" as an attempt to influence the hearts and minds of others politically. Their goal is not to promote their culture and language, but to change the mood of the political class with a view to subsequent regime change. They are doing this on a daily basis and don't even conceal it. They say everywhere that their mission is to bring peace and democracy to all other countries.

Question: Almost any TV series out there shows the US president sitting in the Oval Office saying he's the leader of the free world.

Sergey Lavrov: Not just TV series. Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that America is an exceptional nation and should be seen as an example by the rest of the world. My colleague Mike Pompeo recently said in the Czech Republic that they shouldn't let the Russians into the nuclear power industry and should take the Russians off the list of companies that bid for these projects. It was about the same in Hungary. He then went to Africa and was quite vocal when he told the African countries not to do business with the Russians or the Chinese, because they are trading with the African countries for selfish reasons, whereas the US is establishing economic cooperation with them so they can prosper. This is a quote. It is articulated in a very straightforward manner, much the same way they run their propaganda on television in an unsophisticated broken language that the man in the street can relate to. So, brainwashing is what America's soft power is known for.

Question: Not a single former Soviet republic has so far benefited from American soft power.

Sergey Lavrov: Not only former Soviet republics. Take a look at any other region where the Americans have effected a regime change.

Question: Libya, Syria. We stood for Syria.

Sergey Lavrov: Iraq, Libya. They tried in Syria, but failed. I hope things will be different there. There's not a single country where the Americans changed the regime and declared victory for democracy, like George W. Bush did on the deck of an aircraft carrier in Iraq in May 2003, which is prosperous now. He said democracy had won in Iraq. It would be interesting to know what the former US President thinks about the situation in Iraq today. But no one will, probably, go back to this, because the days when presidents honestly admitted their mistakes are gone.

Question: Here I am listening to you and wondering how many people care about this? Why is it that no one understands this? Is this politics that is too far away from ordinary people who are nevertheless behind it? Take Georgia or Ukraine. People are worse off now than before, and despite this, this policy continues.

Will the Minsk agreements ever be implemented? Will the situation in southeastern Ukraine ever be settled?

Returning to what we talked about. How independent is Ukraine in its foreign policy?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't think that under the current Ukrainian government, just like under the previous president, we will see any progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements, if only because President Zelensky himself is saying so publicly, as does Deputy Prime Minister Reznikov who is in charge of the Ukrainian settlement in the Contact Group. Foreign Minister of Ukraine Kuleba is also saying this. They say there's a need for the Minsk agreements and they cannot be broken, because these agreements (and accusing Russia of non-compliance) are the foundation of the EU and the US policy in seeking to maintain the sanctions on Russia. Nevertheless, such a distorted interpretation of the essence of the Minsk agreements, or rather an attempt to blame everything on Russia, although Russia is never mentioned there, has stuck in the minds of our European colleagues, including France and Germany, who, being co-sponsors of the Minsk agreements along with us, the Ukrainians and Donbass, cannot but realise that the Ukrainians are simply distorting their responsibilities, trying to distance themselves from them and impose a different interpretation of the Minsk agreements. But even in this scenario, the above individuals and former Ukrainian President Kravchuk, who now heads the Ukrainian delegation to the Contact Group as part of the Minsk process, claim that the Minsk agreements in their present form are impracticable and must be revised, turned upside down. Also, Donbass must submit to the Ukrainian government and army before even thinking about conducting reforms in this part of Ukraine.

This fully contradicts the sequence of events outlined in the Minsk agreements whereby restoring Ukrainian armed forces' control on the border with Russia is possible only after an amnesty, agreeing on the special status of these territories, making this status part of the Ukrainian Constitution and holding elections there. Now they propose giving back the part of Donbass that "rebelled" against the anti-constitutional coup to those who declared these people terrorists and launched an "anti-terrorist operation" against them, which they later renamed a Joint Forces Operation (but this does not change the idea behind it), and whom they still consider terrorists. Although everyone remembers perfectly well that in 2014 no one from Donbass or other parts of Ukraine that rejected the anti-constitutional coup attacked the putschists and the areas that immediately fell under the control of the politicians behind the coup. On the contrary, Alexander Turchinov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others like them attacked these areas. The guilt of the people living there was solely in them saying, "You committed a crime against the state, we do not want to follow your rules, let us figure out our own future and see what you will do next." There's not a single example that would corroborate the fact that they engaged in terrorism. It was the Ukrainian state that engaged in terrorism on their territory, in particular, when they killed [Head of the Donetsk People's Republic] Alexander Zakharchenko and a number of field commanders in Donbass. So, I am not optimistic about this.

Question: So, we are looking at a dead end?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, we still have an undeniable argument which is the text of the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council.

Question: But they tried to revise it?

Sergey Lavrov: No, they are just making statements to that effect. When they gather for a Contact Group meeting in Minsk, they do their best to look constructive. The most recent meeting ran into the Ukrainian delegation's attempts to pretend that nothing had happened. They recently passed a law on local elections which will be held in a couple of months. It says that elections in what are now called the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics will be held only after the Ukrainian army takes control of the entire border and those who "committed criminal offenses" are arrested and brought to justice even though the Minsk agreements provide for amnesty without exemptions.

Question: When I'm asked about Crimea I recall the referendum. I was there at a closed meeting in Davos that was attended by fairly well respected analysts from the US. They claimed with absolute confidence that Crimea was being occupied. I reminded them about the referendum. I was under the impression that these people either didn't want to see or didn't know how people lived there, that they have made their choice. Returning to the previous question, I think that nobody is interested in the opinion of the people.

Sergey Lavrov: No, honest politicians still exist. Many politicians, including European ones, were in Crimea during the referendum. They were there not under the umbrella of some international organisation but on their own because the OSCE and other international agencies were controlled by our Western colleagues. Even if we had addressed them, the procedure for coordinating the monitoring would have never ended.

Question: Just as in Belarus. As I see it, they were also invited but nobody came.

Sergey Lavrov: The OSCE refused to send representatives there. Now that the OSCE is offering its services as a mediator, I completely understand Mr Lukashenko who says the OSCE lost its chance. It could have sent observers and gained a first-hand impression of what was happening there, and how the election was held. They arrogantly disregarded the invitation. We know that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is practically wholly controlled by NATO. We have repeatedly proposed that our nominees work there but they have not been approved. This contradicts the principles of the OSCE. We will continue to seek a fairer approach to the admission of members to the organisation, but I don't have much hope for this. Former OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger made an effort with this for the past three years but not everything depended on him – there is a large bloc of EU and NATO countries that enjoy a mathematical majority and try to dictate their own rules. But this is a separate issue.

Returning to Crimea, I have read a lot about this; let me give you two examples. One concerns my relations with former US Secretary of State John Kerry. In April 2014, we met in Geneva: me, John Kerry, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and then Acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrey Deshchitsa. We compiled a one page document that was approved unanimously. It read that we, the representatives of Russia, the US and the EU welcomed the commitments of the Ukrainian authorities to carry out decentralisation of the country with the participation of all the regions of Ukraine. This took place after the Crimean referendum. Later, the Americans, the EU and of course Ukraine "forgot" about this document. John Kerry told me at this meeting that everyone understood that Crimea was Russian, that the people wanted to return, but that we held the referendum so quickly that it didn't fit into the accepted standards of such events. He asked me to talk to President Vladimir Putin, organise one more referendum, announce it in advance and invite international observers. He said he would support their visit there, that the result would be the same but that we would be keeping up appearances. I asked him why put on such shows if they understand that this was the expression of the will of the people.

The second example concerns the recent statements by the EU and the European Parliament to the effect that "the occupation" of Crimea is a crude violation of the world arrangement established after the victory in World War II. But if this criterion is used to determine where Crimea belongs, when the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic joined the UN after WWII in 1945, Crimea did not belong to it. Crimea was part of the USSR. Later, Nikita Khrushchev took an illegal action, which contradicted Soviet law, and this led to them having it. But we all understood that this was a domestic political game as regards a Soviet republic that was the home to Khrushchev and many of his associates.

Question: You have been Foreign Minister for 16 years now. This century's major foreign policy challenges fell on your term in office. We faced sanctions, and we adapted to them and coped with them. Germany said it obtained Alexey Navalny's test results. France and Sweden have confirmed the presence of Novichok in them. Reportedly, we are now in for more sanctions. Do you think the Navalny case can trigger new sanctions against Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I agree with our political analysts who are convinced that if it were not for Navalny, they would have come up with something else in order to impose more sanctions.

With regard to this situation, I think our Western partners have simply gone beyond decency and reason. In essence, they are now demanding that we "confess." They are asking us: Don't you believe what the German specialists from the Bundeswehr are saying? How is that possible? Their findings have been confirmed by the French and the Swedes. You don't believe them, either?

It's a puzzling situation given that our Prosecutor General's Office filed an inquiry about legal assistance on August 27 and hasn't received an answer yet. Nobody knows where the inquiry has been for more than a week now. We were told it was at the German Foreign Ministry. The German Foreign Ministry did not forward the request to the Ministry of Justice, which was our Prosecutor General Office's ultimate addressee. Then, they said that it had been transferred to the Berlin Prosecutor's Office, but they would not tell us anything without the consent of the family. They are urging us to launch a criminal investigation.

We have our own laws, and we cannot take someone's word for it to open a criminal case. Certain procedures must be followed. A pre-investigation probe initiated immediately after this incident to consider the circumstances of the case is part of this procedure.

Some of our Western colleagues wrote that, as the German doctors discovered, it was "a sheer miracle" that Mr Navalny survived. Allegedly, it was the notorious Novichok, but he survived thanks to "lucky circumstances." What kind of lucky circumstances are we talking about? First, the pilot immediately landed the plane; second, an ambulance was already waiting on the airfield; and third, the doctors immediately started to provide help. This absolutely impeccable behaviour of the pilots, doctors and ambulance crew is presented as "lucky circumstances." That is, they even deny the possibility that we are acting as we should. This sits deep in the minds of those who make up such stories.

Returning to the pre-investigation probe, everyone is fixated on a criminal case. If we had opened a criminal case right away (we do not have legal grounds to do so yet, and that is why the Prosecutor General's Office requested legal assistance from Germany on August 27), what would have been done when it happened? They would have interviewed the pilot, the passengers and the doctors. They would have found out what the doctors discovered when Navalny was taken to the Omsk hospital, and what medications were used. They would have interviewed the people who communicated with him. All of that was done. They interviewed the five individuals who accompanied him and participated in the events preceding Navalny boarding the plane; they interviewed the passengers who were waiting for a flight to Moscow in Tomsk and sat at the same bar; they found out what they ordered and what he drank. The sixth person, a woman who accompanied him, has fled, as you know. They say she was the one who gave the bottle to the German lab. All this has been done. Even if all of that was referred to as a "criminal case," we couldn't have done more.

Our Western partners are looking down on us as if we have no right to question what they are saying or their professionalism. If this is the case, it means that they dare to question the professionalism of our doctors and investigators. Unfortunately, this position is reminiscent of other times. Arrogance and a sense of infallibility have already been observed in Europe, and that led to very regrettable consequences.

Question: How would you describe this policy of confrontation? When did it start (I mean during your term of office)? It's simply so stable at the moment that there seems no chance that something might change in the future.

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken on this topic. I think that the onset of this policy, this era of constant pressure on Russia began with the end of a period that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, a time when the West believed it had Russia there in its pocket – it ended, full stop. Unfortunately, the West does not seem to be able to wrap its head around this, to accept that there is no alternative to Russia's independent actions, both domestically and on the international arena. This is why, unfortunately, this agony continues by inertia.

Having bad ties with any country have never given us any pleasure. We do not like making such statements in which we sharply criticise the position of the West. We always try to find compromises, but there are situations where it is hard not to come face to face with one another directly or to avoid frank assessments of what our Western friends are up to.

I have read what our respected political scientists write who are well known in the West. And I can say this idea is starting to surface ever stronger and more often – it is time we stop measuring our actions with the yardsticks that the West offers us and to stop trying to please the West at all costs. These are very serious people and they are making a serious point. The fact that the West is prodding us to this way of thinking, willingly or unwillingly, is obvious to me. Most likely, this is being done involuntarily. But it is a big mistake to think that Russia will play by Western rules in any case – as big a mistake as like approaching China with the same yardstick.

Question: Then I really have to ask you. We are going through digitalisation. I think when you started your diplomatic career, you could not even have imagined that some post on Twitter could affect the political situation in a country. Yet – I can see your smile – we are living in a completely different world. Film stars can become presidents; Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook can become drivers of political campaigns – that happened more than once – and those campaigns can be successful. We are going through digitalisation, and because of this, many unexpected people appear in international politics – unexpected for you, at least. How do you think Russia's foreign policy will change in this context? Are we ready for social media to be impacting our internal affairs? Is the Chinese scenario possible in Russia, with most Western social media blocked to avoid their influence on the internal affairs in that country?

Sergey Lavrov: Social media are already exerting great influence on our affairs. This is the reality in the entire post-Soviet space and developing countries. The West, primarily the United States, is vigorously using social media to promote their preferred agenda in just about any state. This necessitates a new approach to ensuring the national security. We have been doing this for a long time already.

As for regulating social media, everyone does it. You know that the digital giants in the United States have been repeatedly caught introducing censorship, primarily against us, China or other countries they dislike, shutting off information that comes from these places.

The internet is regulated by companies based in the United States, everyone knows that. In fact, this situation has long made the overwhelming majority of countries want to do something about it, considering the global nature of the internet and social media, to make sure that the management processes are approved at a global level, become transparent and understandable. The International Telecommunication Union, a specialised UN agency, has been out there for years. Russia and a group of other co-sponsoring countries are promoting the need to regulate the internet in such a way that everyone understands how it works and what principles govern it, in this International Union. Now we can see how Mark Zuckerberg and other heads of large IT companies are invited to the Congress and lectured there and asked to explain what they are going to do. We can see this. But a situation where it will be understandable for everyone else and, most importantly, where everyone is happy with it, still seems far away.

For many years, we have been promoting at the UN General Assembly an initiative to agree on the rules of responsible behaviour of states in the sphere of international information security. This initiative has already led to set up several working groups, which have completed their mandate with reports. The last such report was reviewed last year and another resolution was adopted. This time, it was not a narrow group of government experts, but a group that includes all UN member states. It was planning to meet, but things slowed down due to the coronavirus. The rules for responsible conduct in cyberspace are pending review by this group. These rules were approved by the SCO, meaning they already reflect a fairly large part of the world's population.

Our other initiative is not about the use of cyberspace for undermining someone's security; it is about fighting crimes (pedophilia, pornography, theft) in cyberspace. This topic is being considered by another UNGA committee. We are preparing a draft convention that will oblige all states to suppress criminal activities in cyberspace.

Question: Do you think that the Foreign Ministry is active on this front? Would you like to be more proactive in the digital dialogue? After all, we are still bound by ethics, and have yet to understand whether we can cross the line or not. Elon Musk feels free to make any statements no matter how ironic and makes headlines around the world, even though anything he says has a direct bearing on his market cap. This is a shift in the ethics of behaviour. Do you think that this is normal? Is this how it should be? Or maybe people still need to behave professionally?

Sergey Lavrov: A diplomat can always use irony and a healthy dose of cynicism. In this sense, there is no contradiction here. However, this does not mean that while making ironic remarks on the surrounding developments or comments every once in a while (witty or not so witty), you do not have to work on resolving legal matters related to internet governance. This is what we are doing.

The Foreign Ministry has been at the source of these processes. We have been closely coordinating our efforts on this front with the Security Council Office, and the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media and other organisations. Russian delegations taking part in talks include representatives from various agencies. Apart from multilateral platforms such as the International Telecommunication Union, the UN General Assembly and the OSCE, we are working on this subject in bilateral relations with our key partners.

We are most interested in working with our Western partners, since we have an understanding on these issues with countries that share similar views. The Americans and Europeans evade these talks under various pretexts. There seemed to be an opening in 2012 and 2013, but after the government coup in Ukraine, they used it as a pretext to freeze this process. Today, there are some signs that the United States and France are beginning to revive these contacts, but our partners have been insufficiently active. What we want is professional dialogue so that they can raise all their concerns and accusations and back them with specific facts. We stand ready to answer all the concerns our partners may have, and will not fail to voice the concerns we have. We have many of them.

During the recent visit by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to Russia, I handed him a list containing dozens of incidents we have identified: attacks against our resources, with 70 percent of them targeting state resources of the Russian Federation, and originating on German territory. He promised to provide an answer, but more than a month after our meeting we have not seen it so far.

Question: Let me ask you about another important initiative by the Foreign Ministry. You decided to amend regulations enabling people to be repatriated from abroad for free, and you proposed subjecting the repatriation guarantee to the reimbursement of its cost to the budget. Could you tell us, please, is this so expensive for the state to foot this bill?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, these a substantial expenses. The resolution that provided for offering free assistance was adopted back in 2010, and was intended for citizens who find themselves in situations when their life is at risk. Imagine a Russian ambassador. Most of the people ask for help because they have lost money, their passport and so on. There are very few cases when an ambassador can actually say that a person is in a life-threatening situation and his or her life is in danger. How can an ambassador take a decision of this kind? As long as I remember, these cases can be counted on the fingers of my two hands since 2010, when an ambassador had to take responsibility and there were grounds for offering this assistance. We wanted to ensure that people can get help not only when facing an imminent danger (a dozen cases in ten years do not cost all that much). There were many more cases when our nationals found themselves in a difficult situation after losing money or passports. We decided to follow the practices used abroad. Specifically, this means that we provide fee-based assistance. In most cases, people travelling abroad can afford to reimburse the cost of a return ticket.

This practice is designed to prevent fraud, which remains an issue. We had cases when people bought one-way tickets knowing that they will have to be repatriated.

Question: And with no return ticket, they go to the embassy?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, after that they come to the embassy. For this reason, I believe that the system we developed is much more convenient and comprehensive for dealing with the situations Russians get into when travelling abroad, and when we have to step in to help them through our foreign missions.

Question: Mr Lavrov, thank you for your time. As a Georgian, I really have to ask this. Isn't it time to simplify the visa regime with Georgia? A second generation of Georgians has now grown up that has never seen Russia. What do you think?

Sergey Lavrov: Georgians can travel to Russia – they just need to apply for a visa. The list of grounds for obtaining a visa has been expanded. There are practically no restrictions on visiting Russia, after obtaining a visa in the Interests Section for the Russian Federation in Tbilisi or another Russian overseas agency.

As for visa-free travel, as you know, we were ready for this a year ago. We were actually a few steps away from being ready to announce it when that incident happened with the Russian Federal Assembly delegation to the International Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy, where they were invited in the first place, seated in their chairs, and then violence was almost used against them.

I am confident that our relations with Georgia will recover and improve. We can see new Georgian politicians who are interested in this. For now, there are just small parties in the ruling elites. But I believe our traditional historical closeness, and the mutual affinity between our peoples will ultimately triumph. Provocateurs who are trying to prevent Georgia from resuming normal relations with Russia will be put to shame.

They are trying to use Georgia the same way as Ukraine. In Ukraine, the IMF plays a huge role. And the IMF recently decided that each tranche allocated to Ukraine would be short-term.

Question: Microcredits.

Sergey Lavrov: Microcredits and a short leash that can always be pulled a little.

They are trying to use Georgia the same way. We have no interest in seeing this situation continue. We did not start it and have never acted against the Georgian people. Everyone remembers the 2008 events, how American instructors arrived there and trained the Georgian army. The Americans were well aware of Mikheil Saakashvili's lack of restraint. He trampled on all agreements and issued a criminal order.

We are talking about taking their word for it. There were many cases when we took their word for it, but then it all boiled down to zilch. In 2003, Colin Powell, a test tube – that was an academic version. An attack on Iraq followed. Many years later, Tony Blair admitted that there had been no nuclear weapons in Iraq. There were many such stories. In 1999, the aggression against Yugoslavia was triggered by the OSCE representative in the Balkans, US diplomat William Walker, who visited the village of Racak, where they found thirty corpses, and declared it genocide of the Albanian population. A special investigation by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found they were military dressed in civilian clothes. But Mr Walker loudly declared it was genocide. Washington immediately seized on the idea, and so did London and other capitals. NATO launched an aggression against Yugoslavia.

After the end of the five-day military operation to enforce peace, the European Union ordered a special report from a group of invited experts, including Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini. She was later involved in the Minsk process, and then she was asked to lead a group of experts who investigated the outbreak of the military conflict in August 2008. The conclusion was unambiguous. All this happened on the orders of Mikheil Saakashvili, and as for his excuses that someone had provoked him, or someone had been waiting for him on the other side of the tunnel, this was just raving.

Georgians are a wise nation. They love life, perhaps the same way and the same facets that the peoples in the Russian Federation do. We will overcome the current abnormal situation and restore normal relations between our states and people.


In addition, if you follow the Minister, follow up on this interview with Sputnik

Exclusive: Sergei Lavrov Talks About West's Historical Revisionism, US Election and Navalny Case

https://sputniknews.com/interviews/202009181080493098-sputniks-exclusive-sergei-lavrov-talks-about-wests-historical-revisionism-belarus–navalny-case/

[Sep 18, 2020] West wanted Moscow to open up to international media 30 years ago, now it's discriminating against Russian outlets - FM Lavrov -- RT Russia Former Soviet Union

Sep 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

West wanted Moscow to open up to international media 30 years ago, now it's discriminating against Russian outlets - FM Lavrov 18 Sep, 2020 15:35 Get short URL West wanted Moscow to open up to international media 30 years ago, now it's discriminating against Russian outlets - FM Lavrov FILE PHOTO © REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer 10 Follow RT on RT The West encouraged Russia to launch a new era of transparency during 'perestroika,' yet the very same democracy lecturers are today stigmatizing RT and Sputnik for "state funding" – which its own foreign media outlets rely on.

That's according to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov who pointed out that US broadcaster RFE/RL, which is openly state-run, and British outlet BBC are also financed from public funds.

Two of Russia's broadcasters are facing open discrimination across their countries of accreditation, Lavrov told Sputnik.

RT has been forced to register with the US Justice Department under the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Its correspondents have also been barred from attending events hosted by the French president; likewise, RT and Sputnik have faced enormous difficulties while reporting from Baltic nations.

ALSO ON RT.COM Twitter labels RT & Sputnik but NOT BBC, NPR & VOA as it launches blitz on state media staff & govt officials

"We are being presented with the argument that there is state funding [for RT and Sputnik]," Lavrov commented. Nevertheless, there are is media in the West – the BBC and Radio Liberty being prime examples – that also receive government donations and "are considered beacons of democracy."

They also rely on state funding, but for some reason no restrictive measures are being taken against them, including through the internet, where censorship is now openly introduced.

This comes as audiences of both broadcasters are growing and their popularity is on the rise. "I saw the statistics; I can only assume that this is another sign of the fear of competition on the side of those who dominated the global information market until recently," the foreign minister said.

The pressure Western nations pile on Russian media is one reason to wonder if they actually practice what they preach. Lavrov recalled that the West demanded Russia "open up to the world" during the period of perestroika – including by allowing full access "to any kind of information, whether it was based on domestic sources or came from abroad."

Thirty years later, the West is "already even embarrassed" to stick to the same principles when Russia asks "that access to information be respected, including in France with respect to Sputnik and RT," Lavrov stated. France has its own state-funded outlets, such as AFP, Radio France International and France 24.

Double standards, hypocrisy – unfortunately, these are the words to describe their position.

Russia will take these matters to the upcoming ministerial summit of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) this December. "These questions will not disappear anywhere from the agenda, our Western colleagues will have a lot to answer," Lavrov vowed.

Speaking about the pressure put on Russia in general – and often initiated by the media and not among political circles – Lavrov described the current times as "the age of social media, disinformation and fake news." It is fairly easy "to throw any invention into the media domain" and get away with it, he said, adding, "and then no one will read the rebuttal."

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Sep 18, 2020] Pevchikh, one of the people who were with Navalny, who resides permanently in Great Britain, avoided making a statement on August 20.

Anglichanka nagadila?
Sep 18, 2020 | meduza.io

Maria Pevchikh was among the group of six people who accompanied opposition figure and anti-corruption activist Alexey Navalny on the trip to Siberia that ended with his poisoning . Now, the Transit Police Department for Russia's Siberian Federal District is claiming that Maria Pevchikh -- or as they've mistakenly called her, "Marina" Pevchikh -- is refusing to testify. The department is carrying out a preliminary inquiry into Navalny's hospitalization in Omsk (Russian police officials have yet to open an actual case over the attack on Navalny).

"Pevchikh, one of [the people] who were with Navalny, [who] resides permanently in Great Britain, avoided making a statement on August 20. According to the investigation, on August 22, the citizen in question flew to Germany, as a result it wasn't possible to get a statement from her. Her whereabouts are currently being established," transit police officials said in a statement.

The other five people who accompanied Navalny have been questioned. This includes Vladlen Los, Georgy Alburnov, and Ilya Pakhomov -- employees of Navalny's non-profit, the Anti-Corruption Foundation, -- as well as his press secretary Kira Yarmysh and cameraman Pavel Zelensky. The transit police are also looking to establish the whereabouts of other passengers who were on the same flight from Tomsk to Moscow as Navalny.

Pro-Kremlin media accuse Pevchikh of 'involvement in Navalny's poisoning'

On September 7, the pro-Kremlin outlet Pravda.ru reported, citing an anonymous source, that Pevchikh accompanied Navalny on his trip to Siberia "on the instructions of FBK director Vladimir Ashurkov ," who allegedly came in conflict with Navalny shortly beforehand, over his decision to dissolve the FBK . Pravda.ru said Pevchikh was "likely Navalny's poisoner," claiming that she stayed in the same hotel room as him, but wasn't with him on the plane from Tomsk to Moscow; instead, she drove to Novosibirsk and then flew from there to Omsk. In addition, Pravda.ru called Pevchikh "a woman with an opaque life story and very interesting facts in her biography."

Kremlin-linked catering magnate Evgeny Prigozhin also made allegations about Pevchikh's possible involvement in Navalny's poisoning via statements from the press service of his company, Concord (however, the company also claims that Navalny's press secretary Kira Yarmysh was involved in poisoning him). The pro-government websites Tsarygrad TV and Putin News made similar claims .

In fact, police officials made no attempt to contact Maria Pevchikh

According to Meduza's research, Maria Pevchikh studied sociology at Moscow State University and political science at the London School of Economics, concurrently. She has worked for the FBK since 2011, and now leads the foundation's research department. Pevchikh lives in London, but she travels to Russia often. Her job includes gathering materials and writing scripts for the FBK's investigations.

Prior to Navalny's poisoning, Pevchikh was with him in Tomsk, where his team was filming new video investigations. According to Meduza's research, all of the group members stayed in separate rooms at the Xander Hotel. The investigation, Meduza found out, went relatively smoothly.

READ MORE ABOUT THE FBK'S LATEST INVESTIGATIONS

When Navalny left Tomsk, a few of the group members stayed behind, including Maria Pevchikh. After the news broke that Navalny had been poisoned, they all went to Omsk. Meduza found out that Maria Pevchikh was allowed to leave Russia without any difficulties. Russia's law enforcement agencies have made no attempt to contact her over the past two weeks, even though her Russian phone is always on. She was never called in for questioning or interrogation, and hasn't received a summons. Pevchikh told Meduza that she will be prepared to give detailed comments at a later date.

Transit police officials plan to seek help from Germany

The Transit Police Department for Russia's Siberian Federal District reports that in addition to questioning Navalny's companions, the preliminary investigation has established the route he travelled, as well as the places he visited and stayed in Tomsk and the Tomsk Region. This includes the Xander Hotel, the restaurant Velvet, a rental apartment, where Navalny's supporters held a working meeting, and the Vienna Cafe in the Tomsk Airport. According to police officials, these are the places where Navalny ate and drank, "including wine and alcoholic cocktails."

Given medical reports that Navalny has been brought out of his coma, the investigative unit of the transit police is preparing a request for legal assistance from Germany. The request includes an application to involve Russia's state investigators in the German investigation of Navalny's case -- seeking in particular "the opportunity to ask clarifying and additional questions while retrieving statements."

READ MORE ABOUT NAVALNY'S POISONING

Text by Olga Korelina and Svetlana Reiter

Translation by Eilish Hart


[Sep 18, 2020] Confusion reigns as Navalny associate accused of evading Russian police questioning says investigators never tried to contact her -- RT Russia Former Soviet Union

Sep 11, 2020 | www.rt.com
Get short URL Confusion reigns as Navalny associate accused of evading Russian police questioning says investigators never tried to contact her © Sputnik / Valery Melnikov 90 Follow RT on RT

By Jonny Tickle

Russian police say they are searching for a woman who was with Alexey Navalny in Tomsk before his alleged poisoning, last month. They claim 'Marina Pevchikh,' who left Russia after refusing to answer police questions.

Investigators said on Friday morning that the woman left for Germany on August 22, when Navalny was taken to Berlin for treatment at the request of his associates.

However, later the same day, Pevchikh herself apparently spoke and insisted that Russian law enforcement officials had not tried to contact her, even though her Russian phone is always on. She added that she was never summoned for interrogations and questioning, nor she did not receive any summons.

The woman also clarified that her name is Maria, not Marina. She was speaking to Meduza, a Western state-funded Russian language news site, based in Latvia.

Russian investigators are now looking into the events surrounding Navalny's illness, which quickly left him incapacitated. The police have researched what he did in Tomsk, including who he met, where he stayed, and where he ate. The investigation led authorities to Pevchikh, who they claim previously refused to answer police questions.

ALSO ON RT.COM As West threatens sanctions, Kremlin says outsiders shouldn't dictate to Russia how to investigate situation with Navalny

"To date, five out of the six citizens who accompanied Navalny during the trip have been interviewed: Vladlen Los, Georgy Alburov, Ilya Pakhomov, Kira Yarmysh, and Pavel Zelensky," said the police department's statement. "Marina Pevchikh, who was with Navalny and permanently resides in Britain, refused to give her side of the story on August 20. According to the investigation, on August 22, she flew to Germany, and therefore it was not possible to question her."

The police note that the investigation is ongoing, and they are also establishing the whereabouts of passengers who flew on the plane with Navalny.

READ MORE 'Full & transparent' investigation: NATO & EU leaders demand Russia investigates 'attack' on opposition figure Navalny 'Full & transparent' investigation: NATO & EU leaders demand Russia investigates 'attack' on opposition figure Navalny

In response to the incident, officials from NATO and the European Union have demanded that Russia conducts a "full and transparent" investigation. Despite no conclusion yet being reached, some have called for Moscow to be sanctioned over the alleged poisoning, which the Kremlin has called "absurd."

On Wednesday, Russia's Foreign Ministry lodged a formal protest with Germany's ambassador, calling suggestions of state involvement "unfounded."

Speaking at a press conference in Moscow on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Navalny's associates are now "slowly beginning to move to Germany," which, in the context of the country's accusations against the Kremlin, is "very unpleasant."

"It is still in the interests of our German colleagues to protect their reputation and provide all the necessary information that would somehow shed light on the so-far unfounded accusations," Lavrov said.

On August 20, Navalny was taken ill on a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. Following an emergency landing in Omsk, a Siberian city 2,000km east of the capital, he was taken to a local hospital. The opposition figure was flown to Berlin's Charite clinic two days later, where he is currently being treated. According to German doctors, Navalny was poisoned with a variant of the nerve agent family 'Novichok'.

[Sep 18, 2020] Berlin struggles to answer RT's question on fate of Navalny's mysterious associate who fled Russia for Germany

Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Navalny had been in the Charité clinic for a week before it was announced that he had been poisoned by so-called Novichok, and only then after his test samples had been sent from Berlin to the Bundeswehr laboratory in Munich, which declared that "Novichok" had. been found. ..."
"... All this is being done with the objective of driving a wedge between Russia and Germany. And it is succeeding, from the tone set by Lavrov. ..."
"... I do not doubt the French and Swedish found Novichok or whatever the stuff is in Navalny's blood sample; they were meant to find it. That's quite a different thing from finding Navalny was poisoned with it. They have probably tested the bottle, and a blood sample given to them. But if Navalny was actually poisoned with a deadly nerve agent, he should be dead instead of up and about and feeling peckish. ..."
"... I would not be surprised if the Spiez laboratory that tested samples of the Skripals' blood in 2018 had not been asked to test Navalny's blood samples 'cos as any fule knows , that place's computers are chock full of Russian hackers nosing around all their databases, and Russian spies are everywhere in the building, hiding in the ceilings and cupboards and beneath the floorboards they might even be hiding in the kitchen rubbish bins or the incinerator ..."
"... Navalny drank something shitty in the Tomsk-Moscow aircraft toilet, then he performed his dramatics outside the toilet for all to behold, and the "Novichok" contaminated bottle was given to Navalnaya by Pevchikh en route to Berlin. ..."
"... The fundamental thing about this false flag is that the Doctors in Omsk saved Navalnys life. They treated him and ensured that he lived, So the samples the Russian doctors took and their analysis to find a cure for Navlany are the most important factor in all this. They found no evidence of poisoning. German doctors who came to Omsk acknowledged this at the time and discussions were held. ..."
"... Pevchikh attracted attention by the fact that she had flown to Russia from Great Britain for Navalny's "tour", and as soon as the blogger was poisoned, she immediately left the country on the same flight that took Alexey to Germany. By the way, even the blogger's wife was not allowed on board that flight, yet Pevchikh was allowed to do so. She was with him all the way. ..."
Sep 18, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 4:44 am

Keep on trying, EU!

DW

French, Swedish labs confirm Navalny poisoned with Novichok

Specialist laboratories in France and Sweden have independently confirmed findings that Russian dissident Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a chemical agent from the Novichok group, the German government has said.

https://p.dw.com/p/3iQv6

Now how about testing the samples of Navalny's blood and tissue that were used in Omsk?

Chain of possession of samples?

Something added to samples between Omsk and Berlin?

No samples from Russia have been tested in Europe, samples that were tested in Omsk by US manufactured, state of the art spectroscopy apparatus.

Furthermore, Navalny had been in the Charité clinic for a week before it was announced that he had been poisoned by so-called Novichok, and only then after his test samples had been sent from Berlin to the Bundeswehr laboratory in Munich, which declared that "Novichok" had. been found.

And during that long wait for the German findings, total silence from the Navalnyites, who, when Navalny was in the Omsk hospital, were howling and screaming for an immediate statement from doctors there about what had "poisoned" their heroic leader.

MARK CHAPMAN September 14, 2020 at 4:26 pm

All this is being done with the objective of driving a wedge between Russia and Germany. And it is succeeding, from the tone set by Lavrov.

I do not doubt the French and Swedish found Novichok or whatever the stuff is in Navalny's blood sample; they were meant to find it. That's quite a different thing from finding Navalny was poisoned with it. They have probably tested the bottle, and a blood sample given to them. But if Navalny was actually poisoned with a deadly nerve agent, he should be dead instead of up and about and feeling peckish.

JEN September 14, 2020 at 9:53 pm

I suppose we'll never know what these specialist labs in France and Sweden are, we'll just have to take the German government's word that it sent samples of Navalny's blood to these and possibly other labs to test.

I would not be surprised if the Spiez laboratory that tested samples of the Skripals' blood in 2018 had not been asked to test Navalny's blood samples 'cos as any fule knows , that place's computers are chock full of Russian hackers nosing around all their databases, and Russian spies are everywhere in the building, hiding in the ceilings and cupboards and beneath the floorboards they might even be hiding in the kitchen rubbish bins or the incinerator

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 5:09 am

Navalny drank something shitty in the Tomsk-Moscow aircraft toilet, then he performed his dramatics outside the toilet for all to behold, and the "Novichok" contaminated bottle was given to Navalnaya by Pevchikh en route to Berlin.

CORTES September 14, 2020 at 7:24 am

It will be interesting to learn full details of the chain of transmission of the "deadly-ish" bottle from its last handling by an agent of the Russian state onwards. If the bottle is to play the central role demanded by the "martyr"'s present narrative, then the transfer of custody thereof has to be evident and indisputable. Moreover, the transmission of the bottle to German hands needs to have a rational explanation including such minor issues as why the Russian authorities didn't seize it as evidence or confiscate it at the security checkpoints?

JAMES LAKE September 14, 2020 at 8:14 am

The fundamental thing about this false flag is that the Doctors in Omsk saved Navalnys life. They treated him and ensured that he lived, So the samples the Russian doctors took and their analysis to find a cure for Navlany are the most important factor in all this. They found no evidence of poisoning. German doctors who came to Omsk acknowledged this at the time and discussions were held.

Germany did not play any part in saving his life they just brought him out of the induced coma. Whatever happened in that Clinic and after wards is all unclear and lacks transparency. PS. France and Sweden can only say the samples they were given had "poison".

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 8:56 am

Very many people die every day of poisoning. On death certificates one often sees the term "septicaemia" as cause of death. That's what it said on my father's death certificate. Septicaemia is commonly called "blood poisoning".

My unfortunate father was not poisoned by anyone: his body poisoned him. He had cancer.

And this what the the Germans etc. at first said: they found poison in body.

This has been taken as his having been poisoned by one someone using a poison and this poison is "Novichok".

Macron has said today that somebody had attempted to murder Navalny.

Because he was a "threat" to the "Kremlin Party" and Putin in particular?

Macron and the BBC, CNN, Fox News etc. should take a look at the Russian election results now being announced.

ET AL September 14, 2020 at 8:57 am

That's a lot of piss taken from Navalny. a) Can he manage without it?; b) will anyone notice?; c) will it be the original ingrediants of Navalny Aid?

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 8:40 am

That's the term that I could not recall: train of transmission.

MARK CHAPMAN September 14, 2020 at 4:42 pm

I think it's actually called "Chain of Custody", and refers to the traceability of every time a piece of evidence was handled by a different person, how it was sealed against tampering, and so forth.

CORTES September 14, 2020 at 11:15 pm

"Custody" is a loaded, legal term which the supporters of the "martyr" should be wary of using, Mark.

If the bottle was suspected by one or more of Navalny's companions when still in Russian territory of having contained a toxic substance then it ought to have been transmitted to the custody of the appropriate Russian authorities. Reasonable safeguards such as video recording the handover could be taken. Thereafter a "chain of custody" of potential evidence can follow to provide a Court – those pesky places that the shit-smearers would run a mile from – to assess (test, prove if you prefer) the quality of the evidence and the reliability of the chain of custody thereof.

The allegations of poisoning have been enabled by the deliberate withholding of "evidence" from the Russian investigators. Those who did not cooperate with the Russian authorities have been given so many free passes on the basis of their being plucky Scooby Doo style kids that I half-expect VVP to mumble about "getting away with it except for those pesky kids". The cartoonish level of the entire affair and the contempt this narrative displays towards media consumers in "The West" is dangerous. When all are held to the same standards progress will be made.

To revert to the "chain of custody" briefly: let's hold the feet of the plucky kids to the fire of legal process and find out the truth about the "magic bottle" and its amazing journey to the West. I read recently that in the aftermath of the fall of the Shah in 1979 many very prosperous Iranians relocated to California. Among those were Zoroastrians who had time enough and plenty to find digs for themselves and then to finalise the new home for the Holy Fire which arrived by sea months later. Perhaps the Navalnyites have a similar story to account for the miraculous appearance of The Bottle in Germany.

Rant over.

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 10:15 am

CAUTION!

From the Orc Blogosphere, so it will be fake, unlike squeaky clean Western MSM and its open sources:

Pevchikh attracted attention by the fact that she had flown to Russia from Great Britain for Navalny's "tour", and as soon as the blogger was poisoned, she immediately left the country on the same flight that took Alexey to Germany. By the way, even the blogger's wife was not allowed on board that flight, yet Pevchikh was allowed to do so. She was with him all the way.

According to statements made by German doctors, the poison was found on Navalny's underwear and on the neck of a bottle. Maybe you are still just thinking about this bottle, but only a few had access to Alexey's underwear, apart from people who were staying with him: Pevchikh, for example.

She organized Navalny's meetings with politicians from other countries to discuss the assistance that the West is ready to provide the blogger with, provided him with exclusive information and could even play the role of Alexey's "curator" from the West.

As soon as Navalny began to lose popularity, the West could well have decided to take extreme measures and make a "holy sacrifice" out of Alexey.

He was taken out of a coma. It seems as though he remembers something and can speak, without suffering any consequences. But will he return to Russia? Or will we never see him again? Good question.

But one thing is clear for sure, if he returns to the country -- it will already be a completely different story and a completely different game.

Source:

Кажется,в "деле Навального" появился подозреваемый | Политические заметки | Яндекс Дзен

It seems that a suspect has appeared in the "Navalny case" | Political Notes | Yandex Zen

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/nosmi/kajetsiav-dele-navalnogo-poiavilsia-podozrevaemyi-5f5efd98d709247317a37b96?from=feed&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com&rid=3718454755.445.1600105743632.14801&integration=izenkit_yandex_browser&place=export&interview_id=-6655216495326566958&secdata=CIjHktnILiABMAJQLQ%3D%3D

Funny family name is "Pevchikh": it could be translated as "Little Singer".

A Westminster Siren, perhaps?

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 10:24 am

See my comment below:

Navalnaya wasn't allowed to fly to Berlin with her husband but Pevchikh was!!!

Having arrived in Berlin, Pevchikh immediately vanished.

And Navalnaya then turned up with the bottle.

Why had it not been seized by the Russian or German authorities together with all of Navalny's personal effects?

Was the bottle passed on in Berlin to the statuesque wife by Pevchick?

And whither the bottle and it's contents -- Porton Down perchance?

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 9:25 am

Sputnik breaking:

Moscow Calls Berlin's Statement That Russia Should Contact OPCW on Situation With Navalny 'Evasion'
09/14/20 19:53

https://sputniknews.com/europe/202009141080455108-moscow-calls-berlins-statement-evasion/

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 9:30 am

In short, Lavrov has demanded that the Germans present evidence for their accusations.

There is none so far.

They have evidence they insist -- "undeniable results from the Bundeswehr -- but they won't show the data that the Bundeswehr states has given "undeniable" confirmation that Navalny was poisoned with something that the Western MSM and governments call "Novichok".

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 11:08 am

I mean, there is a difference between data and the interpretation thereof.

The Germans persistently refuse to present the data that they allege to have, but present an interpretation of said data as given by the Bundeswehr laboratory.

The ancients interpreted the data of the heavens that they had in the belief that the earth was the centre of all things and later, this interpretation was based on the belief in what is written in "Holy Scripture", which they believed was the word of something they called "god", which had created the All.

The Western interpretation of the data that they say they have concerning analyses of Navalny's medical tests taken in Germany is based on the belief that the Russians are wont to use something that the West calls "Novichok" in order to eliminate "dissidents" in the Russian "regime" and journalists and "leaders of the opposition" there in "Putin's Mafia State" who dare to criticize the Russian "tyrant".

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 10:27 am

Not "whither" but "whence"!

I meant to write: "And whither Pevchich and whence the bottle -- Porton Down perchance?"

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 10:29 am

Yeah verily, thou shouldst stop using archaisms, thou old fool!

Especially when spellchecker keeps on fucking them up.

ET AL September 14, 2020 at 12:13 pm

Media Lens via The Canary*: You Say What You Like, Because They Like What You Say'
https://www.medialens.org/2013/you-say-what-you-like-because-they-like-what-you-say/

Parenti then goes on to quote Nicholas Johnson ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SK8bUsshQ&feature=player_embedded#t=15m40s ), former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, who said that there are four stages that journalists typically go through in their career:

'In the early stage, you're a young crusader and you write an exposé story about the powers that be, and you bring it to your editor and the editor says: "No, kill it. We can't touch that. Too hot."

'Stage two: You get an idea for the story, but you don't write it and you check with the editor first and he says: "No, won't fly. No, I think the old man won't like it. Don't do that, he has a lot of friends in there and that might get messy."

'Stage three: You get an idea for the story and you yourself dismiss it as silly.

'Stage four: You no longer get the idea for that kind of an exposé story.

'And I would add a stage five: You then appear on panels, with media critics like me, and you get very angry and indignant when we say that there are biases in the media and you're not as free and independent as you think.'

Perhaps when the BBC's John Simpson finally retires, or Channel 4's Jon Snow, or ITV's Mark Austin, or any of the other big beasts in the media jungle, they'll be brave and honest enough to make similar cogent observations about journalism .
####

A lot more at the link.

I just came across this even though it is from May 2013. Very succinct points especially as I regularly mention the west's five stages of grief and guesstimate where it is currently at. As The Canary piece notes: As Chomsky noted, he didn't think journalists like Marr "self-censor". But that:

if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting
####

Though to be honest I know a few journalists and they do privately rail against the reporting of their own employers, ergo self-censorship = self-preservation and future channels of advancement. They generally believe that they cannot change anything in a meaningful way. This explains why quite a few quit the business to do something completely different but often keep a toe in with a blog or infrequent item on current affairs/whatever.

* https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2020/09/13/marr-just-had-another-noam-chomsky-moment-live-on-tv/

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 9:40 pm

Continuing the Pevchikh saga, I saw on Russian TV yesterday a presser in Berlin, during which a journalist asked spokesman for Merkel's government Seibert about that woman of mystery.

Seibert just repeated that he knew nothing about such a woman. He was pressed further, told that she had left Russia on board the same aircraft as Navalny had, arrived with him in Berlin, and vanished.

Seibert was asked how come a Russian national was allowed entry into Germany without appropriate documentation, especially during this CORONA-19 crisis. Seibert repeatedly acted stumm .

MOSCOWEXILE September 14, 2020 at 9:44 pm

What I wrote of above has just rolled up on RT:

Berlin struggles to answer RT's question on fate of Navalny's mysterious associate who fled Russia for Germany

https://www.rt.com/news/500685-navalny-associate-pevchikh-germany/

MARK CHAPMAN September 15, 2020 at 8:54 am

Huh. Where's that famous 'pressure from the streets' from Navalny's hamsters to find out? Or is nobody interested in hearing any possibility but 'Putin dunnit'? Not a peep from the Navalny entourage, none of whom appear to be curious about the mysterious Masha.

Apparently you are just supposed to take Germany's word that There Is Nothing To See Here. Just like they suddenly gained an immovable certainty that Navalny was poisoned with a new version of Novichok which acts totally differently from that which poisoned the Skripals, yet still bears the state seal of the Russian Federation and could not have been employed without the Head Of State's approval. After three days or so of testing and suggesting he was poisoned with something, but it might have been a cholinesterase inhibitor of some kind.

[Sep 18, 2020] Latest Navalny Novichok water bottle poisoning claim stretches all credibility, but Western media swallows it without question

Sep 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

Latest Navalny Novichok water bottle poisoning claim stretches all credibility, but Western media swallows it without question FILE PHOTO: Alexei Navalny's campaign shows Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny attending a meeting of an action group to support his nomination as a candidate for Russian presidency in Moscow, Russia, 24 December 2017 © Getty Images / Evgeny Feldman for Alexei Navalny's Campaign /Anadolu Agency 39 Follow RT on RT

By Bryan MacDonald We are now expected to believe that Kremlin assassins used a new, even more powerful, Novichok poison on Alexey Navalny, and his aides brought a water bottle laced with it to Germany, but nobody suffered any side effects.

At this point, Western reporters covering the story are either completely high on the Kool-Aid or they are going to intense lengths to suppress their skepticism, because so much of the narrative simply doesn't add up.

The opposition figure's condition when he was first hospitalized, in Siberia, was clearly very grave. He was placed into an induced coma and attached to a ventilator. The situation was so serious that his wife and associates demanded he be moved abroad, to Germany, for treatment. A request Russian authorities acquiesced to the following evening, after a tense day when the doctors treating him in Omsk stated that they felt he was too unwell to travel, and his associates alleged they were stalling.

Since Navalny's arrival in Berlin, things have become politicized, and there has been talk of sanctions and other diplomatic and economic penalties being directed at Russia. Germany insists that its experts found traces of the extremely lethal Novichok poison in the activist's system. Angela Merkel herself has more-or-less accused the Russian government of being behind what she has described as an "attempted murder."

ALSO ON RT.COM 'No evidence': EU Parliament using Navalny's alleged poisoning to push for sanctions & halt Nord Stream project – German MEP

Moscow claims that Russian doctors didn't find any substance of that nature in their tests. But Berlin has shot back by saying laboratories in France and Sweden have backed up its assertions.

When it comes to Russia, the mainstream Western media operates in a self-contained pit of rumor, fear, braggadocio, bulls**t, and propaganda. Thus its correspondents have treated the Navalny case in a predictable fashion: Any pronouncements from the opposition figure's associates, and the German government – even when contradictory or scarcely believable – are treated like gospel truth, but anything Russian officials say is immediately disparaged.

Before Thursday, the most blatant example of this came on September 9, when, to quote Max Seddon, a Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times, "Germany apparently concluded (that) Navalny was poisoned with a substance 'that the world did not know until this attack, but which is more malicious and deadly than all known offshoots of the Novichok family,' and that Russian security must have done it."

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1303739590763786252&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Frussia%2F501041-navalny-novichok-media-credibility%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

Now, given that the previous incarnation of Novichok was said to be eight times more potent than VX (a deadly nerve agent famously used in the assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un's half brother Kim Jong-nam), if the new variant is even deadlier, how could Navalny not only be alive, but, at that point, already out of his coma.

Less than a week later, he was able to get out of bed, and pose for photographs. Yet, Western media has just accepted the German statement at face value and has failed to ask how can a pronouncement like this be credible?

Now, we have an even stranger illustration. On Thursday Navalny's team posted a video to his official Instagram, which alleges that traces of Novichok were found on a water bottle in his Tomsk hotel room, where he stayed the night before the ill-fated flight to Moscow.

They described how, after learning that his plane had been forced to make an emergency landing, his aides went to the room, which had not yet been cleaned. The video shows Navalny's supporters "recording, describing, and packing" everything they found there. According to the text, they took what they found to scientists in Germany.

ALSO ON RT.COM Navalny's team say 'bottle with Novichok' was found in opposition figure's Siberian hotel room after he fell ill on Moscow flight

While Western media has faithfully amplified the allegations, the reality is it's all pretty hard to swallow. For the narrative to be true, we have to suspend disbelief, and imagine that the Kremlin's crack assassins tried to kill Navalny by dousing the most deadly nerve agent known to man on bottles in his hotel room. Then, they didn't even bother trying to cover up their dastardly act by at least telling the hotel to have housekeeping clean up the place and remove the receptacles?

Instead, they just left the evidence there, not at all worried that the Novichok might kill the hotel staff or the next guest in the room, leading to the exposure of the secret agents involved, and a local scandal. Also, how did the poisoners know which room Navalny would stay in? It's common knowledge that his team never books under his name, so they could just as easily have killed one of his aides.

Also, how did they time the Novichok to conveniently work while the activist was on his flight, given they could not have known what time he'd take a swig of the water? Plus, what if he never drank it at all, and instead gave it to a thirsty comrade? Perhaps the Kremlin assassins stuck a label on it? 'For Alexei Anatolievich only! Please drink at precisely (whatever) o'clock'.

ALSO ON RT.COM Navalny posts FIRST picture from Berlin hospital: Spokeswoman insists he'll return to Russia, Kremlin 'happy' to see his recovery

What's more, you then have to imagine Navalny's team came back, with no protective gear, beyond rubber gloves, and touched bottles laced with this killer substance, but suffered no side effects? Not only this, but they managed to subsequently fly them out of the country, presumably on commercial flights, during a pandemic when direct routes from Russia to Berlin are closed? Without any care for the dangers of taking a potentially lethal substance on a plane full of innocent passengers?

The story pushes beyond the normal bounds of believability, and stretches all credibility. It's also another example of how bad and distorted Western reporting out of Moscow has become. Much of it being little more than PR boosterism for those opposition figures who are viewed as favourable to Western interests in Russia.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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

[Sep 18, 2020] Cherchez la femme!

Sep 18, 2020 | craigmurray.org.uk

Tatyana , September 5, 2020 at 17:01

Information about a mysterious woman appeared in the ru-net.
https://life.ru/p/1341159
https://aif.ru/society/people/kto_takaya_mariya_pevchih

A 33-year-old young woman who recently flew in from London. On August 15 she celebrated her birthday and then went with Navalny on the working trip. When the plane urgently landed in Omsk for Navalny's hospitalization, the woman also remained on the ground in the 'Ibis Siberia Omsk' hotel, waiting for Alexei to recover. She left from Russia to Britain on August 22.

Maria Konstantinovna Pevchikh (Мария Константиновна Певчих) born in 1987, Russian. In 2010 she graduated from the sociological faculty of Moscow Lomonosov State University.

Lives in London. Fond of sports, trains under the program of "Navy Seals", an elite US military unit, owns bookstores in the UK and Australia.

Have close ties with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yevgeny Chichvarkin. Joined Navalny's activity in 2009. At that time, she was 22-year-old and worked as an assistant to one of the British parliamentarians.

It is alleged that the family and relatives do not know this woman.

Her photo
https://static.life.ru/publications/2020/7/21/17582829481.74346.jpg
https://cont.ws/uploads/pic/2020/9/%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0.jpg

The investigation previously published a chronology of events here
https://ria.ru/20200821/khronologiya-1576110899.html

They discovered that in Tomsk the blogger's company has booked seven rooms for four people, Navalny himself spent the night in a different room that was recorded in his name.

Ort , September 5, 2020 at 19:04

Ah, cherchez la femme! 😉

[Sep 17, 2020] Vladimir Sivkovich- -Yushchenko's Poisoning Was Falsified

Apr 12, 2018 | www.stalkerzone.org

April 12, 2018 Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard 00:47:39 12/04/2018 ria.ru

Vladimir Sivkovich headed the commission of inquiry of the Verkhovna Rada in the case of "Viktor Yushchenko's poisoning" . Yushchenko's team actively inflated the story of "poisoning" , the image of a victim helped him to become the President. However, the Rada commission found out that there wasn't any poisoning, and at the same time Yushchenko refused to cooperate with the investigation. Moreover, as Sivkovich told the correspondent of RIA Novosti, people from the president's environment made their own conclusion for the Austrian doctors and asked to "freeze" the investigation.

What conclusions did the commission come to?

"The main conclusion is that there isn't any proof of deliberate poisoning. There aren't any suspects or accused in this case. All the story with poisoning is simply political PR."

There was the narrative that Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxine

"All experts who we talked to affirm: dioxine will decompose in an organism only 7-10 years later. The consequences are incurable. And Yushchenko was able to miraculously recover."

There wasn't any dioxine in his blood?

"We aren't aware of any. He refused to cooperate with us and didn't present blood samples to the commission. He didn't cooperate not only with us, but also with the Prosecutor-General's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. These departments were headed by people who he appointed. And he even didn't trust them."

Yushchenko gave his blood to an Austrian clinic

"I contacted these doctors. Some blood was given to them. But what blood -- they don't know. Dioxine could've been added to it later. And in general it is necessary to understand that dioxine is a weapon of mass destruction. This is 'agent Orange', which the Americans used in Vietnam. If Yushchenko was indeed poisoned with dioxine, then there would be many victims, and not just Yushchenko. It simply doesn't logically correspond."

Where then did the narrative about dioxine come from?

"They looked at approximate symptoms. Like what the Vietnamese had. And straight off invented it."

What happened to Yushchenko back then?

"We investigated the fact of supposed poisoning. No proof of poisoning was found. Nobody poisoned Yushchenko! What actually happened Yushchenko underwent certain medical procedures in order to look better. Experts who we spoke to affirm: after such a procedure it is necessary to stick to a diet. For example, it is forbidden to take alcohol. I know for sure that Yushchenko sometimes drank, there are photos. It is also important to understand that he had pancreatitis. All of this was superimposed on each other."

Who knew that there wasn't any poisoning?

"Everyone in Yushchenko's HQ knew. All his management knew very well. When Yushchenko stated that he had been poisoned, the SBU was immediately suspected. And when I headed the parliamentary commission, I was allowed to listen to staff recordings. I don't know on what basis they recorded HQ employees. Perhaps there was some criminal case. I listened to these recordings for 3 days, and all of them knew very well that there was no poisoning. And the current president – Petro Poroshenko – also knows about this. And Yushchenko was then treated at the expense of Poroshenko.

This imaginary poisoning was the main secret of Yushchenko, his weak point. Those who were aware of this could blackmail the President. It was caught on a 'hook'. In Ukraine every President has a secret: for Kuchma it is 'Gongadze's case' and Melnichenko's films, for Yanukovych it is criminal record, and Yushchenko had a false poisoning."

Who invented this narrative?

"David Zhvaniya, who was a part of the 'Our Ukraine' party, directly stated to our commission: the leadership of this party falsified the poisoning. Dioxine was somehow externally added to Yushchenko's blood sample. And this sample was sent to the Austrian clinic. And it is precisely for this reason that he refused to give a blood test for our commission: if he was really poisoned, then he would be the first to be interested in it. What reason did he have to refuse, in this case?

The text for the Austrian doctors was thought up by the vice speaker Aleksandr Zinchenko. He wrote it himself and sent it to the clinic, and the doctors simply voiced it."

Was the commission put under pressure?

"I will say it like this. People from Yushchenko's environment asked me to 'freeze' the work. This was the agreement: they promised not to promote the poisoning topic any more if we don't investigate this story. But in 2009 Yushchenko violated the agreement -- and the commission resumed its work.

There unambiguously wasn't any poisoning. No proof of poisoning was provided, this is an entirely political story. The loud accusation was hurled, while there was no proof. This is very similar to the affair with Skripal's poisoning -- it's the same mechanism."

Share this:

[Sep 17, 2020] Military desperados and Mattis "military messiah syndrome" by Scott Ritter

Highly recommended!
I always assumed that Trump was the candidate of MIC in 2016 elections, while Hillary was the candidate of "Intelligence community." But it looks like US military is infected with desperados like Mattis and Trump was unable fully please them despite all his efforts.
But it looks like US military is infected with desperados like Mattis and Trump was unable fully please them despite all his efforts. Military desperados are not interested in how many American they deprived of decent standard of living due to outside military expenses. All they want is to dominate the word and maintain the "Full Spectrum Dominance" whatever it costs.
Sep 16, 2020 | www.rt.com

... ... ...

It is Trump's tortured relationship with the military that stands out the most, especially as told through the eyes of former Secretary of Defense Jim 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired marine general. It is clear that Bob Woodward spent hours speaking with Mattis -- the insights, emotions and internal voice captured in the book show a level of intimacy that could only be reached through in-depth interviews, and Woodward has a well-earned reputation for getting people to speak to him.

The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump as a threat to the US' standing as the defender of a rules-based order -- built on the back of decades-old alliances -- that had been in place since the end of the Second World War.

It also makes it clear that Mattis and the military officers he oversaw placed defending this order above implementing the will of the American people, as expressed through the free and fair election that elevated Donald Trump to the position of commander-in-chief. In short, Mattis and his coterie of generals knew best, and when the president dared issue an order or instruction that conflicted with their vision of how the world should work, they would do their best to undermine this order, all the while confirming to the president that it was being followed.

This trend was on display in Woodward's telling of Trump's efforts to forge better relations with North Korea. At every turn, Mattis and his military commanders sought to isolate the president from the reality on the ground, briefing him only on what they thought he needed to know, and keeping him in the dark about what was really going on.

In a telling passage, Woodward takes us into the mind of Jim Mattis as he contemplates the horrors of a nuclear war with North Korea, and the responsibility he believed he shouldered when it came to making the hard decision as to whether nuclear weapons should be used or not. Constitutionally, the decision was the president's alone to make, something Mattis begrudgingly acknowledges. But in Mattis' world, he, as secretary of defense, would be the one who influenced that decision.

Mattis, along with the other general officers described by Woodward, is clearly gripped with what can only be described as the 'Military Messiah Syndrome'.

What defines this 'syndrome' is perhaps best captured in the words of Emma Sky, the female peace activist-turned adviser to General Ray Odierno, the one-time commander of US forces in Iraq. In a frank give-and-take captured by Ms. Sky in her book 'The Unravelling', Odierno spoke of the value he placed on the military's willingness to defend "freedom" anywhere in the world. " There is, " he said, " no one who understands more the importance of liberty and freedom in all its forms than those who travel the world to defend it ."

Ms. Sky responded in typically direct fashion: " One day, I will have you admit that the [Iraq] war was a bad idea, that the administration was led by a radical neocon program, that the US's standing in the world has gone down greatly, and that we are far less safe than we were before 9/11. "

Odierno would have nothing of it. " It will never happen while I'm the commander of soldiers in Iraq ."

" To lead soldiers in battle ," Ms. Sky noted, " a commander had to believe in the cause. " Left unsaid was the obvious: even if the cause was morally and intellectually unsound.

his, more than anything, is the most dangerous thing about the 'Military Messiah Syndrome' as captured by Bob Woodward -- the fact that the military is trapped in an inherited reality divorced from the present, driven by precepts which have nothing to with what is, but rather by what the military commanders believe should be. The unyielding notion that the US military is a force for good becomes little more than meaningless drivel when juxtaposed with the reality that the mission being executed is inherently wrong.

The 'Military Messiah Syndrome' lends itself to dishonesty and, worse, to self-delusion. It is one thing to lie; it is another altogether to believe the lie as truth.

No single general had the courage to tell Trump allegations against Syria were a hoax

The cruise missile attack on Syria in early April 2017 stands out as a case in point. The attack was ordered in response to allegations that Syria had dropped a bomb containing the sarin nerve agent on a town -- Khan Shaykhun -- that was controlled by Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic militants.

Trump was led to believe that the 59 cruise missiles launched against Shayrat Airbase -- where the Su-22 aircraft alleged to have dropped the bombs were based -- destroyed Syria's capability to carry out a similar attack in the future. When shown post-strike imagery in which the runways were clearly untouched, Trump was outraged, lashing out at Secretary of Defense Mattis in a conference call. " I can't believe you didn't destroy the runway !", Woodward reports the president shouting.

" Mr. President ," Mattis responds in the text, " they would rebuild the runway in 24 hours, and it would have little effect on their ability to deploy weapons. We destroyed the capability to deploy weapons " for months, Mattis said.

" That was the mission the president had approved, " Woodward writes, clearly channeling Mattis, " and they had succeeded ."

The problem with this passage is that it is a lie. There is no doubt that Bob Woodward has the audio tape of Jim Mattis saying these things. But none of it is true. Mattis knew it when he spoke to Woodward, and Woodward knew it when he wrote the book.

There was no confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syria at Khan Shaykhun. Indeed, the forensic evidence available about the attack points to the incident being a false flag effort -- a successful one, it turns out -- on the part of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamists to provoke a US military strike against Syria. No targets related to either the production, storage or handling of chemical weapons were hit by the US cruise missiles, if for no other reason than no such targets could exist if Syria did not possess and/or use a chemical weapon against Khan Shaykhun.

Moreover, the US failed to produce a narrative of causality which provided some underlying logic to the targets that were struck at Khan Shaykhun -- "Here is where the chemical weapons were stored, here is where the chemical weapons were filled, here is where the chemical weapons were loaded onto the aircraft." Instead, 59 cruise missiles struck empty aircraft hangars, destroying derelict aircraft, and killing at least four Syrian soldiers and up to nine civilians.

The next morning, the same Su-22 aircraft that were alleged to have bombed Khan Shaykhun were once again taking off from Shayrat Air Base -- less than 24 hours after the US cruise missiles struck that facility. President Trump had every reason to be outraged by the results.

But the President should have been outraged by the processes behind the attack, where military commanders, fully afflicted by 'Military Messiah Syndrome', offered up solutions that solved nothing for problems that did not exist. Not a single general (or admiral) had the courage to tell the president that the allegations against Syria were a hoax, and that a military response was not only not needed, but would be singularly counterproductive.

But that's not how generals and admirals -- or colonels and lieutenant colonels -- are wired. That kind of introspective honesty cannot happen while they are in command.

Bob Woodward knows this truth, but he chose not to give it a voice in his book, because to do so would disrupt the pre-scripted narrative that he had constructed, around which he bent and twisted the words of those he interviewed -- including the president and Jim Mattis. As such, 'Rage' is, in effect, a lie built on a lie. It is one thing for politicians and those in power to manipulate the truth to their advantage. It's something altogether different for journalists to report something as true that they know to be a lie.

On the back cover of 'Rage', the Pulitzer prize-winning historian Robert Caro is quoted from a speech he gave about Bob Woodward. " Bob Woodward ," Caro notes, " a great reporter. What is a great reporter? Someone who never stops trying to get as close to the truth as possible ."

After reading 'Rage', one cannot help but conclude the opposite -- that Bob Woodward has written a volume which pointedly ignores the truth. Instead, he gives voice to a lie of his own construct, predicated on the flawed accounts of sources inflicted with 'Military Messiah Syndrome', whose words embrace a fantasy world populated by military members fulfilling missions far removed from the common good of their fellow citizens -- and often at conflict with the stated intent and instruction of the civilian leadership they ostensibly serve. In doing so, Woodward is as complicit as the generals and former generals he quotes in misleading the American public about issues of fundamental importance.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

Scott Ritter

is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

See also:

Whose side are generals on? As Joint Chiefs chairman APOLOGIZES for standing by Trump, Biden confident of military support The military is trapped in an inherited reality divorced from the present

Caitlin Johnstone: Tens of millions of people displaced by the 'War On Terror', the greatest scam ever invented Misleading the American public


Jewel Gyn 21 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 12:23 AM

Whichever construct you want to believe, the fact remains that US has continued to sow instability around the world in the name of defending the liberty and freedom. Which brings to the question how the world can continue to allow a superpower to dictate what's good or bad for a sovereign country.
Johan le Roux Jewel Gyn 18 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:42 AM
The answer you seek is not in the US's proclaimed vision of 'democracy' ot 'rescuing populations from the clutches of vile dictators.' They just say that to validate their actions which in reality is using their military as a mercenary force to secure and steal the resources of countries.
Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 04:57 PM
Bob Woodward was enshrined as a great, heroic like journalist by the Hollywood propaganda machine, but reality is he is a US Security agent pretending to be a well informed/connected journalist. And indeed, he is well informed/connected, since he was a Naval intelligence man, part responsible of the demise of the Nixon administration when it fell out of grace with the powerful elites, and the Washington Post being well connected with the CIA, the rest is history. And as they say, once a CIA man, always a CIA man.
DukeLeo Joaquin Montano 22 hours ago 16 Sep, 2020 11:36 PM
That is correct. Woodward is a Naval intelligence man. The elite in the US was not happy about Nixon's foreign policy and his detante with the Soviet Union. Watergate was invented, and Nixon had nothing to do with it. However, it brought him down, thank's to Woodward.
NoJustice Joaquin Montano 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:48 PM
But he also exposed Trump's lies about Covid-19.
lectrodectus 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:45 AM
Another first class article by ....Scott .. The book makes it clear that Mattis viewed Trump as a threat to the Us' standing as the defender of a " rules -based order -built on the back of decades -old alliances-that had been in place since the end of the second World War". It also makes it clear that " Mattis and the Military officials he oversaw placed defending this order above the implementing the will of the American People " These old Military Dinosaurs simply can't let go of the past, unfortunately for the American people / the World I can't see anything ever changing, it will be business as usual ie, war after War after War.
Jonny247364 lectrodectus 5 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:53 PM
Just because donny signs a dictact it does not equate to the will of the americian people. The americian people did not ask donny to murder Assad.
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:56 PM
"a threat to the US’ standing as the defender of a rules-based order –" Who made that a thing? who voted for the US to be the policeman of the planet? and who said their "rules" are right? I sure didn't, nor did anyone I know, even my american friends don't know whose idea it was!
fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
It's interesting to note that every president since J.F.K. has got America into a military conflict, or has turned a minor conflict into a major one. Trump is the exception. Trump inherited conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria etc) but has not started a new one, and he has spent his three years ending or winding down the conflicts he had inherited.
NoJustice fezzie035fezzm 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:34 PM
Trump increased military deployment to the Middle East. He increased military spending. He had a foreign general assassinated. He had missiles fired into Syria. He vetoed a bill that would limit his authority to wage war. Trump is not an exception.
T. Agee Kaye 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:59 PM
Good op ed. 'Rage is built on a lie' applies to many things.
E_Kaos T. Agee Kaye 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:46 PM
True, the beginning of a new narrative and the continuation of an old narrative.
PYCb988 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 07:25 PM
Something's amiss here. Mattis was openly telling the press that there was no evidence against Assad. Just Google: Mattis Newsweek Assad.
erniedouglas 12 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:14 AM
What was Watergate? Even bet says there were tapes of a private relationship between Nixon and BB Rebozo.
allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:03 PM
Continuation of a highly organized and tightly controlled disinformation campaign to do one singularly the most significant and historically one of the most illegal act of American betrayal... overthrow American elections at any and all costs to install one of the most deranged, demoralized sold out brain dead Biden and his equally brown nosing Harris only to unseat a legally and democratically elected US president according to our Constitution! Will their evil acts against America work? I doubt it! But at a price that America has never before seen. Let's sit back and watch this Rose Bowl parade of America's dirtiest of the dirty politics!
E_Kaos allan Kaplan 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:49 PM
"brown nosing harris", how apropos with the play on words.
Bill Spence allan Kaplan 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:29 PM
Both parties and their politicians are totally corrupt. Why would anyone support one side over the other? Is that because you believe the promises and lies?
custos125 17 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:35 AM
Is there any evidence that both Mattis and Woodward knew that the allegations of a Syrian use of chemical weapons by plane were not true, a false flag? On the assumption of this use, the capacity to fly such attack and deploy such weapons was destroyed for some time. I recommend reading of Rage, it is quite interesting, even if some people will not like it and try to keep people away from the book.
E_Kaos custos125 7 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:58 PM
My observations were: 1 - where were the bomb fragments 2 - why use rusted gas cylinders 3 - how do you attach a rusted gas cylinder to a plane 4 - were the rusted gas cylinders tossed out of a plane 5 - how did the rusted gas cylinders land so close to each other My conclusion - False Flag Incident
neeon9 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:58 PM
The is only one threat to peace in the world, and it's the US/Israeli M.I.C.. War mongering children, who actually believe, against all reason, that they are the most worthy and entitled race on earth! they are not. The US has been responsible for more misery in the world than any other state, which isn't surprising given how many Nazi's were resettled there by the Jews. They are also the only Ppl on the planet who think a nuclear war is winnable! How strange is that!
NoJustice 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:22 PM
So everything is a lie because Woodward didn't mention that there was no evidence found that linked the Syrian government to the chemical attack?
Strongbo50 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:58 PM
The left is firing up the Russian Interference narrative again, how Russia is trying to take the election. The real truth is in plain sight, The main stream media is trying to deliver Biden a win, along with google yahoo msn facebook and twitter. I say, come on Russia, if you can help stem that tide of lies please Mr Putin help. That's a joke but the media is real. And Woodward in his old age wants one more trophy on his mantle.
CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:41 PM
Trump has become the great white whale. Seems like there are Ahab's everywhere willing to shoot their hearts upon the beast to bring it down whatever the cost. I think it was this kind of rage and attitude that got Adolf off to a good start.
NoJustice CuttySark 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 05:44 PM
He's an easy target because he keeps screwing up.
Gryphon_ 1 day ago 16 Sep, 2020 06:59 PM
The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Never in my life have I seen a newspaper that lies as much as the post. Bob Woodward works for the post.

[Sep 17, 2020] FBI director says Russia is engaged in 'very active efforts' to sink Biden rehashes 2016 claims but provides no evidence

Sep 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

Bondibeach 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:32 PM

The USA political establishment is seeking confirmation of its insanity using lies, more lies then more lies. Democracy is dead in the USA and is replaced with perjury, violence, nationwide corruption and full blown insanity. All politicians need the rope.
WakeUpGoyim 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:03 PM
During Obamas 2nd run for president (see YouTube) he openly said Russia was not hostile & Mitt Romney said Russia was an enemy - Romney got hammed for saying this. Today if Trump says Russia is Americas friend, the media then say he is an agent. People have short memories, or so the media thinks so, actually most people do, most cant even remember why countries went on lock-down.
NoJustice WakeUpGoyim 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:17 PM
No. He said Russia wasn't the number one threat.
apothqowejh 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:31 PM
The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR. During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and grandson went on to become US Presidents. They have never stopped hating Russia, nor have they ever stopped lying to the American Public.
FFII 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 06:45 PM
OMG.... Biden is a perfect candidate for Russia. Old, dumb and predictable. With a cart load of corruption evidence from Ukraine sources, regarding his dealing with Poroshenko personaly and his son with Ukrainian gas company, earning millions
___RICHLAND__ 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 07:00 PM
As an Australian i've seen Biden's handywork in Ukraine, trust me, the guy's an Expert in Over-throwing an Elected Government"
frankfalseflag 49 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 08:52 PM
Did you know that the FBI takes its orders from the CIA?
mumbojumbo272 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 07:41 PM
Oh, Wray forced out of comfort zone following is ''gang'' being sub-poena by senate to divert attention on Russia. Interesting !
NotARussianBot 1 hour ago 17 Sep, 2020 08:20 PM
Did he wipe his phone clean before testifying? 😀

[Sep 17, 2020] America: Land of the Free and FBI Conspiracy Nuts

Those clever and evil Russians are at the top of their game again. For less then 20 millions dollars they dispose Hillary in 2016 and now intend to dispose Creepy Joe. Wait, is that this a valuable service to the nation?
The collapse of neoliberalism forces the US neoliberal elite to deploy desperate measures to preserve the unity of the nation and the US-controlled world neoliberal empire. Neo-McCarthyism in one of those dirty tricks. The pioneer in this dirty game was Hillary, but now it is shared by both parties.
According to FBI director Christopher Wray you need to be Russian to understand that Biden as a Presidential Candidate is DOA. And that decision of DNC to prop him instead of Sanders or Warren was pretty idiotic, and was based on the power the neoliberal wing (aka Clinton mafia) still holds within the Party. You have to be pretty delusional to believe Biden has all his marbles.
And by "interference" he means reporting in the news and expressing own opinion. Like in 2016 looks like FBI again crossed the line and had become the third political party, which intends to be the kingmaker of the Presidential elections. So here's a suggestion: call in UN observers to the elections.
Russian media influence is actually very easy to prove -- just ask yourself, do you trust RT more than CNN? But if a person laugh every time Joe Biden talks and it has nothing to do with Russia.
And if this nonsense again comes from the FBI Director, the legitimate question is "What next?" The claim that Putin ordered the assassination of Abraham Lincoln?
Look at all those hapless intelligence agencies, helplessly watching Russian hackers stealing election. But, wait a minute, we are talking about arguably the largest, best equipped, best financed and most devious intelligence agencies on the Earth. So it is natural to assume that people who want to steal the election are those who cry most loudly about the Russian influence.
Actually If Russia really wanted to "sink" Biden all that it would need to do is noisily support him openly. The rabid Russophobia would do the rest: Unfortunately most of of Americans are spoon fed neoliberal propaganda and don't care much about if it's real or not. That reminds me the USSR where the life of people was difficult enough not to pay attention to Communist Party slogans and propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the FBI director, the Russians' primary goal seems to be not only to " sow divisiveness and discord ," but to trash Democratic nominee Joe Biden – along with " what the Russians see as a kind of anti-Russian establishment " – through social media, " use of proxies ," state-run media, and " online journals ." ..."
"... Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats even suggested Congress create another election integrity body to supervise the vote in November, apparently concerned the existing authorities – all 54 of them, one for each state plus four federal entities tasked with keeping meddlers, foreign and domestic, shut out – weren't enough. ..."
"... "Crowd pleasing claims" is spot on the money. Sounds like the FBI has been tasked to lay some groundwork for the "after party". He knows what he is doing. ..."
"... Nothing new from the man who was Comey's assistant AG when Comey was Deputy Attorney General. ..."
Sep 17, 2020 | rt.com

Russia is reprising its still-unproven 2016 election meddling efforts, this time targeting Democratic challenger Joe Biden, according to FBI Director Christopher Wray, who gave no evidence to support his crowd-pleasing claims.

Wray told the House of Representatives that Russia is taking a " very active " role in the 2020 US election, claiming Moscow " continues to try to influence our elections, primarily through what we call malign foreign influence " during a Thursday hearing on national security threats.

ALSO ON RT.COM Damned if you do, damned if you don't? US intel director warns all election outcomes may be driven by Russia, China or Iran

According to the FBI director, the Russians' primary goal seems to be not only to " sow divisiveness and discord ," but to trash Democratic nominee Joe Biden – along with " what the Russians see as a kind of anti-Russian establishment " – through social media, " use of proxies ," state-run media, and " online journals ."

Wray contrasted 2020's alleged meddling with that of 2016, which he claimed involved " an effort to target election infrastructure ," presenting no evidence to back up either current or past claims – other than that the FBI or other intelligence agencies had made the same claims in the past. There is no actual evidence that Russia interfered with election infrastructure in 2016.

While four years of similarly flavored conspiracy theories blaming Russia for Donald Trump's 2016 win have come up empty-handed, the paucity of real-world evidence for 'Russian meddling' has not stopped Wray and other US intel officials from hyping it up as a major threat to the integrity of the democratic process.

The National Counterintelligence and Security Center suggested last month that, while Russia would interfere in the election in favor of Trump, China and Iran would meddle on behalf of Biden – implying Americans couldn't vote at all without doing the bidding of a foreign nation.

Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats even suggested Congress create another election integrity body to supervise the vote in November, apparently concerned the existing authorities – all 54 of them, one for each state plus four federal entities tasked with keeping meddlers, foreign and domestic, shut out – weren't enough.


TWOhand 5 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:49 PM

"Crowd pleasing claims" is spot on the money. Sounds like the FBI has been tasked to lay some groundwork for the "after party". He knows what he is doing.
danko79 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:22 PM
Can't feel anything but sympathy for those that are so easily influenced. If/when Biden loses, perhaps blaming his lack of ability to string a few words together might be more relevant than any kind of imaginary foreign interference.
Terry Ross 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:43 PM
Nothing new from the man who was Comey's assistant AG when Comey was Deputy Attorney General. Wray made it clear when sworn in for position of FBI head that he believed Russia had interfered to help Trump win 2016 election. The only question that remains is why Trump picked him for the job.

[Sep 17, 2020] FBI director rehashes 2016 claims but provides no evidence

Notable quotes:
"... The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR. During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and grandson went on to become US Presidents. ..."
Sep 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

apothqowejh 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:31 PM

The CIA was founded by the same fascists who tried to enlist Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR. During the post-war period, they smuggled their ideological brethren out of Germany with operation Paperclip. Their founding fathers included Prescott Bush, a Nazi, whose son and grandson went on to become US Presidents.

They have never stopped hating Russia, nor have they ever stopped lying to the American Public.

[Sep 17, 2020] Skripal 2.0? Did Navalny entourage falsified evidence and shipped it to Germany

Is this a preparation for immigration with important political side effect? After all Navalny is former stock speculator, so he can concoct some scheme of "escape" from Russia in such a dramatic way. And German intelligence service were only too glad to play their role, as they did in Yushchenko case.
The idea of Novichok poisoning is pretty crude and highly quetionable -- being military agent it supposedly it acts instantly killing the victim. Here Navalny manage to get into plain and remain countious for at least 30 min. More probably is the same scheme as in Skripal case. Some agent after which you lose conciouness, but that does not cause any serious side effects.
Sep 17, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

A video posted by Navalny's team on his Instagram page showed them searching Navalny's room at the Xander Hotel in Tomsk on Aug. 20, an hour after they were informed about his illness.

Apparently, this is how Germany got the materials, which a military lab allegedly tested to confirm the presence of Novichok. Initially, Navalny's team claimed he had been poisoned after drinking a cup of tea at the airport. But now it's a water bottle from his hotel room. The story just keeps changing,

"It was decided to gather up everything that could even hypothetically be useful and hand it to the doctors in Germany. The fact that the case would not be investigated in Russia was quite obvious," the post said.

It showed his team bagging several empty bottles of "Holy Spring" mineral water, among other items, while wearing protective gloves.

"Two weeks later, a German laboratory found traces of Novichok precisely on the bottle of water from the Tomsk hotel room," the post said.

"And then more laboratories that took analyses from Alexei confirmed that that was what poisoned Navalny. Now we understand: it was done before he left his hotel room to go to the airport."

One of Navalny's team members bragged to Al Jazeera that the evidence was taken "right under the KGB's nose".

Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister and an ally of Navalny, said his team had outplayed the FSB security police with their quick thinking: "They took the evidence from under their noses and shipped it out of the country."

Watch the video below:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CFOnffrHZ0d/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=12&wp=675&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rp=%2Fgeopolitical%2Fnavalnys-team-releases-evidence-novichok-poisoning#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A693.7550000147894%2C%22ls%22%3A297.4850000173319%2C%22le%22%3A313.38000000687316%7D


EuroPox , 8 hours ago

Navalny's flight took off at 08:01am, so he must have left the room by 5am, to go to the airport to catch the flight. The bedside clock in the video says 11:45 (presumably am)... and the room had not been cleaned? Really??

Why did Navalny's team think he would be going to Germany... it was 2 more days until the family made that request. Odd...

Were Navalny's team checked for nerve agent? They were in a room with "the world's most deadly" nerve agent... but they all seem fine.

Has the room been used by anyone else since? Are they all OK?

This story is complete garbage.

SiFiUK , 7 hours ago

So sick of this BS, is anything real any more? Surely, in the near future, the public won't believe anything the MSM says, whether it really is true or not.

EDIT: I still remember well how, during the BBC's Skripal coverage, one of the 'actors', dramatically dressed in a hazmat suit and searching for 'clues', took his helmet off thinking he'd gone off camera. Epic fail, yet the story still stuck enough to have confidence in launching a sequel!

d0gpants , 6 hours ago

Just like that ***** said...something like 'we know were successful when everything the public believes is a lie'

BigJim , 6 hours ago

William Casey, I do believe.

Meanwhile, the FSB poison Navalny, but don't bother removing the evidence, or worry about his woman touching the bottle (the fiends!) and his "team" have no problems getting into his room... after he#s already checked out.

BetaGap , 5 hours ago

Did they need the bottle or could they find the substance on the photo already?

Was the name putin written on each molecule?

HowdyDoody , 6 hours ago

A clear water bottle with a blue top was spotted peeking out of his wife's handbag as she tavelled to Germany. The water bottle sold for use on the flights are blue with a pink top.

http://johnhelmer.org/brain-poisoning-by-russian-nerve-agent-alexei-navalny-infects-german-chancellery/

Unknown User , 6 hours ago

And there is no verifiable chain of custody for this bottle. In other words it is not evidence.

thurstjo63 , 5 hours ago

@EuroPox,

Thank you for pointing out exactly what I was thinking! Difficult to believe that the room was not already cleaned especially since the hotel already knew that he checked out.

But consider the fact that Navalny's team is supposedly going into his hotel room to recover novichuk, a deadly nerve agent!?!

Maybe Navalny thinks that this is going to revive his career!

EuroPox , 4 hours ago

I do not understand how Germany got suckered into this, especially as Nordstream is such a hot topic... how could the Germans have been so stupid? Merkel really was caught with her pants down (which is not an image I wish to dwell on...)

A_Huxley , 3 hours ago

Its that special agent. That does not work.

That people can be around.

But its super secret.

Then it gets found.

Then the media talks a lot on when, how and where and when again.

All very secret, but we can read along in real time.

Space-Time Continuum , 8 hours ago

You're being presented:

Skripal 2

Like all remakes, this one is worse.

BorisTheBlade , 8 hours ago

Naturally, as Marx used to say: history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce. Modern day marxists usually skip the tragedy, go straight to farce and outright nonsense. Moron is a new normal.

BuboTB48 , 7 hours ago

BOLLOCKS !!!

If a lethal dose of Potassium Cyanide is about the size of a pea, then imagine that a lethal dose of Sarin is about the size of a full stop (period).

Now we have to change scales and assume that the lethal dose of Sarin is the size of a baseball, then the lethal dose of VX is now smaller than the aforementioned full stop (period).

Unfortunately we have to change scales again to consider Novichok. So the Potassium Cyanide lethal dose becomes the size of a seriously over-inflated basketball, while the sarin lethal dose is struggling to look like a poorly endowed baseball. The VX lethal dose is a lot smaller than a marble. The Novichok lethal dose is still smaller than the full stop (period).

Seriously lethal, and pretty quick acting it has the same symptoms as most nerve agents which are designed to destroy the bodies ability to transmit nerve signals via acetyocholine and cholinesterase. You get pinpoint pupils, convulsions, asphyxiation, etc and of course, most importantly death. If you survive, typically by injecting Atropine, then the damage to the nervous system may well still be permanent and you will never really recover.

Military NBCD training gives you 9 seconds to get your gas mask on and a further minute to get into the full activated carbon NBCD suit, after this you then have to decontaminate all over with a neutraliser like Fuller's Earth.

How the fcuk have three people now survived being poisoned by this monstrous chemical, while all showing different symptoms and two of them disappeared of the face of the earth.

As I said at the start, complete and utter bollocks

AlphaSnail , 7 hours ago

+ 1000 ups

BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago

I could do a thousand ups with your avatar.

serotonindumptruck , 8 hours ago

Navalny is clearly a see-eye-ay spy.

Water bottles?

I thought it was tea consumed at the Moscow airport?

One doesn't survive Novichok nerve agent poisoning, which is reputed to be 10 times more deadly than VX nerve gas.

Can the Western intelligence agencies manage to get their narrative straight?

This was a massive false flag operation designed to shut down the Nord Stream II pipeline.

greenskeeper carl , 8 hours ago

They really do think we are stupid. I could make a long list of people who benefit from his being 'poisoned' but Putin is not on there.

Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago

The NATO gangsters are banking on the Plebs being too hooked on football and the Kardassians.

gatorengineer , 8 hours ago

Yes they really do think we are that stoopid, covid is proving to them how stoopid we are.

SiFiUK , 7 hours ago

I truly believe that there were several members of the elite questioning whether this covid hoax was a stretch too far, and if the public really were that dumb. After seeing the success of 'Phase 1' (to quote Gates), it is clear that even the skeptics among them agree that the public deserves everything they get.

How can any of us deny that anyone falling for this BS doesn't deserve to get poisoned by the vaccine?

4Y_LURKER , 8 hours ago

I like how all these people are supposedly being poisoned by a deadly nerve agent but are all living, this is better than worldcup soccer drama queens. Russia!

gatorengineer , 8 hours ago

6 billion died from covid so far, just as amazing...

4Y_LURKER , 2 hours ago

Plot twist: we all died during COVID it was the salmon

BlindMonkey , 8 hours ago

Deadly nerve agent is on the water bottles and they are just sitting around on a hospital table and nobody around them dies?

How is this supposed to be remotely believable?

BigJim , 6 hours ago

Hotel room... but yeah, the story sucks

BlindMonkey , 2 hours ago

Pic looks like a hospital bed. YMMV

John Hansen , 8 hours ago

Pretty easy to slip stuff past the KGB considering they haven't existed for over 20 years.

bill_bly , 6 hours ago

They still do (under that name) in Belarus, but your point is valid.

AriusArmenian , 6 hours ago

Sure, Russia attempted to kill him with Novichok which didn't work then let's him go to Germany so that they can blame Russia. This is over the top stupid.

And in the West most people believe it. It must be a kind of IQ Test to show just how gullible most people are.

Yamaoka Tesshu , 6 hours ago

After the Skripal circus in the UK, I doubt anybody buys it.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago

Not so, anyone who only gets their news from the MSM will believe it.

josie0802 , 6 hours ago

Sounds like a ten year old attempting to write a detective novel.

abee , 7 hours ago

Navalny is an idiot

lucitanian , 6 hours ago

True, but the German government is showing itself to be more than an idiot.

BetaGap , 5 hours ago

Seems like in Germany you can present everything to the people there.
Putin poisened Navalny.
The sky is green.
Invaders are refugees.
etc. etc. etc.

44magnum , 5 hours ago

German zio occupational government

Volkodav , 6 hours ago

Addict

Yamaoka Tesshu , 6 hours ago

That would depend on how much they pay him.

hzp , 8 hours ago

How can you tell if Putin ordered the poisoning or not? he still alive!!!

Joe A , 7 hours ago

How fast does this poison work because he got the symptoms on the plane. Some sources says if works after 30 seconds to 2 minutes.

It must have been a couple of hours since he left his hotel room before he developed the symptoms on the plane. How many hours are there between him leaving the hotel room or drinking the water and the development of symptoms? Did he check out? Did he keep the hotel room? If the poison was in the water bottle in the hotel room and he drank it there then he should have developed the symptoms there.

Yamaoka Tesshu , 4 hours ago

From what I've read the stuff shuts you down right away. Read, mind you. But they did want to kill him. The note from Putin had vodka spilled on it, and the operatives saw "n" and "k" and assumed it was like last time. VVP actually wrote "nunchuck", figuring they should keep it simple this time.

ooobie , 8 hours ago

simply not credible, not a word of it. It was a set up with some other non-deadly substance, making him sick but not killing him. Doubt he was aware, but somebody involved in his group did this for the p.r. value as NATO drivels over the thought of adding Belarus to the Hate Russia coalition, a NATO umbrella group.

humbug , 5 hours ago

So let's assume they poisoned him with the old "Novichok" calling card - which they also would know would backfire on Nordstream 2 and give the USA (Russia's main geopolitical enemy) an opportunity to sell its more expensive gas exports to the EU instead, long term, pushing them out the market for good.

Bollocks!!

JackBurton , 5 hours ago

Exactly..zero benefit for Russia to do this. Just another wrench to throw in the spokes..

CriticalUser , 4 hours ago

The benefit is a frightening warning to Putins' political opponents. Putin has seen what is happening in Belarus.

Argon1 , 3 hours ago

By all accounts he wishes it would collapse already, its come around with a begging bowl after decades of oligarch rule.

bluez , 7 hours ago

This is simply a dirt cheap way for the Germans to placate the USSA. Everybody with a brain larger than a walnut knows that this absurd narrative is unenforceable. It won't change anything, and the pipeline will be completed.

If the Russians were going to poison somebody one might suppose that they would try something else. It would be plain stupid to just keep using 'Novichok®' over and over.

44magnum , 5 hours ago

Especially if it doesn't kill anyone

lucitanian , 6 hours ago

The fact that German government officials at ministerial level are trying to hold up this farce of a story that Navalny was poisoned by Novichok and that the Russian government is to blame is simply incredible.

As someone else bellow pointed out. At 11:45 (according to the bedside clock) at the hotel when Navalny must have left 4 or 5 hours earlier, how did they know that he would lnd up sick in Germany since that was only clear 2 days later? Also the chain of evidence is soooo unreliable. A total joke to even call it evidence.

The German government has been made to look totally stupid. Who's idea was it to go down this rabbit hole?

jmNZ , 6 hours ago

Like the UK government, they're vassals of the US.

VZ58 , 7 hours ago

Man oh man...you'd think that MI6/CIA would get their act together and use some actually deadly "Russian Novichok" from their lab in Porton Down the next time they want a do another Skripal! Oh wait, I see...they don't want their assets like Navalny or the Skripals to actually die...

Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago

Stage-managed or what? The US Evil Empire is really desperate to stop Nordstream II. Now I know what to do the next time I go to the hotel in the UK. I could make a killing out of the UK government and become a star in the Russia, China, Iran etc.

I could scream "Boris poisoned me with "Etonian mineral spring water, laced with VX".

And all because I criticised him for having too many babies.

To the NATO nutjobs who planned this farce: only those drunk and drugged (half of the US/EU population) are stupid enough to believe these anti_Russian RACIST propaganda farts.

Egao , 7 hours ago

This is evidence tampering :) now Russian state can rightfully deny any potential liability as the bottles were extracted illegally by Navalny's subordinates without due custody chain and could be replaced at any point of time. Not to mention that his stuff is one of the most interested parties and had real motive to poison Navalny.

Jgault , 7 hours ago

Except that the russian state is the only known manufacturer of novochok in the world...where did that come from?

bluez , 7 hours ago

I had a chemist girlfriend who made Novichok® every Saturday night. A tiny touch of that with a heroic helping of fine hash gives incredible sexual results.

bluez , 7 hours ago

Holy smokes! Man you have no clue what you missed out on!

Volkodav , 7 hours ago

Wrong

simpson seers , 5 hours ago

are you really and truly that stupid?.....

AlphaSnail , 7 hours ago

you dont need proof when you can issue a press release.

Banjo , 6 hours ago

An anonymous sourced one even better.

DEDA CVETKO , 8 hours ago

In related news, a squadron of flying piglets defects from Belarus to Saudi Arabia.

tranium , 8 hours ago

That's it. NO Nord Stream 2 for you!

researchfix , 8 hours ago

That´s quite o.k.

Citizens will pay 3 times in energy cost, because industry will be excluded from raising cost.

The cost of being dumb...

xrxs , 8 hours ago

Molecules of freedom ain't free.

QABubba , 6 hours ago

And the winner of the Academy Award for best Documentary is: "The White Helmets," err, "Alexia Navalny and Co."

blitzen69 , 7 hours ago

navalny, the russian version of macron...just another rothschild punk assed b*tch

xxyyzzsmith , 5 hours ago

Being a Yale World Fellow and having a daughter at Stanford. No chance of his being a stooge for other interests hoping for color revolution in Russia?

CriticalUser , 5 hours ago

You think Putin's daughter lives in Russia? Think again!

CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago

Why YES so glad you asked!

The US tiny hats are all freaking out as it looks as?if no maidan in Belarus is going to take place.

A little bit of pressure on Russia to let Lukashenko go and maybe then they will get to keep their pipeline.

Russia is no fool. They will continue to support Belarus and Lukashenko so that the US cannot plunder it and put nukes on it's border with Russia.

Putin played his hand beautifully.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 5 hours ago

Riddle me this. If the KGB (really the FSB now, but why quibble) conducted the attempted poison via a water bottle, would they also not clean up the crime scene after.

Are we to believe they are that incompetent on both counts?

No, whatever traces of Novi-whatever were found on the bottle was applied in Germany.

I trust whoever did it got extra hazard pay ;-)

ComeOnThink , 3 hours ago

Not to mention the same problem with the Skripal narrative - how can you get a nerve agent into your system and not show symptoms until several hours later?

How does that work, exactly?

If you hit a fly with an insecticide does he happily fly around for hours afterwards and then - hello! I'm not feeling well - drop dead?

Or does it start to show symptoms of distress almost instantly?

CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago

Did you know that when first responders were called about the Skripals the first thing they said as they were getting Skripals to hospital was that they suspected FENTANYL overdose.

ComeOnThink , 1 hour ago

Sure. But regardless of whether it is Fentanyl or Novichok, how is anyone expected to believe that you can get the stuff into your system and NOT show effects for several hours after exposure/ingesting/whatever.

It simply doesn't happen.

You get something nasty like that in your system then you get sick very, very quickly.

I have no doubt - none whatsoever - that whatever it was that made the Skripals sick was administered to them in that park. And it acted so quickly that neither of them had any time to react or cry for help.

Fentanyl? Novichok? Take your pick, but whatever it was that incapacitated them was administered minutes before they were found slumped on that bench.

Same with Navalny: if he was poisoned (which is not a given) then it was done on that plane, it was not done hours beforehand in his hotel room.

Did you know this: six members of his entourage hopped on that plane with him, and all six of them stayed with him until he got to Germany. Five are still by his side, and one of them has skipped town.

This one: Maria Pevchikh.

The first opportunity that presented itself she fled back to where she came from.

Which is not Moscow, but London.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

jmNZ , 6 hours ago

Navalny = Skripal 2

I wonder which patsy will be Skripal 3?

Yamaoka Tesshu , 6 hours ago

Does he have a cat? They can always recycle the Skripals' "crisis actor" cat. It has experience "dying".

I don't get it, how are we supposed to be afraid of the Russians if they can't pull off a simple poisoning? I was told now, they didn't even whack the kitty.

fnsnook , 7 hours ago

.....and a pristine russian passport and kgb identification was found on the bathroom counter in the room.

Volkodav , 5 hours ago

KGB ID find would top this to ridiculous greatness.

gatorengineer , 8 hours ago

So MI-6 did it?

Indiana Militia , 8 hours ago

Our pathetic government has been murdering people non stop for decades, and they have the nerve to act offended at something Putin does? You have got to be kidding me.

They have no problem with Saudi Arabia blowing up school buses full of children, or chopping people up into pieces with a bone saw in foreign embassies. But God forbid the Russians killing some pathetic CIA stooge trying to destroy their nation from within. Though we all know it isn't true anyway.

They lock Kyle Rittenhouse up for daring to defend fellow Americans that they abandoned from communist terrorists, while giving a pass to Israel who has been murdering people non stop for 80 years. Oh how I truly hate them.

SMC , 5 hours ago

LOL... propaganda for idiots.

Sokhmate , 6 hours ago

Damn. I can spot the Novichonga particles in that picture. Damn Pesky Rooshians.

cashback , 6 hours ago

And the evidence point to CIA/MI6

CrazzeTimes4all , 7 hours ago

Aaah the classic False Flag.
It's pretty pathetic for the US to use an unsuccessful poisoning as leverage to sidetrack Nordstream 2.
The empire's collapsing, so it's time to threaten the whole planet...either you deal exclusively with us OR ELSE!!

PS Is killing someone really this difficult!?

JUICE E SMALL IT EMPIRE , 8 hours ago

It could go both ways. The only way I think that is because of the wine and chocolate. However, I think if Russia wanted him dead. He would be dead. Putin is not in the business of fighting with the USA.

ComeOnThink , 3 hours ago

Laughable.

Note this: "A video posted by Navalny's team on his Instagram page showed them searching Navalny's room at the Xander Hotel in Tomsk on Aug. 20, an hour after they were informed about his illness."

Navalny was in a Russian hospital on August 20. It wasn't agreed that he would be released to the Germans until the day after.

Now note this: "It was decided to gather up everything that could even hypothetically be useful and hand it to the doctors in Germany. The fact that the case would not be investigated in Russia was quite obvious."

Dudes, he wasn't *in* Germany at the time that you were claiming to be rummaging around in his hotel room collecting stuff for the Germans.

He was in a Russian hospital, and as far as you could have known at that time that's where he was going to stay.

Honestly, this is amateur-hour stuff.

Moribundus , 3 hours ago

Immodestly, I still consider myself an expert in organic chemistry.

Of course, organophosphates were also a part of my studies, not only military grade poisons, but also pesticides and toxicology.


When using nerve-paralytic combat poisons, such as Sarin, Soman, Tabun, VX, IVA, Novichok and many others, it is not a problem to kill someone. The problem is the opposite rather than poisoning someone so that he does not die.


Let's go to toxicity. Kim Jong-nam died after being hit with one drop of the American neuroparalytic substance VX. The literature states that Novichok is 5-8 times more toxic than American VX, the Germans even report that he is up to 10 times more toxic than VX. So what tiny dose would Skripals and Navalny have to receive to survive?


After exposure to neuro-paralytic agents, death usually occurs within minutes of this point. Death occurs rapidly, regardless of whether the substance has been ingested, inhaled, or passed through the skin, which is no problem for these substances.


Even the evaporation of a single drop in an enclosed space or the inhalation of a single grain (in the case of a solid, non-liquid version of Novichok) will cause death within a few minutes. By blocking cholinesterase, these substances cause incredibly severe cramps, so severe that the victim can break a own bone in the cramp; they also block the respiratory and smooth muscles, in short, everything that is normally caused by nervous excitement.

After being poisoned by Novichok, the Skripals calmly walkec and sit on park bench and Navalny calmly boarded the plane. Does anyone want to claim such crap to me, an organic chemist? What is this dirty game of politicians?


The only person, the Russian chemist Andrei Zeleznakov, who was demonstrably hit by Novichok (a small dose) and immediately received an antidote, still died within 5 years of a total disruption of the nervous system. And Skripal's take took relax and grin into the lenses of journalists.


How long do you want to feed common people with this myths about Novichok and the evil Russians who are removing by them their opponents?

As a chemist, I say: if Navalny had been poisoned by Novichok, the only article you would write about him, journalists, would be about his funeral.

And finally: how did the Germans identify that this was poisoning by Novichok? They claim that they never made it. How they identified, when spectra were needed to identify it, at least from infrared, mass and UV-VIS spectroscopy. However, reference spectra can only be measured from a pure, real sample. So, as neither the Germans nor the British ever produced Novichok, where did they have the reference spectra with which they made comparisons of the samples of the Navalny and Skripals?

Without this (without comparing the spectra) it is not possible to reliably identify the substance. So you can choose:

1) Neither the Germans nor the British found any Novichok in the bodies of the Navalny and Skripals, they just launched a dirty media campaign against Russia, or

2) The Germans and the British know Novichok, they produce it by themselves, and therefore they have spectra from it. Then they are dirty liars again, when they claim that they do not have it, did not have, or never produced Novichok. So they are either lying in the first or second point, but the result is still the same, they are liars. And stupid, sensational greedy journalists help them spread these lies among the common people.

Berkleyboy , 3 hours ago

Thank you for this informative response

Itinerant , 1 hour ago

They are claiming to have found Novichok in Navalny's urine, skin, blood, and water bottle.
Any such poison is quickly metabolized (otherwise it doesn't work), and you will never find anything but trace metabolites (especially after days of delay), which can never establish what the exact precursor poison was. That is why they need an environmental sample, such as the water bottle. The story of finding traces in urine are technically impossible.

What I find confusing is that this story is coming out now when the shift to the water bottle was reported quite a few days ago...

skippy dinner , 5 hours ago

Well, I guess they did a slightly better job of it than "Jucy" Smollett. But the idea was much the same.

vincenze , 6 hours ago

Navalny's head in the photo above is photoshopped from this photo taken 1 month ago: https://avatars.mds.yandex.net/get-ynews/2373085/cc8bd63c8de5e8f15f0a799a18f7185f/606x341

CriticalUser , 5 hours ago

No. Hold the pictures next to each other. Significant differences...

vincenze , 4 hours ago

Try to make the image smaller and rotate it a little bit.

Also, his wife has a smaller head compared to his in other photos, unlike in the photo.

Yamaoka Tesshu , 4 hours ago

Good catch. They're too lazy even for a quick photop.

CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago

My GOD her head does look photo shopped.

Notice also no equipment behind them looks as if it has been used. And his bed looks fresh. As if never slept in.

UndercoverBrother , 6 hours ago

Putin is laughing his *** off

/any time you can use that remark is a good time

MAD_EYE_STARE , 7 hours ago

Jeez...he looks great....like he's been at a spa or something.

What a pissy weak nerve agent that was....

St. TwinkleToes , 7 hours ago

Fake poisoning just like the fake plandemic.
What's with all the fakery?
Is their a master plan for all this bs?

Its getting phucing old, and I'm not buying into this bs anymore.
File under: Propaganda, Disinformation, Fake News.

JPHR , 8 hours ago

Actually using the Skripal hoax as "proof" for this Skripa 2.0 Navanlny hoax can only be facilitated by a completely moronic MSM press lacking any measure of common sense.

http://thesaker.is/russians-are-the-dumbest-most-incompetent-idiots-on-the-planet/

ComeOnThink , 3 hours ago

Sorry, run that by me again: Navalny swigged some nerve agent in his hotel room in Tromsk, THEN travelled to the airport, THEN had a cup of tea, THEN boarded his flight, and only THEN became sick?

How does that work again?

I can - maybe - understand a slow-acting poison that is in pill-form. Maybe.

But not a nerve agent that you ingest by drinking. The results are instant.

Honestly, you have to be a moron to buy this story.

BTW, who waves goodbye to their boss and then hangs around the hotel room for hours afterwards?

Kaiama , 4 hours ago

So even before they knew he had been poisoned they already bagged the "evidence" themselves and "smuggled it" past the KGB? Are we all born yesterday? This is an admission that this was a planned provocation.

Woodenman , 4 hours ago

I think Russia should really kill a few people with Novichok and throw the U.S. and Europe for a loop when Russia does what they are always accused of.

Berkleyboy , 3 hours ago

I could offer up a few names if it would help

VZ58 , 1 hour ago

Could start with an old Hungarian )ew...

WTFUD , 5 hours ago

Do not let this Guaidoesque like puppet back into Russia.

cowdogg , 6 hours ago

Did they look for evidence in Navalny's office in the US embassy in Moscow?

JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago

Questions ? ;

1) Doesn't they clean the rooms after the client check out the Hotel ?

2) Didn't the eventually killers, clean and supress all traces, as soon Navaltny left ?

3) Are they allowed to fly with bottles...?

4) Doesn't this extremely dangerous poison infected others person, at the hotel, at the fly,...?

CriticalUser , 5 hours ago

1) Room cleaning doesn't happen immediately after departure of the client

2) Not necessarly

3) Bottles can be carried without problem in check-in luggage

4) Not if there is no physical contact. It's a nerve agent not a gas.

[Sep 17, 2020] cronies

Sep 17, 2020 | www.instagram.com

navalny Verified 1.9m followers View Profile Instagram post shared by @navalny navalny navalny Verified 1,773 posts · 1.9m followers View More on Instagram Like Comment Share Save 128,021 likes navalny

ОткŃĐ´Đ° взяĐ"Đ°ŃŃŚ Đ·Đ"ĐľŃчаŃтная бŃŃ‚Ń‹Đ"ка?

Đ"авайте объяŃним, откŃĐ´Đ° взяĐ"ĐľŃŃŚ Ń‚Đľ, про что нам непрерывно Đ·Đ°Đ´Đ°ŃŽŃ‚ вопроŃŃ‹. Так называемая “бŃŃ‚Ń‹Đ"ка Ń Â"НовичкомÂ"”, Đ˝Ń, Đ° точнее, обычная ĐżĐ"Đ°Ńтиковая бŃŃ‚Ń‹Đ"ка из-под воды, на которой потом в немецкой Đ"аборатории обнарŃжиĐ"и ŃĐ"еды боевого отравĐ"яющего вещеŃтва. 

Đ­Ń‚Đľ бŃŃ‚Ń‹Đ"ка из номера в томŃкой гоŃтинице, где ĐľŃтанавĐ"иваĐ"ŃŃŹ ŃĐ°ĐĽ НаваĐ"ьный и вŃŃŹ наŃĐ° Ńъемочная грŃппа. 

ПеренеŃемŃŃŹ обратно в 20 авгŃŃŃ‚Đ°. Đ' этот день чаŃŃ‚ŃŚ наŃей команды ŃĐ"етеĐ"Đ° в МоŃквŃ, чаŃŃ‚ŃŚ ĐľŃŃ‚Đ°Đ"Đ°ŃŃŚ в ТомŃке додеĐ"ывать видео. Đ' поĐ"ете ĐĐ"екŃей потеряĐ" Ńознание и начаĐ" Đ·Đ°Đ´Ń‹Ń Đ°Ń‚ŃŚŃŃŹ, ŃĐ°ĐĽĐľĐ"еĚŃ‚ ŃŤĐşŃтренно ŃеĐ". Почти ŃŃ€Đ°Đ·Ń ŃотрŃдники ФĐ'Đš, которые ĐľŃŃ‚Đ°Đ"иŃŃŚ в ТомŃке, ŃзнаĐ"и Đľ ŃĐ"ŃчивŃемŃŃŹ. Đ' этот момент быĐ"Đ° ŃдеĐ"ана единŃтвенно возможная вещь. Они вызваĐ"и адвоката, подняĐ"иŃŃŚ в номер, из которого Ń‚ĐľĐ"ько что Đ˛Ń‹ĐµŃ Đ°Đ" НаваĐ"ьный, и начаĐ"и фикŃировать, опиŃывать и Ńпаковывать вŃе, что Ń‚Đ°ĐĽ наŃĐ"и. Đ' том чиŃĐ"е, и бŃŃ‚Ń‹Đ"ки из-под гоŃтиничной воды. 

Как ŃŤŃ‚Đľ проиŃŃ ĐľĐ´Đ¸Đ"Đľ, вы можете поŃмотреть на этом видео. 

Никакой ĐľŃобой надежды что-Ń‚Đľ такое обнарŃжить не быĐ"Đľ. Но поŃкоĐ"ŃŚĐşŃ Đ˝Đ°ĐĽ быĐ"Đľ абŃĐľĐ"ютно ŃŹŃно, что НаваĐ"ьный не “ŃĐ"егка забоĐ"еĐ"”, не “перегреĐ"Ńя” и Đ Đ°Ń„Đ°ŃŤĐ"кой здеŃŃŚ не поможеŃŃŚ, быĐ"Đľ реŃено забрать вŃе, что может Ń ĐľŃ‚ŃŚ как-Ń‚Đľ гипотетичеŃки пригодитьŃŃŹ, и передать ŃŤŃ‚Đľ врачам в Đ"ермании. То, что деĐ"Đľ раŃŃĐ"едовать в Đ ĐľŃŃии не бŃĐ´ŃŃ‚, тоже быĐ"Đľ Đ´ĐľŃтаточно очевидно. Так и выŃĐ"Đľ: проŃеĐ" почти меŃяц, Đ ĐľŃŃия Ń‚Đ°Đş и не признаĐ"Đ° отравĐ"ение ĐĐ"екŃея.

СпŃŃŃ‚ŃŹ две недеĐ"и именно на бŃŃ‚Ń‹Đ"ке из томŃкого номера немецкая Đ"аборатория обнарŃжиĐ"Đ° ŃĐ"еды Â"НовичкаÂ". Рпотом еще две Đ"аборатории, которые браĐ"и анаĐ"изы Ń ĐĐ"екŃея, подтвердиĐ"и, что НаваĐ"ьный быĐ" отравĐ"ен именно им. Теперь ĐĽŃ‹ понимаем: ŃŤŃ‚Đľ быĐ"Đľ ŃдеĐ"ано Đ´Đľ того, как он покинŃĐ" Ńвой номер, чтобы ĐżĐľĐµŃ Đ°Ń‚ŃŚ в аэропорт.

Сегодня в 20.00 в передаче Â"Đ ĐľŃŃия Đ'ŃĐ´ŃщегоÂ" на ютюб-канаĐ"е НаваĐ"ьный LIVE Đ"еоргий ĐĐ"бŃров @alburov раŃŃкажет подробноŃти. view all 7,060 comments Add a comment... Instagram

[Sep 17, 2020] Lies in the Navalny case

Was it BZ toxin again: Lavrov- Swiss lab says 'BZ toxin' used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service
Notable quotes:
"... German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved "beyond doubt" that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the Russian government to answer "very serious questions." ..."
"... At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret, representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities, with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare agent -- one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills possessed only by a state actor. ..."
"... Excerpt of an article by Peter Schwarz published by wsws.org ..."
Sep 10, 2020 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The relationship between Germany and Russia has reached its lowest point since Berlin supported the pro-Western coup in Ukraine six years ago and Russia subsequently annexed the Crimean Peninsula.

The German government is openly accusing the Russian state of poisoning opposition politician Alexei Navalny, who is currently in Berlin's Charité Clinic. He reportedly awoke from a coma on Monday.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel personally announced at a press conference last week that a chemical weapons laboratory of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) had proved "beyond doubt" that Navalny was the victim of an attack using the Novichok nerve agent. She called on the Russian government to answer "very serious questions."

At a special session of the Parliamentary Control Committee, which meets in secret, representatives of the German government and the secret services left no doubt, according to media reports, that the poisoning of Navalny had been carried out by Russian state authorities, with the approval of the Russian leadership. The poison was said to be a variant of the warfare agent -- one even more dangerous than that used in the Skripal case in Britain. It purportedly could enter the body simply through inhalation, and its production and use required skills possessed only by a state actor.

Germany and the European Union are threatening Russia with sanctions. The German government has even questioned the completion of the almost finished Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which it had categorically defended against pressure from the US and several Eastern European states.

The German media has gone into propaganda mode, repeating the accusations against Russian President Vladimir Putin with a thousand variations. Seventy-nine years after Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, which claimed more than 25 million lives, German journalists and politicians, in editorials, commentaries and on talk shows, speak with the arrogance of people who are already planning the next military campaign against Moscow.

Anyone who expresses doubts or contradicts the official narrative is branded a "conspiracy theorist." This is what happened to Left Party parliamentarian Sevim Dagdelen, among others, on Sunday evening's "Anne Will" talk show. The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy expert Norbert Röttgen, the head of the Munich Security Conference Wolfang Ischinger and former Green Party Environment Minister Jürgen Trittin sought to outstrip one another in their accusations against the Russian government. When Dagdelen gently pointed out that, so far, no evidence whatsoever has been presented identifying the perpetrators, she was accused of "playing games of confusion" and "encouraging unspeakable conspiracy theories."

Read also: Russian Defense Minister held talks with Iran's Chief of Staff

The Russian government denies any responsibility in the Navalny case. It questions whether Navalny was poisoned at all and has called on the German government to "show its cards" and present evidence. Berlin, according to Moscow, is bluffing for dirty political reasons.

Contradictory and implausible

Evidence of the involvement of the Russian state is as contradictory as it is implausible.

For example, the German authorities have so far published no information or handed evidence to Russian investigators identifying the chemical with which Navalny was poisoned. Novichok is merely a generic term for several families of warfare agents.

No explanation has been given as to why no one else showed signs of poisoning from a nerve agent that is fatal even in the tiniest amounts, if touched or inhaled. Navalny had had contact with numerous people between the time he boarded the airplane on which he fainted, his entering the clinic in Omsk where he was first treated, and his transfer to the Charité hospital in Berlin.

This is only one of many unexplained anomalies in the German government's official story. Career diplomat Frank Elbe, who headed the office of German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher for five years and negotiated the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as head of the German delegation in Geneva from 1983 to 1986, wrote on Facebook on Friday: "I am surprised that the Federal Ministry of Defence concludes that the nerve agent Novichok was used against Navalny."

Novichok, he wrote, belongs "to the group of super-toxic lethal substances that cause immediate death." It made no sense, he argued, to modify a nerve poison that was supposed to kill instantly in such a way that it did not kill, but left traces behind allowing its identification as a nerve agent.

There was something strange about this case, Elbe said. "Either the perpetrators -- whoever they might be -- had a political interest in pointing to the use of nerve gas, or foreign laboratories were jumping to conclusions that are in line with the current general negative attitude towards Russia."

The assertion that only state actors can handle Novichok is also demonstrably false. The poison was sold in the 1990s for small sums of money to Western secret services and economic criminals, and the latter made use of it. For example, in 1995, the Russian banker Ivan Kiwelidi and his secretary were poisoned with it. The chemist Leonid Rink confessed at the time in court that he had sold quantities to criminals sufficient to kill hundreds of people. Since the binary poisons are very stable, they can last for decades.

Read also: UK psyops bigwig pushed plan to 'mine Sevastopol Bay' during 2014 Crimea crisis – leaked documents

The Navalny case is not the reason, but the pretext for a new stage in the escalation of German great power politics and militarism. The media hysteria over Navalny is reminiscent of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014, when the German press glorified a coup d'état carried out by armed fascist militias as a "democratic revolution."

Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier, then foreign minister and now German president, personally travelled to Kiev to persuade the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to resign.

He also met with the fascist politician Oleh Tyahnybok, whose Swoboda Party glorifies Nazi collaborators from World War II. Yanukovych's successor, Petro Poroshenko, one of the country's richest oligarchs, was even more corrupt than his predecessor. He terrorised his opponents with fascist militias, such as the infamous Azov regiment. But he brought Ukraine into NATO's sphere of influence, which was the real purpose of the coup.

In the weeks before the Ukrainian coup, leading German politicians (including then-President Joachim Gauck and Steinmeier) had announced a far-reaching reorientation of German foreign policy. The country was too big "to comment on world politics from the sidelines," they declared. Germany had to defend its global interests, including by military means.

NATO marched steadily eastward into Eastern Europe, breaking the agreements made at the time of German reunification in 1990. For the first time since 1945, German soldiers today patrol the border with Russia. With Ukraine's shift into the Western camp, Belarus is the only remaining buffer country between Russia and NATO.

Berlin now sees the protests against the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko as an opportunity to remove this hurdle as well. Unlike in Ukraine, where anti-Russian nationalists exerted considerable influence, especially in the west of the country, such forces are weaker in Belarus, where the majority speaks Russian. The working class is playing a greater role in the resistance to the Lukashenko regime than it did in Ukraine. But Berlin is making targeted efforts to steer the movement in a pro-Western direction. Forces that appeal for Western support, such as the presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, are being promoted.

Read also: Europe - "Green" Alliance with Russia or experimental field for genetic Monsters? Dispute over Nord Stream 2

The dispute over the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, whose discontinuation is being demanded by more and more German politicians, must also be seen in this context. It was a strategic project from the very beginning.

The natural gas pipeline, which will double the capacity of Nord Stream 1, which began operations in 2011, will make Germany independent of the pipelines that run through Ukraine, Poland and Belarus. These countries not only earn transit fees from the pipelines but have also used then as a political lever.

With a total capacity of 110 billion cubic metres per year, Nord Stream 1 and 2 together would carry almost all of Germany's annual gas imports. However, the gas is also to be transported from the German Baltic Sea coast to other countries.

In addition to Russia's Gazprom, German, Austrian, French and Dutch energy companies are participating in the financing of the project, which will cost almost €10 billion. The chairman of the board of directors is former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (Social Democratic Party), who is a friend of President Putin.

Nord Stream 2 is meeting with fierce opposition in Eastern Europe and the US. These countries fear a strategic alliance between Berlin and Moscow. In December of last year, the US Congress passed a law imposing severe sanctions on companies involved in the construction of the pipeline -- an unprecedented move against nominal allies. The nearly completed construction came to a standstill because the company operating the special ship for laying the pipes withdrew. Berlin and Moscow protested vehemently against the US sanctions and agreed to continue construction with Russian ships, which, however, will not be available until next year at the earliest.

Excerpt of an article by Peter Schwarz published by wsws.org

[Sep 17, 2020] 'No evidence'- EU Parliament using Navalny's alleged poisoning to push for sanctions halt Nord Stream project German MEP

Germany in the past played important role is promoting Yushchenko's Poisoning false flag. Nothing new here.
If we ask "que bono?". it clearly looks like the USA ears protrude from the whole German part of Navalny poisoning saga.
Sep 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

That's according to Maximilian Krah, a member of the European Parliament from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. The "obscure" case involving the alleged poisoning of Navalny has been used by the EU establishment to launch another round of Moscow-bashing, he says.

The lawmaker explained that his fellow MEPs had not, in fact, seen a single piece of evidence suggesting the Russian government might have had a hand in what happened to Navalny.

We don't have the evidence... none of the members of parliament who today voted in favor of sanctions has seen any evidence.

Krah said it was "unrealistic" to expect that Navalny's case would not be politicized, arguing that it was "absolutely clear" it was being used to push an anti-Moscow agenda.

On Thursday morning, the EU Parliament passed a resolution calling on member states to "isolate Russia in international forums," to "halt the Nord Stream 2 project" and to prioritize the approval of another round of sanctions against Moscow.

The MEP also expressed skepticism about the prospects of the broader public ever getting to see any evidence linking the opposition figure's sudden illness to Russian foul play.

"Evidence will only get published and provided to Russia if there is public pressure," he said, adding that he does not see any such pressure building anywhere in the EU. Until that changes, Berlin is likely to continue demanding "answers" from Moscow while holding off on requests by Russian for cooperation, Krah believes.

ALSO ON RT.COM European Parliament calls for international probe into alleged Navalny poisoning & suspension of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline

The German MEP also weighed in on the fate of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, suggesting that the alleged poisoning could work to Washington's benefit, given that the White House has been seeking to undermine the project, liking Russian gas to Germany, for months. Krah said it was "clear from the beginning" that the US would try to use the situation to scupper the project, which he says would make Germany "more independent from American influence."

The EU resolution, which is not legally binding but acts as an advisory for the bloc's leaders, was supported by 532 MEPs and opposed by 84, while 72 abstained. Fresh sanctions against Russia have been mulled by both the EU and US since news about Navalny's alleged poisoning was made public.

ALSO ON RT.COM Berlin struggles to answer RT's question on fate of mysterious Navalny aide who left Russia for Germany without being questioned

Moscow has repeatedly expressed its readiness to cooperate with Germany in the probe into the incident, while stressing that the Russian medics who first treated Navalny when he fell ill found no traces of any poison in his body. The Kremlin has also repeatedly approached Berlin for data possessed by the German side, but has so far received none.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


Dachaguy 8 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 02:02 PM

Of course, the investigation is incomplete, but that doesn't stop the EU from levying "justice." We've seen this before in the Downing Street Memos, where the facts were, "being fixed around the policy. " Millions of innocent people died as a result. When will people learn?
Jeff_P 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 06:01 PM
There should be an international commission to look into this false flag. It should be comprised of Russia and Germany, of course, but no other NATO or European countries and no US vassal states other than Germany. Other members could be Cuba, China, Venezuela, and maybe India. And, of course, the US playbook of assignment of guilt without the benefit of evidence and the exacting of penalties without proving guilt won't fly. Russia might just tell Europe to go FO and leave PACE and the other organizations that it supports but which insist on abusing it.
perikleous 6 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:09 PM
If Russia was determined they would say you cannot delay NSII or we cut the Ukraine pipeline as well, its all or none! Tick Tock Tick Tok, winter is coming soon! Hopefully the Covid 19 won't delay the fuel ships your relying on or the workers who procure the fuel, you know a 2nd wave... is "Highly Likely" and its taking over in the rural areas where the fuel comes from! Present evidence to a poisoning directed by either the fuel company or the gov't and we will continue, or just tell your "handlers" go ***, because I do not recall the US severing weapons sales to Saudi Arabia after Admission to them Severing the head off of (J. Koshoggei) because the US profits/jobs are bigger than one WaPo Journalists life! Hypocracy in action!
Shelbouy 6 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 03:46 PM
Germany has offered to help pay for the construction of two LNG terminals in Germany to the tune of 1 billion plus to the US. to receive US LNG. The US in turn has said then they would not interfere with the completion of Nord Stream 2 if this were to take place. I am suggesting that Germany then would have 30% cheaper Russian gas than US LNG, blend these two prices, hi cost US LNG and low cost Russian gas of Nord Stream 2, and sell to the EU consumers at a price which would likely be higher than the current rate today, and who would be the wiser, and who would consumers blame when the price of gas goes up instead of down. This may, at least temporarily, appease the US while at the same time ensure the completion of the cheaper Russian supply line, and prevent the diversion of Russian gas to other customer nations like China, and Germany laughs all the way to the bank. This is only speculation on my part because I do not know if it would work that way or not. If it did then Germany would have their cake and eat it. The offer of Germany to the US is however, a fact. The reasons behind this offer are speculative. After all, it's really all about money anyway.
perikleous Shelbouy 5 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 04:16 PM
The US would demand a contract/commitment for the fuel based on your yearly usage currently, if you re neg, they still bill you for it! Then its handled in court while your bank accounts are frozen and none of the US debt to you is paid until this is resolved. You may win the hearing/court but the losses from not having access to that money will cost way more!
HimandI 4 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 05:47 PM
Just more proof that the EU rulers are bought and paid prostitutes.
Jayeshkumar 6 minutes ago 17 Sep, 2020 10:03 PM
May be EU is indirectly suggesting to use the 2nd Pipeline to be used Exclusively for Transporting the Hydrogen, in the Future!
Congozebilu 2 hours ago 17 Sep, 2020 08:06 PM
From the first minute this Navalny story broke I knew it was aimed at Nordstream. Everyone who understands geopolitics and also US desperation to sell "freedom gas" knows that Nordstream was the intended target this Navalny clown show.
ivoivo 1 hour ago 17 Sep, 2020 09:00 PM
apparently there are evidence found in a trash can in his hotel room in omsk, they poisoned him with novichock in a water they gave it to him and discard a paper cup in a trash can, standard kremlins procedure, isn't it, what is happening to world intelligence, russians can't kill some dude that is actually not even important and americans can't stop russian hackers in meddling in us election

[Sep 16, 2020] Fake News About Iran, Russia, China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread

Notable quotes:
"... But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing consent: "It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative." ..."
"... In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion". This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or, if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses like a shepherd, to its will. ..."
"... It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west, especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but "presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession. ..."
"... While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information) leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such presstitution. ..."
"... Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia? Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it? Why is a new civil war in the US promoted? ..."
"... Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come together and unite, at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included. For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's. ..."
"... Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb. Not worth to pay attention to it. ..."
"... Other than few independent blog site such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket. ..."
"... Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new phenomenon. These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft. ..."
"... Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence "their" captive government. ..."
"... What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train. ..."
"... In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights, people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much. ..."
"... I've been saying for years here to watch the documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations, Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental illness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s ..."
Sep 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Every few days U.S. 'intelligence' and 'officials' produce fake claims about this or that 'hostile' country. U.S. media continue to reproduce those claims even if they bare any logic and do not make any sense.

On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Post published fake news about alleged Russian payments to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops.

The stories ran on the outlets' front pages.

Two week later the story was shown to have no basis :

[T]hat the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including 'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings and new sanctions on Russia .

Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the 'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June 2, just one week after it was launched, the story was declared dead .
...
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.

Despite that the Democrats continued to use the fake story for attacks on Donald Trump.

Yesterday the commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East drove a stake though the heart of the dead corpse of the original story:

Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian government bribed the Taliban to kill American service members , the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program.

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

But as one fake news zombie finally dies others get resurrected. Politico's 'intelligence' stenographer Natasha Bertrand produced this nonsensical claim :

The Iranian government is weighing an assassination attempt against the American ambassador to South Africa, U.S. intelligence reports say, according to a U.S. government official familiar with the issue and another official who has seen the intelligence.

News of the plot comes as Iran continues to seek ways to retaliate for President Donald Trump's decision to kill a powerful Iranian general earlier this year, the officials said. If carried out, it could dramatically ratchet up already serious tensions between the U.S. and Iran and create enormous pressure on Trump to strike back -- possibly in the middle of a tense election season.

U.S. officials have been aware of a general threat against the ambassador, Lana Marks, since the spring, the officials said. But the intelligence about the threat to the ambassador has become more specific in recent weeks. The Iranian Embassy in Pretoria is involved in the plot, the U.S. government official said.

Ambassador Lana Marks is known for selling overpriced handbags and for her donations to Trump's campaign. To Iran she has zero political or symbolic value. There is no way Iran would ever think about an attack on such a target. Accordingly the South African intelligence services do not believe that there is such a threat:

South African Minister of State Security Ayanda Dlodlo said the matter was "receiving the necessary attention" and that the State Security Agency (SSA) was "interacting with all relevant partners both in the country and abroad, to ensure that no harm will be suffered by the US Ambassador, including any other Diplomatic Officials inside the borders of our country."

However, an informed intelligence source told Daily Maverick that although the "matter has been taken seriously as we approach all such threats, specifically, there appears to be, from our perspective, no discernible threat. Least of all from the source that it purports to emanate from.

There was "no evidence or indicator", the source said, so the plot was "not likely to be real". The "associations made are not sustainable on any level but all precautions will be put in place".

The source suggested this was an instance of the "tail wagging the dog", of the Trump administration wielding a "weapon of mass distraction" to divert attention from its failures in the election campaign running up to President Donald Trump's re-election bid on November 3.

The spokesperson for the Iranian ministry of foreign affairs, Saeed Khatibzadeh, strongly denied the allegation in the Politico report which he called "hackneyed and worn-out anti-Iran propaganda".

In January the U.S. assassinated the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Soleimani led the external campaigns of the Iranian Quds Forces. He was the one who orchestrated the campaign that defeated the Islamic State. His mythic-symbolic position for Iran and the resistance in the Middle East is beyond that of any U.S. figure.

There is simply no one in the U.S. military or political hierarchy who could be seen as his equal. Iran has therefore announced that it will take other ways to revenge the assassination of Soleimani.

As an immediate response to the assassination of Soleimani Iran had launched a precise missile attack against two U.S. bases in Iraq. It has also announced that it will make sure that the U.S. military will have to leave the Middle East. That program is in full swing now as U.S. bases in Iraq are again coming under daily missile attacks :

More than eight months after a barrage of rockets killed an American contractor and wounded four American service members in Kirkuk, Iraq, militia groups continue to target U.S. military bases in that country, and the frequency of those attacks has increased.

"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be cutting its footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about 2,200 troops leaving the country .

Just hours agon two Katyusha rockets were fired against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone. Two British/U.S.convoys also came under attack . U.S. air defense took the missiles down but its anti-missile fire is only further disgruntling the Iraqi population.

These attacks are still limited and designed to not cause any significant casualties. But they will continue to increase over time until the last U.S. soldier is withdrawn from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and other Middle East countries. That, and only that, is the punishment Iran promised as revenge for Soleimani's death.

The alleged Iranian thread against the U.S. ambassador to South Africa is just another fake news propaganda story. It is useful only for lame blustering:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 3:04 UTC · Sep 15, 2020

According to press reports, Iran may be planning an assassination, or other attack, against the United States in retaliation for the killing of terrorist leader Soleimani, which was carried out for his planning a future attack, murdering U.S. Troops, and the death & suffering...
...caused over so many years. Any attack by Iran, in any form, against the United States will be met with an attack on Iran that will be 1,000 times greater in magnitude!

The danger of such fake stories about Russia or Iran is that they might be used to justify a response in the case of a false flag attack on the alleged targets.

Should something inconvenient happen to Ambassador Lana Marks the Trump administration could use the fake story as an excuse to respond with a limited attack on Iran.

It is well known by now that U.S. President Donald Trump is lying about every time he opens his mouth. Why do U.S. journalists presume that the agencies and anonymous officials who work under him are more truthful in their utterings than the man himself is hard to understand. Why do they swallow their bullshit?

Posted by b on September 15, 2020 at 11:50 UTC | Permalink


jo6pac , Sep 15 2020 12:01 utc | 1

Amerikas propaganda machine never sleeps and sadly to many people believe the BS
Sunny Runny Burger , Sep 15 2020 12:27 utc | 2
US and European journalists are also lying constantly, that's why. Even when they make embarrassing attempts at "being unbiased" or "factual". Do they understand it? Many might not, but some do, perhaps fewer than anyone would think reasonable.

Btw a lot of these "journalists" in Europe in particular openly self-identify to "the left" or even as socialists and communists or "greens". So much for ideology as some kind of solution: entirely worthless and superficial.

Christian J. Chuba , Sep 15 2020 12:44 utc | 3
But CNN has and will continue to repeat the allegations as fact, so it's mission accomplished for the deep state. As another poster said on this board about manufacturing consent: "It is important to discuss the story, not its credibility, the more the discussion, the more the reaction and the more it reinforces the narrative."

Just for laughs, I looked at the reviews of Gordon Chang's book, 'The Coming Economic Collapse of China' to see if I could figure out the reasoning and one of the reviewers said that China weakens because they lack a free press to hold their govt accountable. I had a good laugh at that one.

vk , Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4
There's an objective explanation for that.

In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of systematic manipulation of "public opinion". This would become a hallmark of Western Civilization in the post-war. The public opinion theory states that the masses don't have an opinion for themselves or, if they have, it is sculpting/flexible. The dominant classes can, therefore, guide the masses like a shepherd, to its will.

Friedrich von Hayek - a colleague of Popper and father of British neoliberalism (the man behind Thatcher) - then developed on the issue, by proposing the institutionalization of public opinion. He proposed a system of three or four tiers of intellectuals which a capitalist society should have. The first tier is the capitalist class itself, who would govern the entire world anonymously, through secret meetings. These meetings would produce secret reports, whose ideas would be spread to the second tier. The second tier is the academia and the more prominent politicians and other political leaderships. The third tier is the basic education teachers, who would indoctrinate the children. The fourth tier is the MSM, whose job is to transform the ideas and opinions of the first tier into "common sense" ("public opinion").

Therefore, it's not a case where the Western journalists are being fooled. Their job was never to inform the public. When they publish a lie about, say, Iran trying to kill an American ambassador in South Africa, they are not telling a lie in their eyes: they are telling an underlying truth through one thousand lies. The objective here is to convince ("teach") the American masses it is good for the USA if Iran was invaded and destroyed (which is a truth). They are like the modern Christian God, who teach its subjects the Truth through "mysterious ways".

Nathan Mulcahy , Sep 15 2020 12:56 utc | 5
It is an insult to the noble profession, to call what the mainstream media in the west, especially in the USA do, journalism. In my opinion what they do is propaganda and stenography on behalf of those who are in power. I am not sure who coined the term but "presstitution" is not a bad attempt at describing their profession.

Unfortunately they have been amazingly successful in brainwashing people. One current example, from numerous ones that could be cited, is the public's opinion on Julian Assange. .

While the western corporate media lie on a continuous basis - and that has the predictable effect - what is more insidious is not these acts of commissions ( meaning lies), but their acts of omission (meaning excluding or deemphasizing important contextual information) leading people to make the wrong conclusions. NPR in the US is an excellent example of such presstitution.

What I am saying is nothing new to the bar flies here. But I am extremely distressed when I see how poorly informed (propagandized, brainwashed) the vast majority of the people I know are. Let's say a decade ago, ideological polarization was the main reason why it was so difficult to have an open discussion on important issues the US. Today it has become even more difficult because, thanks to the success of the presstitutes, people also have different sets of "facts". And most alarmingly, after successfully creating a readership who believe in alternative "facts", the mainstream presstitutes are moving on to creating a logic-free narrative. Examples include Assad supposedly gassing his people when he was winning (even though that was guaranteed to produce western intervention against him). A more recent example is the Navalny affair. Sadly, very sadly, way too many people are affected.

Gerhard , Sep 15 2020 13:07 utc | 6
Hi, thanks, and sorry, but: why does nobody look behind the curtain?

Why are the US promoting conflict with China, with Russia? Why are they beating Europe, maybe with the intention to destroy it? Why is a new civil war in the US promoted?

Are these random developments of history? Are laws of history behind that?
NO!! Surely not!

Normal (geopolitically interested) people would think: against China it is better to come together and unite, at least US & Europe, but eventually Russia included. For instance take the population of these three together: far less than China's.

If something is going against the common sense, then there should be a reason behind. This reason I recommend You, with due respect, to find - and to uncover the plan.

Journalism in the US is so superficial, it is a drop above the uppermost wavy comb. Not worth to pay attention to it.

The actual demand is to understand and to show the forces playing deep underwater.
And to preview where these forces are determined to strike against.

Kind regards, Gerhard

DG , Sep 15 2020 13:30 utc | 7
They are all Judith Miller now.
morongobill , Sep 15 2020 13:39 utc | 8
Like the famed slogan of septic tank pumpers, the Gray Lady's masthead should read, "Your shit is our bread and butter!"
ptb , Sep 15 2020 13:53 utc | 9
Yep. We're into some pretty overt 1984 territory now... It's really a shame.
Richard Steven Hack , Sep 15 2020 14:37 utc | 10
Gareth Porter's latest on "Russian hacking"...

Dark Web Voter Database Report Casts New Doubts on Russian Election Hack Narrative

A new report showing that US state-level voter databases were publicly available calls into question the narrative that Russian intelligence "targeted" US state election-related websites in 2016.

The problem with these sorts of accusations about "state-sponsored" hacking is they assume that because a target has some connection to a state or some political activity that it means the hackers are "nation-state". In reality, personal identification information (PII) is a commodity on the black market, along with intellectual property - and *any* hacker will target *any* such source of PII. So the mere fact that it is an election year, and that voting organizations are loaded with PII, makes them an obvious target for any and every hacker.

"Oregon's chief information security officer, Lisa Vasa, told the Washington Post in September 2017 that her team blocks 'upwards of 14 million attempts to access our network every day."'

This is the usual ridiculous claim from almost every organization. They treat every Internet packet that hits their firewall as being an "attempt to access" the network (or worse, a "breach" - which it is not.) Which is technically true, but would only be relevant if they had *no* firewall - a setup which no organization runs these days. By definition, 99.99999% of those attempts are random mass scans of a block of IP addresses by either a hacker or some malware on someone else's machine - or even a computer security researcher attempting to find out how many sites are vulnerable.

Hoarsewhisperer , Sep 15 2020 14:52 utc | 11
"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Barflies should write Gen Frank McKenzie inside the back cover of their diaries, and count the days until we hear of/from him again. I've a feeling he's crossed a line and knows precisely what he's doing and why. Imo, the Swamp has just been put on notice.

Sakineh Bagoom , Sep 15 2020 14:54 utc | 12
Posted by: vk | Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of "public opinion".

vk, I can't find anything regarding this coinage. Could you please provide a link.
Wiki is specially devoid of it and it goes back to 16 century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion The term public opinion was derived from the French opinion publique which was first used in 1588 by Michel de Montaigne in the second edition of his Essays

juliania , Sep 15 2020 15:12 utc | 13
Thank you, b. In this world of illusion that mainstream press provides it is forgivable that we cannot even convince members of our own families that are dear to us of the underlying truths behind what these masters of deception continue to print. Surely they only do so because livelihoods are threatened, and the public perceptions are reaching a critical point where belief in what they write, read by the diminishing numbers of faithful few, reaches a pinnacle of perception and spills chaotically down into a watershed of realization.

I remember when we were told what happens on the top floor of the New York Times. It opened my eyes. And perhaps here also, b is providing a chink through which we may glimpse what is happening in military circles in fields of operation where facts collide with fiction:

"We have had more indirect fire attacks around and against our bases the first half of this year than we did the first half of last year," Gen. Frank McKenzie, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said. "Those attacks have been higher."
...
McKenzie's comments came just hours after he announced the United States would be cutting its footprint in Iraq by almost half by the end of September, with about 2,200 troops leaving the country.
vk , Sep 15 2020 15:13 utc | 14
@ Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Sep 15 2020 14:54 utc | 12

On Hayek's "tiering", google "IHS model" ("pyramid of social change") and his book "The Intellectuals and Socialism".

On Popper's conception of "public opinion", see "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945). Yes, the term itself is not Popper's invention - he never claimed to have done so. But he gave it a "twist", and we can say nowadays every Western journalist's conception of "public opinion" is essentially Popper's.

Kooshy , Sep 15 2020 15:36 utc | 18
Why do swallow their bullshit?

because on matters related to Iran, China and Russia, they are not independent, there is no real difference between the two camps in US, Biden' foreign policy which is endorsed and supported by NYT and WP is not that different than Trump's, if not more radical. There is no free press in US, as matter of fact, as long as this United Oligarchy of America exist there will be no free press.

Sakineh Bagoom , Sep 15 2020 15:50 utc | 20
OK, I admit it. I read this rag, just because Paul Pillar posts there. And yes, there is an "Iran derangement" syndrome in US, where people go to sleep and dream Iran. They wake up from wet dream of bloody Iranian babies, asking, have we sanctioned Iran today? https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/09/14/when-it-comes-to-iran-how-many-failures-is-enough-for-pompeo/
jayc , Sep 15 2020 16:01 utc | 22
As well, this fake news propaganda barrage continues in the context of determined censorship of alternative media and social media - a campaign which has been largely promoted by the liberal intelligentsia in the US, in the name of reducing "fake news." Having to live within an ever-widening swamp of utter BS is wearying and mind-numbing - also to the point, one may assume.
Kooshy , Sep 15 2020 16:19 utc | 23
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Sep 15 2020 12:56 utc | 5

Yes, I agree, IMO/observation, the US Government, the political parties and their supportive media are rapidly ideologically polarizing their constituencies to two hard entrenched ideological camps (which as you say has become hard shelled impenetrable). Except on one common ideological point, which almost all the population has been and is being brain washed as young as first grade, this common used term, which shield you from needing to investigate or form any other opinion is: US has always been, is and will be a "force for good" by its constitution, no matter what she has done or will do. This sentence when fully believed and carved in one' mind from childhood is very difficult to erase and crack. These two ideologically opposing camps about 70% of the population will not want to hear any fact or not, other than what they are told and believed all their life.

Noirette , Sep 15 2020 16:59 utc | 31
Re. K. Popper and topic above:

"Unlike utopian engineering, piecemeal social engineering must be "small scale," Popper said, meaning that social reform should focus on changing one institution at a time. Also, whereas utopian engineering aims for lofty and abstract goals (for example, perfect justice, true equality, a higher kind of happiness), piecemeal social engineering seeks to address concrete social problems (for example, poverty, violence, unemployment, environmental degradation, income inequality). It does so through the creation of new social institutions or the redesign of existing ones. These new or reconfigured institutions are then tested through implementation and altered accordingly and continually in light of their effects. Institutions thus may undergo gradual improvement overtime and social ills gradually reduced. Popper compared piecemeal social engineering to physical engineering. Just as physical engineers refine machines through a series of small adjustments to existing models, social engineers gradually improve social institutions through "piecemeal tinkering." In this way, "[t]he piecemeal method permits repeated experiments and continuous readjustments" (Open Society Vol 1., 163).

Only such social experiments, Popper said, can yield reliable feedback for social planners. In contrast, as discussed above, social reform that is wide ranging, highly complex and involves multiple institutions will produce social experiments in which it is too difficult to untangle causes..."

from: https://iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

So Top-Down with a vengeance, but softly, softly, hunting for 'good results', for what and how these are defined is left out entirely, and who exactly runs the process...? (Btw China sorta follows this approach with 'social experiments' gathering data that is analysed etc. to improve governance.)

Biswapriya Purkayast , Sep 15 2020 17:16 utc | 33
Don't forget that the only time the Amerikastani Empire's warmongering imperialist media called Trump "presidential" was when he launched missiles at Syria on false pretences in support of al Qaeda.
David G , Sep 15 2020 17:16 utc | 34
The statement by praetor McKenzie probably won't do much to remove the "Russian bounties" tale from the received Beltway belief structure, where it lodged immediately upon publication, any more than earlier refutations, or its inherent implausibility, did. I see the bounties regularly referred to by Dems and Dem-adjacent media as established fact.

In the same light, it's worthwhile to read the Politico article on the alleged Iranian designs on the purse princess and try to spot other fictions included as supposedly factual background, some qualified as being American assertions, but others presented as undisputed fact, such as:

This new one about the plot to get the ambassador in Pretoria may be too trivial to get sustained attention, but it will show up as background in some future Politico article or the like, joining the rest in the Beltway's version of reality, which at this point is made almost entirely of these falsehoods encrusting on each other, decade after decade, creating the phony geopolitical mindscape these people live in.

Mere factual refutation – even from otherwise establishment-approved sources – won't remove these barnacles. For instance, in February the NY Times itself published a debunking of the initial account that it was an Iran-backed Shia militia, as opposed to Salafist I.S.-affiliated forces, that killed that U.S. contractor last December. But the good (if delayed) reporting is forgotten; the lie persists. The same fate awaits McKenzie's dismissal of the Russian bounties nonsense.

conspiracy-theorist , Sep 15 2020 18:04 utc | 37
The thoughtful reader would at this point stop and ponder. "Fake News About Iran, Russia, China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread". I agree with this statement. But not just U.S. Journalism. Minimally U.K. Journalism is on-board, if not tutoring the Yanks in the art of Journalism. And then there is Europe herself, she too has armies of Journalists and many Journals. They too mostly fake around in general.

Now then, that leave Journalism in "Iran, Russia, China". It is fine trait to root for underdogs but Journalism in these states is also subject to a highly controlled and managed environment. It is disingenuous to ignore these facts.

Given this congregation of "fakers", worldwide, it is very reasonable to question the very "fight" that these "fakers" keep telling us is on between the "adversaries".

vinnieoh , Sep 15 2020 18:24 utc | 40
Good to see so many being able to name the operation of the official narrative. It serves also another purpose, witnessed by one of the most consequential actions of all, the wanton abandonment of international law and accountability - the GWOT and the launching of same in Afghanistan and Iraq. That other purpose is to create cover for those, elected in our name, to avoid responsibility.

"Who knew?" asked the soulless Rumsfeld. And the refrain returned from the hollowed out halls of the Greatest Democracy On Earth (tm) - "We were misled!", "Look it says so right there in the official narrative, REMEMBER?" But the misleaders are never rounded up and never face any consequences, cause truth be told all that voted for the AUMF belong in the pokey. And the congressional class of '02-'03 would do the same thing all over again, 'cause the narrative's got their back.

karlof1 , Sep 15 2020 18:34 utc | 41
Despite the future grimness predicted by 1984 , the ability and effectiveness of Media Structures to openly lie and thus herd the public to embrace the preferred Narrative hasn't turned out quite the way Orwell thought it might. Former authoritarian blocs learned the hard way that it's better to tell their citizens the truth and actively engage them in governance, while the Anglo-Imperial powers have gone in the opposite direction, thus the question why? IMO, the longstanding Narrative related to the mythical Dream has greatly eroded in the face of Reality, while at the same time the Rentier Class and the Duopoly it controls needs to try and obfuscate what it's doing. And thus we've seen the rise of BigLie Media to be used for the purpose of Divide and Rule. There're numerous works detailing how and why; two of the more important are Manufacturing of Consent and J is for Junk Economics . Part of the overall process of dumbing-down populations is the deliberate destruction of the educational process, particularly in the areas of philosophy and political-economy/history, which are essentially connected as one when considering the History of Ideas or a sub-area like the Philosophy of Science.

Such a dumbing-down of a nation's populous can be measured, the USSR and its Warsaw Bloc being the most evident, but also The Inquisition and its affect on the advancement of science within the regions it ruled, and the inward turning of China during the Ming Dynasty which allowed for its subjugation by Western forces beginning in the 16th Century. Most recently, this is evident in China's passing the Outlaw US Empire in terms of geoeconomics and thus overall geopolitical power. An explanation for India's inability to match China's development can be found in its refusal to do away with its semi-feudal caste system and not educate its masses so they can become a similar collective dynamo as in China. At the beginning of his brief tenure, JFK noted the Knowledge Gap that existed between a USSR that was nearing its intellectual heights (although that wasn't known then) and the USA whose educational system effectively excluded @60% of students from having the opportunity to advance. There would never have been a Dot.Com economy without JFK's initiative to improve educational outcomes. There seems to be a notion within the Outlaw US Empire's elite that an well educated populace presents a danger to their rule and they can get by using AI and Robotics to further their future plans. Here I'd refer such thinkers to the lessons provided by the failure of Asimov's Galactic Empire in his Foundation series of books--particular their reliance on AI, robotics, dumbing-down the populace to the point where no one recalls how atomics functioned. The sort of balance sheet being constructed by the Fed cannot repair or replace crumbling infrastructure or train the engineers needed to perform the work.

So, what continual BigLie Media lies tell us is the continued downward spiral of the West's intellectual abilities will continue while an East that values the Truth and Discovery moves on to eclipse it, mainly because the West has stopped trying, thinking it's found a better way based on the continual amassing of Debt, which is seen as wealth on their balance sheets. Ultimately, the West thinks the one person holding all the assets as the winner of its Zero-sum Monopoly Game is a better outcome than having millions of people sharing the winnings of a Win-Win system that promotes the wellbeing of all. I can tell you now which philosophy will triumph, but you all ought to be capable of reasoning that outcome.

Steve , Sep 15 2020 18:59 utc | 43
After a sound and an in-depth analysis, b sometimes confounds me with his credulity. Take this sentence for example: "Why do U.S. journalist presume that the agencies and anonymous officials who work under him are more truthful in their uttering than the man himself is hard to understand. Why do swallow their bullshit?" Of course there is no daylight between the US, and indeed the whole Western governments, and its Press. Other than few independent blog site such as this, every media outlet is in the service of its home government or foreign sponsors. Only born-suckers take the corporate media at face value. Modern journalism is nothing but an aggressive propaganda racket.

Mark2 , Sep 15 2020 19:13 utc | 45

You only have to look at who owns the media and who their close friends are, to understand why the media says what it says or lies what it lies ! It's an industry promoting the elites self-interest, creating fictioous enemy countries to feed the arms industry and create US domestic mass paranoia. The Israeli lobby groups are at the wheel of the whole dam clown car.
chet380 , Sep 15 2020 19:45 utc | 46
Even more admiration for coining 'Vichy Press'.
uncle tungsten , Sep 15 2020 20:39 utc | 49
Biden is outed in his coup machinations by Fort Russ a tale told with a bit of media spin.
Josh , Sep 15 2020 20:40 utc | 50
Using lies (bearing false witness) to cause murder and theft are not exactly a new phenomenon. These 'groups of individuals', which are employing these fabricated deceptions, are doing nothing less than trying to commit murder and theft.
Josh , Sep 15 2020 20:41 utc | 51
These acts happen to constitute real crimes, or at least attempted criminal acts, in reality.
Yeah, Right , Sep 15 2020 22:07 utc | 53
No doubt the two propaganda streams will merge until we will be told that the CIA now believes that Iran will attempt plausible deniability by funnelling the money through Putin, who will offer it to the Taliban by way of a bounty on the Ambassador's head.

The CIA's wet dream: the Taliban does it, Putin arranged it, but it was all Iran's fault, leading to:
A) infinite occupation of the poppy fie.... sorry, Afghanistan
B) even more sanctions on Russia
C) war with Iran

What's not to like?

spindoctor , Sep 15 2020 23:18 utc | 56
Posted by: vk | Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4
In the 1920s (or 30s), far-rightist Karl Popper coined the concept of "public opinion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallizing_Public_Opinion published 1923.

spindoctor , Sep 15 2020 23:25 utc | 57
Posted by: vk | Sep 15 2020 12:54 utc | 4

From the link just cited:

'"Public opinion", according to Bernays, is an amorphous group of judgments which are not well elaborated even in the head of a single average individual. He extracts a quotation from Wilfred Trotter, which states that this average man has many strong convictions whose origin he can't explain (Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, p. 36). People's minds have "logic-proof compartments" which must be approached by means beyond the rational. (pp. 61–68).'

vk , Sep 16 2020 1:12 utc | 58
@ Posted by: spindoctor | Sep 15 2020 23:18 utc | 56

Yes, I forgot to mention this very important book. If I'm not mistaken (and I may be), Popper got the term from Bernays.

Popper, von Hayek... these guys are the fathers of neoliberalism. I'm not mentioning backyard intellectuals here. They shaped the West as we know it today and, if you're a Westerner and wants to understand the civilization you live in, you have to know what they formulated.

Just to clear that off: I don't agree with Popper's (or Bernays, for that matter) conception on "public opinion". The Marxist conception of ideology is much more complete and precise scientifically.

ptb , Sep 16 2020 1:35 utc | 59
@karlof1 41

Speaking of education (although of science/tach, rather than critical thinking)...

Add in the migration of top-level educated individuals. In the US, an underdeveloped primary/secondary school system creates room at the university/grad level to absorb talent from the rest of the world. For many years, this was a source of competitive advantage -- imported human capital is better than home grown, because if you import, you take it away from someone else. Clever!

It was not that big a deal for the US if social mobility of native born lower and middle classes was stifled somewhat. (and I would say it still would not be a big deal if the resources of the country were not so grossly mismanaged/wasted/stolen).

But in the current century, or certainly the decade now ending, China alone can fill every US grad school science/tech program and still have people to spare for itself. Other parts of the world are right up there as well.

And then you have computers. Sometime between 2000 and 2010, computers became pretty much cheap enough that you could give one to a every kid, even in families of limited means. Provided the primary/secondary education system is there to support it, a country could develop as much tech talent as they had population. The first generation of kids whose childhood took place under this condition is now coming out of university - I would think vastly greater in numbers than any amount the US (or Euro) higher educational system can absorb. Should be a pretty serious shifting of gears in how human capital is distributed worldwide.

But none of this is about critical thinking. Few systems of organizing society actually promote that ... it tends to happen in spite of the organizing principles, rather than because of them. Nor are the most educated (regardless of country of origin) any less susceptible to the propaganda - if anything they are more so, due to the design of the message, because it is more important that they receive it. You want a book recommendation that talks about that, check out 'Disciplined Minds' by Jeff Schmidt (though perhaps with an overly pessimistic outlook -- people can recognize the reality he describes and deal with it... it is only the more naive/idealistic types who fall extra hard for the mythology and then find themselves in a conflict they can't handle). There are lots of other avenues to take too... about the psychology of self-discovery, discovery of self-vs-social-organism etc....

uncle tungsten , Sep 16 2020 4:34 utc | 61
Conspiracy-theorist #37

Exactly that and yet we are constantly fed a diet from the bottom of the barrel. NYT? WAPO? They are rags. Gutter press peddling drivel. Surely there are more erudite and critical publications in this world than these USA drivel sheets. I am aware of good journalism in Switzerland and elsewhere but currently separted from a device adequate to translate and quote.

Thank you Conspiracy-theorist it I way past time we escaped the neverending story of BS + HATE.

Greg L , Sep 16 2020 6:12 utc | 62
And this tidbit? Deep state is as deep state does... Trump Claims He Wanted To Assassinate Syrian President Assad, But Mattis Opposed It
vato , Sep 16 2020 7:49 utc | 63
A propos fake news, John Helmer reports on the Navalny saga and was lately on the Gorilla radio podcast with Chris Cook to discuss the newest events. It's a one-hour-talk but very enjoyable listening to Helmer. You can also follow his reports on his blog Dances With Bears .
vinnieoh , Sep 16 2020 12:55 utc | 64
karlof1 | Sep 15 2020 18:34 utc | 41

Try this on for size. This is a conclusion I arrived at several decades ago, wrote about several times, but not recently.

Everything that was accomplished (albeit incompletely or moderately) through the New Deal and then the abortive Great Society absolutely spooked the oligarchy. Lifting much of the working class out of absolute wage slavery to the point where the next rung on Maslow's ladder was at least visible. And when it all culminated in the late 60's and early 70's with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Surface Mining act, and various labor protection measures, the wealthy owner class decided the proles had gained too much power to influence "their" captive government.

The princes and barons of industry and finance were very open about their complaints. The advance of regulation on their ability to pollute and to exploit must stop or they would take their bundles of riches and go elsewhere. It is what Saint Ronny was ALL about. And so all that got fat and filthy rich during the real American Century took their wealth where regulation and labor fairness and justice didn't exist to continue their exorbitant profit taking.

And then they imported those cheap products here to wreak what was left of our industrial base and to impress on all of us that they remain the boss, the real power. Drive down wages, destroy pensions and safety nets and put US proles back into wage slavery. Remember the 80's and 90's when Wal-Mart basically told established and storied US manufacturers "either you produce the goods we want for what our Asian suppliers can make them for, or you're finished." And that is exactly what happened. Wal-Mart was just the vanguard, it is now ubiquitous. Another aspect of this assault was forcing us proles into the stock market through our pensions and retirement funds so as to make us all sympathetic to de-regulation - so as not to hurt OUR bottom line. Many labor unions became just a sick symbiosis with the industries they "served."

Incomplete and observational, I am not erudite or lettered, but I think it is an accurate narrative.

Edward , Sep 16 2020 13:05 utc | 65
There is a curious schizophrenia where the U.S. press will treat presidential claims about foreign affairs as a sacred truth but treat claims denying adultery, such as in the Lewinski affair, as dismissible.
Geoff , Sep 16 2020 13:20 utc | 66
Living in the USA (Steve Miller classic) has always seemed to me about dealing with falsehood and deception. US highschool seemed like he time for me when the formidable pressure to conform became completely nonsensical, perhaps because it was so utterly cruel, but also because it seemed untruthful. You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and thought that seemed alien to human behavior, but were presented as the sine quo non of how to be. How to succeed, how to live. It seems to me that if you were attempting to retain truthfulness, this conformity was rife with logical fallacies of every sort which if you tried to deal with them, or confront them, you were ostracized or at worst outcast.

In the many years since, it seems like everything else, once a person adopts untruthful behavior, it is next to impossible to change course, so you deal with all kinds of people who have doubled down on their personal deceptions. Marriages based on financial success come to mind, and are like any deception, the cause of incredible dis ease and misey.

There is a philosophical concept I came upon called parrhesia that Foucault gives a fantastic series of lectures on which can be found by searching the web, that investigates the perils implicit in telling truth to falsehood, and the many disasters and tragedies that have befallen human kind in the attempts to do so.

I've come to think that humans by nature are basically incapable of avoiding whatever it is that is "truth." Because over and over life seems to present situations that are the unswervingly the same to everyone. Youth and aging, for example, and the end result never varies, like illness, death, and dying. And everyone has their own similar story navigating the human predicaments and facing an inalterable "truth," which might be in this example, death.

My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not only who try their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who cannot escape an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it. I suppose in this moment of history, you need only look at pandemic, wildfires, and conflicts to see how far human beings have digressed from an Eden. But there must be a purpose to it all? Like, trying to cling to any kind of integrity.

Old and Grumpy , Sep 16 2020 13:31 utc | 67
You think international fake news is just a Trump thing? Just off the top of my head we have thins like Tonkin Bay, Kuwait babies being massacred by Iraqi troops, my personal favorite Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and a multiple of mean Assads killing their people with poison. That is just a bipartisan few. We have one political party, who serves the deep state. The deep state serves the interests of Wall Street and more importantly the Rothschild world banking system. Give the spooks a lot of credit they let us have two "choices" while controlling both. Think of it as a neo fascism kinda thing that ironically finances the anti fascists. The press is just a means to an end. Assume everything is an agenda, and read the independents for some actual thought. I may not agree with you all the time, but I do love you MoA. Thank you for all your work.
ptb , Sep 16 2020 14:02 utc | 68
@64 vinnieoh

'spooked oligarchy...reforms..culminated in ..70s'

Yep. When committed Dem's go off on Trump, it's deeply felt but kindof a ritual rant. Bring Ralph Nader into the conversation, just mention him in passing, and the response becomes live! Betrayal, danger of being shown up again!

William Gruff , Sep 16 2020 14:12 utc | 69
Old and Grumpy @67 has a good point. Anyone suggesting that fake news is in any way related to Trump being President are big parts of the problem for why fake news persists in the first place. Suggesting that it is because of Trump, and thus implying that the fake news will go away when Trump does, is either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly deceitful, though probably both. Trump ranting about fake news exposed the problem and forced it into the public discourse. Those rants did not create the problem.
ptb , Sep 16 2020 14:36 utc | 70
Re: @Geoff 66

"You basically were required to accept modes if behavior and thought that seemed alien to human behavior ... ... forced to double down"

I had short but deeply influential conversation right out of college with a recruiter/HR manager from Raytheon, of all places. He talked about exactly what you said. He spoke, in a hypothetical third person, about a mid-career guy with a mortgage and family who finds themselves questioning the defense industry. How that isn't the best place to be in, mentally. I changed my career plans that day, forever thankful for the encounter.

However, regarding people being able to avoid unpleasant realities, he was of the opinion that for most people, it is possible to do so. Even beneficial. (Except of course for the recipients of his company's products. I didn't say that but I think he figured out that I was thinking it). The issue, from the point of view of running an effective organization, is what happens if the doubters and believers start to mix? Part of his assigned task was to simply keep out people curious enough to ask too many questions. That's one of the "benefits" of really polarizing politics too.

William Gruff , Sep 16 2020 15:33 utc | 71
Geoff @66:

"My wonder as I observe life as I age, is what is the damage done to those not only who try their honest best to remain truthful, but what is the damage done to those who cannot escape an adopted untruth and refuse to let go of it."

That's what modern pharmaceuticals are for, and why one in six Americans (officially) are prescribed them. If we include the numbers of Americans who self-medicate with alcohol and/or grey/black market pharmaceuticals, then the proportion would be a bit (quite a bit) larger. People who succeed at being truthful (mostly to themselves) are not confronted with cognitive dissonance mind-quakes; however, such individuals are confronted with experiencing the retch reflex when consuming mass media.

Is being truthful vs embracing the lies then half-dozen of one and six of the other? I find satisfactory peace of mind from being truthful and simply avoiding the primary vector of deception; the mass media. Noble individuals like our host and some of the posters here will slog through that vile cesspool of lies and fish out the little nuggets of truth that leak out. It is selfish of me to leave such dirty work to others, but at least I am not hermetically isolated on a mountain somewhere.

J Swift , Sep 16 2020 16:12 utc | 74
Kooshy @ 23

An interesting thought. I have long had the feeling that a large part of the obviously orchestrated drive to almost define both of the two US parties with really incredibly unimportant issues like bathroom preferences were designed to split the voters as equally as possible, so that to swing elections one had only to control the votes of a very small number of tie breakers. I still think this is likely true, but I do think you make an important point that a lot can be learned about what is truly important to the PTB by reflecting on the topics that aren't being argued over.

Compare the "two" US political parties, and you will note that while they seem to be getting ever more extreme and irreconcilable and quasi-religious in their differences, these differences are always on the periphery. Both parties are being indoctrinated with certain common beliefs they will take for granted because they are never talked about -- because these points are not allowed to be in contention. So while even something like climate change can be a big divider (no worries, there's money to be made on both sides of that issue, and means of control); but you will never hear debate about

1. America is the greatest ever!

2. America is always and unquestionably a force for good, and even it's proven bad things (kidnapping, rendition, and torture programs) are done "for the greater good."

3. Unbridled capitalism is the only way, and the privatization and unwinding of any vestiges of social programs, like education, social security, and even utilities and infrastructure, is always a good thing deserving of priority.

4. Individualism is the best, if not only, way. To be a hero you must strike alone against the bad guys/the system/the government; someone who rallies others, causes forces to be gathered and united, unionized, whatever are discouraged or ignored.

5. "Leadership" in the affairs of others around the world is American right, responsibility, and destiny. Having the largest, almost entirely offensively oriented military on earth is essential; and having it, we must use it to get our money's worth.

6. Omnipresent "intelligence" services equal safety and are absolutely required for life to be normal. I'm sure there are other examples of "universally agreed" doctrines in the US, but these are some that leap out.

Noirette , Sep 16 2020 16:32 utc | 75
These crazy MSM lies Anecdote. Last Sat (Geneva, Switz.) I spoke to 20 ppl whom I know somewhat, all know I like to discuss news etc. I said, weird news this week, making no mention of Navalny. 18/20 believed Putin poisoned Navalny and brought it up spontaneously! There is something so appealing and narratively 'seductive' about spies and 'opponents' (Skripal ) and mysterious poisons used by evil doers etc. that fiction just flows smoothly into fact or whatever is 'real.'

I had to mention Assange myself to most, but there the reaction was very mixed, most thought Assange was being persecuted, or it was 'not right', and took this story seriously in one way or another - 4 ppl claimed not to know the latest news. Here, NGOs, Leftists and Others have made demands for him to be offered asylum in Switz, so he has been front page.

In F.

https://www.lematin.ch/story/l-asile-pour-julian-assange-est-demande-a-la-suisse-327216661898

Besides that (I'm always interested in from-the-ground view-points, experiences, so post some myself) what is going on is monopoly consolidation:

Mega MSM in cahoots with the MIC, Big Pharma, Big Agri, Finance, and so on. Corporations joining up their positions bit by bit while also competing in some ways, bribing and owning the Pols. who are front-men and women tasked with providing a lot of drama, manufactured agitation, etc., which in turn is fodder for the MSM, etc.

Overall, the most important sector to watch is the GAFAM, 1, the reign of the middle men is close at hand (control information, both the channels and the content, and commerce up to a point.) All this leaves out energy considerations, another vital topic left aside.

1. google apple facebook amazon microsoft

karlof1 , Sep 16 2020 17:02 utc | 78
ptb @59--

Thanks for your reply! I've touched on the topic of human capital and its development occasionally here, positing it's the #1 asset of all nations. Those nations who neglect to develop their own human capital are bound to become deficient when it comes to basic comparative advantages with other nations, particularly as political-economy shifts from being materialistic to knowledge-based; thus Pepe Escobar agreeing wholeheartedly with my comment about India. (He added this article to his FB timeline and I posted my comment there.)

From 1999-2003, I was involved in developing distance learning platforms for the rapidly advancing ability to learn outside of a school's four walls. The other educators I worked with and myself had great hopes for the virtual classroom and what it might do to aide both teachers and students. At the time we thought this development would provide a great opportunity for the third member of the educational team--parents--to play a greater role in the process since active parental involvement was proven to generate better student outcomes. But for that to be properly implemented, equitable funding for all school districts became an even greater issue than it was already. This issue highlighted the huge problems related to financing education at a moment when BushCo Privatizers began to seriously threaten what was already in place. And that problem has only worsened, the vast disparities being very evident thanks to COVID-forced distance learning. The primary reason good teachers can't be retained is the entire system's a massive Clusterfuck. And computers aren't substitutes for even poor teachers. And parents are even more aloof from becoming involved in the process than ever before.

The dumbing-down I mention is now entering its third generation. The educational structure needs to be completely refitted nationally, but I wouldn't give that task to any of the fuckwits employed by the past three administrations--Yes, I'm arguing education needs to be a completely federal program instead of the 53 different school systems in states and territories; and yes, I'm aware of the pitfalls and potential corruption that poses, which is a microcosm of all the problems at the federal level of government. This problem is yet another very basic reason why the Duopoly and its backers need to be ousted from government and kept as far away as possible as the structure is torn down and rebuilt--The USA will never be great again until that is done.

jared , Sep 16 2020 17:16 utc | 79
@ J Swift | Sep 16 2020 16:12 utc | 74

I suggest that the reason that the media focus on the ridiculous is to convince the public that there is nothing important happening - except where the MSM wants the participation of the public as in with anti-Russia, anti_China, anti-Socialism, etc. Good to get the public participation directed at harmless targets.

They've got to fill the papers with something. The public must be kept warm, comfortable, semi-comatose, watching cat videos...

Last thing anybody wants is the involvement of the public, they will only screw everything-up or try anyway.

karlof1 , Sep 16 2020 17:40 utc | 80
vinnieoh @64--

Thanks for your reply! Your explanation sadly is correct, but it was put into motion prior to Reagan becoming POTUS. The tools used to undo the New Deal were put into place before FDR became POTUS. And FDR's unwillingness to prosecute those who attempted to overthrow his government provided that faction to infiltrate government and eventually attempt to undo the good that was done prior to WW2. When looked at closely, American society was generally quite Liberal in the positive aspects of that term and during the Depression was becoming ever more Collectivist with the war advancing that even further. At the war's end, it was paramount for the forces taking control of the nation to push the public to the right and away from its collectivist proclivities. Where we find ourselves today thus is not an accident of history but an engineered outcome. You may recall voices on the Right accusing Liberals and their organizations of engaging in Social Engineering. Those accusations were projections since it was actually forces on the Right that were maneuvering society to the Right while assiduously applying the principle of Divide and Rule to create a condition where they would be immune from political challenge, which is where we are now.

A few understand this ugly truth and how we arrived here. What's missing is scholarship that links the changes that began in the 1870s with today's situation. Yes, there're good examinations of various pieces of the overall puzzle. But it appears that only Hudson and those in his small circle have figured it out; yet, they haven't produced a complete history that encapsulates it all. And for us to have a realistic chance to undo what's been done, we need to know how it all transpired.

robin , Sep 16 2020 17:56 utc | 81
Antonym @ 60
"There are big differences between Trump and Biden regarding their foreign policies: Trump is hard on Xi-China and soft on Putin Russia, while Biden is the reverse."

I don't share your view. The current administration's foreign policy is very much aligned with that of past administrations and the diplomatic circus surrounding the Skripal affair alone is evidence that nobody is soft on Russia.

What differs, however, is the presentation. Trump is criticized (not praised) for being allegedly soft on Russia and Biden criticized for being allegedly soft on China. This clever trick ensures that just about everybody is onboard the bash-China-and-Russia train.

In a violently polarized society, with red-blue antagonism reaching ridiculous heights, people tend to act exclusively in contradiction to the cult figure they hate so much.

If a Trump hater hears the criticism that the president is too soft on Russia, he will readily grab the bash-Russia stick hoping to score a few hits on Trump. The same person's reaction to a criticism on Biden will be either indifference or angry denial. In either case, he will not be opposed to the bash-Russia nor the bash-China movement.

The dem hater's reaction is similar. Indifference to the soft-on-Russia claim (ie. no opposition to the bash-Russia movement) and active support for the China-bashing.

Curmudgeon , Sep 16 2020 18:13 utc | 82
The article and subsequent discussion brings to mind Dawkins discussion of Memes and Memetics. Not those pesky internet memes. The propaganda war is fierce, and almost without exception the people here are poking and prodding perhaps without being able to put the finger on the "EZ button". This is war, baby, so one thinks the following link may be useful:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Memetic+warfare%3a+the+future+of+war.-a0263040903

Wherein: " Ideally the virus of the mind being targeted will be overwritten with a higher fidelity, fecundity, and longevity memeplex in order to assure long term sustainability. When this is not practical, it is still possible to displace a dangerous memeplex, by creating a more contagious benign meme utilizing certain packaging, replication, and propagation tricks."

The lie is irrelevant, whether true or false, it must be believable, and it must successfully replicate.

J Swift , Sep 16 2020 20:34 utc | 85
karlof1 @ 80

You are right, the early FDR days were, in hindsight, one of the most important in setting the course of the US for the next century, and unfortunately Big Business won, taking us on a long, ugly road to the right. I agree this would be a most fascinating history book if some of those respected, genuinely knowledgeable people you often cite could collaborate on an opus.

Yes, most people do not know that the wide ranging labor laws implemented at that time were actually not meant to empower organized labor, but to limit it. Perhaps FDR thought it was the best he could do for the working class, but I tend to think it was more a case of him thinking that by outlawing general strikes, wildcat strikes, strikes in support of other unions, and setting up an NLRB with a lot of political control by business, the powers who had so recently let it be known they were ready to actively try to overthrow the government might be mollified. I think he feared the US was at the cusp of a revolution, and perhaps it was. Whether or not if would have been better had that been allowed to proceed is the big question.

lulu , Sep 16 2020 20:58 utc | 86
Anti-China activists funded by NED & Co make up all sorts of horrid stories online, which are then picked up by MSM and political NGOs to spoon feed world audiences/viewers. Viola, you have "fact-based" anti-China news!

Here is an example how an Uyghur activist in Canadian continue to her make-up-to-believe "1 million Uyghurs in concentration camp" is caught on Twitter red handed .

This is literally what these overseas Uyghur activists do all day. Putting a random caption on a video they ripped down from a medical worker's tiktok in China. And people believe it. They'd even believe if the follow up rebuttal is that this is a forced labour doctor.

Another one: There's a guy (Arslan Hidayat, Aussie Uighur) on Twitter who takes footage of ordinary people doing ordinary things, sets them in China and invents a fantastical and sinister scenario.

His twitter functions as the aggregator of fake anti-China propaganda from the past few years.

CitizenX , Sep 16 2020 21:11 utc | 87
Ed Bernays (Freuds Nephew)

Glad to see his name mentioned here. I've been saying for years here to watch the documentary - Century of the Self. If you want to learn about and understand America, its all here. Government, Corporations, Consumerism, Militarism, Deep State, Psychology, Individual selfishness and mental illness.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

karlof1 , Sep 16 2020 21:34 utc | 88
j Swift @85--

Thanks for your reply! JK Galbraith in his American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power lamented what you recap in your 2nd paragraph and that there was thus no power capable of offsetting Big Business although one was sorely needed. As I wrote, some very sharp minds have written about small segments of the overall movement toward totalitarianism since the 1870s, Galbraith's 1952 book being one that's still worth reading.

[Sep 14, 2020] Russia -- The Revolt of "Net Hamsters" by by Alexey Sidorenko

Notable quotes:
"... This post is part of our special coverage Russia Elections 2011 . ..."
"... This post is part of our special coverage Russia Elections 2011 . ..."
Dec 05, 2011 | globalvoices.org

This post is part of our special coverage Russia Elections 2011 .

The day after the elections , Russians got together to rally against election fraud. Even though the United Russia party, according to preliminary results, is to lose some 77 seats compared to the previous Duma, most of the protesters considered the election to be neither fair, nor free (see our previous reports on the web crackdown and massive violation reports).

After the polls closed on Dec. 4, Solidarnost movement invited protesters to Chistye Prudy metro station in Moscow, while the Communists, also unhappy with the election results, organized their rally at Pushkinskaya square. Solidarnost movement represenatives, most of whom have no political arena except street actions and the blogosphere, managed to bring thousands of people together (while crowd estimates vary significantly, the most balanced assessment seems to be from 8,000 to 10,000 people).

Chistye Prudy

People began gathering for the Solidarnost event at around 19:00 MSK. Georgiy Alburov posted a picture of the line to the site of the rally:

Line to the Chistye Prudy rally. Photo by Georgiy Alburov

Line to the Chistye Prudy rally. Photo by Georgiy Alburov

British journalist Shaun Walker tweeted [ru]:

Thousands out in cold/rain baying for free elections, Putin to be sent to prison. Never seen anything on this scale. Definite change of mood

The overall coverage was chaotic as the mobile Internet stopped working in the area and people couldn't upload videos and pictures. LiveJournal kept the chronology of the events here [ru].

Only later in the evening people were able to upload videos [ru] from the rally and particularly the speech [ru] by Alexey Navalny, who was among the most popular politicians of the event. His speech probably best describes the essence of the current events:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cd_yYhqU_SA?feature=oembed

Alexey Navalny shouted:

"We have our voices. We exist. Do we exist?"

The crowd replied: "Yes!"

And then: "They can call us microbloggers or net hamsters. I am a net hamster! And I'll bite [these bastards' heads off.] We'll all do it together! Because we do exist! [ ] We will not forget, we will not forgive"

The reference to 'net hamsters' (a pejorative term for politically-engaged Internet commenters) and their political will to change the country has destroyed the myth of the slacktivist nature of political engagement online. Navalny has specifically emphasized 'forgetting/forgiving' to show that netizens do not necessarily have a short attention span often ascribed to them.

On to Lubyanka

After several speeches made by the opposition politicians, the crowd moved on towards Lubyanka Square, where the head office of the Federal Security Service is located. The video [ru] uploaded by user bigvane depicts Muscovites moving to Lubyanka and chanting "Free elections":

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1_NMbJTGCk8?feature=oembed

Most of the activists, however, were soon stopped on their way. Ilya Barabanov tweeted a picture of the blocked road:

Blocked road. Photo by Ilya Barabanov

Blocked road. Photo by Ilya Barabanov

Twenty minutes after the aforementioned photo was made, Alexey Navalny was detained by the police. Ilya Barabanov was detained three minutes after Navalny. (See this great photo report made by ridus.ru correspondents here [ru].)

But even the detention didn't break the rebellious and quite positive spirit of the protesters. Navalny, while sitting in a police bus together with other activists, shared an instagram photo of the cheerful detained protesters:

'I'm sitting in a police bus with all the guys. They all say hi.' Photo by Alexey Navalny

'I'm sitting in a police bus with all the guys. They all say hi.' Photo by Alexey Navalny

Another video , also shot inside a police bus, showed protesters discussing the salaries of police officers, laughing a lot.

The Hamster Revolution

The most interesting part of the post-election rebellion is not its peaceful manner (also an important feature compared to violent nationalist riots), but its new demographics. Tvrain.ru field reporter said that the crowd consisted mainly of the "intelligentsia, hipsters, and young people." "It is a fashionable rally," said the reporter. Later, these observations were added: the age of the protesters was between 16 and 33 and for many of those who were detained this was the first street action experience. As Vera Kichanova tweeted :

Lyosha Nikitin writes that he is the only one of the 16 people in the police bus who had been detained before. Others were taking part in a rally for the first time!

***

Meanwhile, levada.ru, the site of Levada Center polling and sociological research organization, has been DDoSed [ru] and the contents of epic-hero.ru were removed [ru] by the hosting provider.

This post is part of our special coverage Russia Elections 2011 .

[Sep 14, 2020] The Plot Against Libya- An Obama-Biden-Clinton Criminal Conspiracy -

Sep 14, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Plot Against Libya: An Obama-Biden-Clinton Criminal Conspiracy


by Tyler Durden Fri, 09/11/2020 - 23:40 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Eric Draitser via Counterpunch.org,

The scorching desert sun streams through narrow slats in the tiny window. A mouse scurries across the cracked concrete floor, the scuttling of its tiny feet drowned out by the sound of distant voices speaking in Arabic. Their chatter is in a western Libyan dialect distinctive from the eastern dialect favored in Benghazi. Somewhere off in the distance, beyond the shimmering desert horizon, is Tripoli, the jewel of Africa now reduced to perpetual war.

But here, in this cell in a dank old warehouse in Bani Walid, there are no smugglers, no rapists, no thieves or murderers. There are simply Africans captured by traffickers as they made their way from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, or other disparate parts of the continent seeking a life free of war and poverty, the rotten fruit of Anglo-American and European colonialism. The cattle brands on their faces tell a story more tragic than anything produced by Hollywood.

These are slaves: human beings bought and sold for their labor. Some are bound for construction sites while others for the fields. All face the certainty of forced servitude, a waking nightmare that has become their daily reality.

This is Libya, the real Libya. The Libya that has been constructed from the ashes of the US-NATO war that deposed Muammar Gaddafi and the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The Libya now fractured into warring factions, each backed by a variety of international actors whose interest in the country is anything but humanitarian.

But this Libya was built not by Donald Trump and his gang of degenerate fascist ghouls. No, it was the great humanitarian Barack Obama, along with Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and their harmonious peace circle of liberal interventionists who wrought this devastation. With bright-eyed speeches about freedom and self-determination, the First Black President, along with his NATO comrades in France and Britain, unleashed the dogs of war on an African nation seen by much of the world as a paragon of economic and social development.

But this is no mere journalistic exercise to document just one of the innumerable crimes carried out in the name of the American people. No, this is us, the antiwar left in the United States, peering through the cracks in the imperial artifice – crumbling as it is from internal rot and political decay – to shine a light through the gloom named Trump and directly into the heart of darkness.

There are truths that must be made plain lest they be buried like so many bodies in the desert sand.

The War on Libya: A Criminal Conspiracy

me title=

To understand the depth of criminality involved in the US-NATO war on Libya, we must unravel a complex story involving actors from both the US and Europe who quite literally conspired to bring about this war, while simultaneously exposing the unconstitutional, imperial presidency as embodied by Mr. Hope and Change himself.

In doing so, a picture emerges that is strikingly at odds with the dominant narrative about good intentions and bad dictators. For although Gaddafi was presented as the villain par excellence in this story told by the Empire's scribes in corporate media, it is in fact Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, French philosopher-cum-neocolonial adventurist Bernard Henri-Levy, and former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who are the real malevolent forces. It was they, not Gaddafi, who waged a blatantly illegal war on false pretenses and for their own aggrandizement. It was they, not Gaddafi, who conspired to plunge Libya into chaos and civil war from which it is yet to emerge. It was they who beat the war drums while proclaiming peace on earth and good will to men.

The US-NATO war on Libya represents perhaps one of the most egregious examples of US military aggression and lawlessness in recent memory. Of course, the US didn't act alone as a wide cast of characters played a role as the French and British were keen to involve themselves in the reassertion of control over a once lucrative African asset torn from European control by the evil Gaddafi. And this, only a few years after former UK Prime Minister and Iraq war criminal Tony Blair met with Gaddafi to usher in a new era of openness and partnership.

The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. Having failed to arrive in Egypt in time to buttress his ego by capitalizing on the uprising against former dictator Hosni Mubarak, he quickly shifted his attention to Libya, where an uprising in the anti-Gaddafi hotbed of Benghazi was underway. As Le Figaro chronicled , Henri-Levy managed to talk his way into a meeting with then head of the National Transition Council (TNC) Mustapha Abdeljalil, a former Gaddafi official who became head of the anti-Gaddafi TNC. But Henri-Levy wasn't there just for an interview to be published in his French paper, he was there to help overthrow Gaddafi and, in so doing, make himself into an international star.

Henri-Levy quickly pressed his contacts and got on the phone with French President Nicholas Sarkozy to ask him, rather bluntly, if he'd agree to meet with Abdeljalil and the leadership of the TNC. Just a few days later, Henri-Levy and his colleagues arrived at the Élysée Palace with TNC leadership at their side. To the utter shock of the Libyans present, Sarkozy tells them that he plans to recognize the TNC as the legitimate government of Libya. Henri-Levy and Sarkozy have now, at least in theory, deposed the Gaddafi government.

But the little problem of Gaddafi's military victories and the very real possibility that he might emerge victorious from the conflict complicated matters as the French public had become aware of the scheme and was rightly lambasting Sarkozy. Henri-Levy, ever the opportunist, stoked the patriotic fervor by announcing that without French intervention, the tricolor flag flying over five-star hotels in Benghazi would be stained with blood. The PR campaign worked as Sarkozy quickly came around to the idea of military intervention.

However, Henri-Levy had a still more critical role to play: bringing the US military juggernaut into the plot. Henri-Levy organized the first of what would be several high-level talks between US officials from the Obama Administration and the Libyans of the TNC. Most importantly, Henri-Levy set up the meeting between Abdeljalil and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While Clinton was skeptical at the time of the meeting, it would be a matter of months before she and Joe Biden, along with the likes of Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and others would be planning the political, diplomatic, and military route to regime change in Libya.

The Americans Enter the Fray

There would have been no war in Libya were it not for the US political, diplomatic, and military machine. In this sense, despite the relatively meager US military involvement, the war in Libya was an American war. That is to say, it was a war that could not have happened were it not for the active collaboration of the Obama Administration with its French and British counterparts.

As Jo Becker of the NY Times explained in 2016, Hillary Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, a prominent Libyan politician who would go on to become the new Prime Minister of post-Gaddafi Libya, and his associates, in order to assess the faction now garnering US support . Clinton's job, according to Becker, was "to take measure of the rebels we supported" – a fancy way of saying that Clinton attended the meeting to determine whether this group of politicians speaking on behalf of a diverse group of anti-Gaddafi voices (ranging from pro-democracy activists to outright terrorists affiliated with global terror networks) should be supported with US money and covert arms.

The answer, ultimately, was a resounding yes.

But of course, as with all America's warmongering misadventures, there was no consensus on military intervention. As Becker reported, some in the Obama Administration were skeptical of the easy victory and post-conflict political calculus. One prominent voice of dissent, at least according to Becker, was former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Himself no dove, Gates was concerned that Clinton and Biden's hawkish attitude toward Libya would ultimately lead to an Iraq-style political nightmare that would undoubtedly end with the US having created and then abandoned a failed state – exactly what happened.

It is important to note that Clinton and Biden were two of the principal voices for aggression and war. Both were supportive of the No-Fly Zone from early on, and both advocated for military intervention. Indeed, the two have been simpatico in nearly every war crime committed by the US in the last 30 years, including perhaps most egregiously in support of Bush's crime against humanity that we call the second Iraq War.

As former Clinton lackey (Deputy Director of Secretary of State Clinton's Policy Planning staff) Derek Chollet explained, "[Libya] seemed like an easy case." Chollet, a principal participant in the American conspiracy to make war on Libya who later went on to serve directly under Obama and at the National Security Council, inadvertently illustrates in stark relief the imperial arrogance of the Obama-Clinton-Biden liberal interventionist camp. In calling Libya an "easy case" he of course means that Libya was a perfect candidate for a regime change operation whose primary benefit would be to boost politically those who supported it.

Chollet, like many strategic planners at the time, saw Libya as a slam dunk opportunity to turn the demonstrations and uprisings of 2010-2011, which quickly became known as the Arab Spring, into political capital from the Democratic camp of the US ruling class. This rapidly became Clinton's position. And soon, the consensus of the entire Obama Administration.

Obama's War Off the Books

One of the more pernicious myths of the US war on Libya was the notion – propagated dutifully by the defense lobbyists-cum-journalists at major corporate media outlets – that the war was a cheap little war that cost the US almost nothing. There were no American lives lost in the war itself (Benghazi is another mythology to be unraveled later), and very little cost in terms of "treasure", to use that despicable imperialist phrase.

But while the total cost of the war paled in comparison to the monumental-scale crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the means by which it was funded has cost the US far more than dollars; the war on Libya was a criminal and unconstitutional endeavor that has further laid the groundwork for the imperial presidency and unconstrained executive power. As the Washington Post reported at the time:

Noting that Obama had said the mission could be paid for with money already appropriated to the Pentagon, [former House Speaker] Boehner pressed the president on whether supplemental funding would be requested from Congress.

Unforeseen military operations that require expenditures such as those being made for the Libyan effort normally require supplemental appropriations since they are outside the core Pentagon budget. That is why funds for Afghanistan and Iraq are separate from the regular Defense Department budget. The added costs for some of the operations in Libya are minimal But the expenditures for weapons, fuel and lost equipment are something else.

Because the Obama Administration did not seek congressional appropriations to fund the war, there is very little in the way of paper trail to do a proper accounting of the costs of the war. As the cost of each bomb, fighter jet, and logistical support vehicle disappeared into the abyss of Pentagon accounting oblivion, so too did any semblance of constitutional legality. In essence, Obama helped establish a lawless presidency that not only has little respect for constitutionally mandated checks and balances, but completely ignores the rule of law. Indeed, some of the crimes that Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr are guilty of have their direct corollary in the Obama Administration's prosecution of the Libya war.

So where did the money come from and where did it go? It's anybody's guess really, unless you're one of those rubes who likes taking the Pentagon's word for it. As a Pentagon spokesperson told CNN in 2011, "The price tag for U.S. Defense Department operations in Libya as of September 30 [was] $1.1 billion. This included daily military operations, munitions, the drawdown of supplies and humanitarian assistance." However, to illustrate the downright Orwellian impossibility of discerning the truth, Vice President Joe Biden doubled that number when speaking on CNN, suggesting that "NATO alliance worked like it was designed to do, burden-sharing. In total, it cost us $2 billion, no American lives lost."

As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning Constitution.

America's Dirty War in Libya

While the enduring memory of Libya for most Americans is the political theater that resulted from the attack on the US facility in Benghazi that killed several Americans, including US Ambassador Stevens, it is not nearly the most consequential. Rather, America's use of terrorist groups (and the insurgents who emerged from them) as military proxies may perhaps be the real legacy from a strategic perspective. For while the corporate media presented the narrative of spontaneous protests and uprisings to overthrow Gaddafi, it was in fact a loose network of terror groups that did the dirty work.

While much of this recent history has been buried by bad reporting, establishment mythmaking, and conspiracist muddying of the truth, it was surprisingly well reported at the time. For example, as the New York Times wrote of one of the primary US-backed forces on the ground during the war in 2011:

"The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group was formed in 1995 with the goal of ousting Colonel Qaddafi. Driven into the mountains or exile by Libyan security forces, the group's members were among the first to join the fight against Qaddafi security forces Officially the fighting group does not exist any longer, but the former members are fighting largely under the leadership of Abu Abdullah Sadik [aka Abdelhakim Belhadj]."

Even at the time, there was considerable unease among Washington's strategic planners that the Obama Adminstration's embrace of a terror group with known links to al-Qaeda could prove to be a major blunder. "American, European and Arab intelligence services acknowledge that they are worried about the influence that the former group's members might exert over Libya after Colonel Qaddafi is gone, and they are trying to assess their influence and any lingering links to Al Qaeda," the Times noted.

Of course, those in the know at the various US intelligence agencies already had a pretty good sense of who they were backing, or at least the elements likely to be involved in any US operation. Specifically, the US knew that the areas from which it was drawing anti-Gaddafi opposition forces was a hotbed of criminal and terrorist activity.

In a 2007 study entitled "Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records" which examined the origins of various criminal and terrorist groups active in Iraq, the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy at West Point concluded that:

"Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group's (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qa'ida which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa'ida on November 3, 2007 The most common cities that the fighters called home were Darnah [Derna], Libya and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, with 52 and 51 fighters respectively. Darnah [Derna] with a population just over 80,000 compared to Riyadh's 4.3 million, has far and away the largest per capita number of fighters in the Sinjar records."

It was known at the time that the majority of the anti-Gaddafi forces hailed from the region including Derna, Benghazi, and Tobruk – the "Eastern Libya" so often referred to as anti-Gaddafi – and that the likelihood that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were among the ranks of the US recruits was very high. Nevertheless, they persisted.

Take the case of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, charged by the US with guarding the CIA facility in Benghazi at which Ambassador Stevens was murdered. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2012:

"Over the last year, while assigned by their militia to help protect the U.S. mission in Benghazi, the pair had been drilled by American security personnel in using their weapons, securing entrances, climbing walls and waging hand-to-hand combat The militiamen flatly deny supporting the assailants but acknowledge that their large, government-allied force, known as the Feb. 17 Martyrs Brigade, could include anti-American elements The Feb. 17 brigade is regarded as one of the more capable militias in eastern Libya."

But it wasn't just LIFG and al-Qaeda affiliated criminal groups entering the fray thanks to Washington rolling out the blood-stained red carpet.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

A longtime asset of the US, General Khalifa Hifter and his so-called Libyan National Army have been on the ground in Libya since 2011, and have emerged as one of the primary forces vying for power in post-war Libya. Hifter has a long and sordid history working for the CIA in its attempts to overthrow Gaddafi in the 1980s before being resettled conveniently near Langley, Virginia. As the New York Times reported in 1991:

The secret paramilitary operation, set in motion in the final months of the Reagan Administration, provided military aid and training to about 600 Libyan soldiers who were among those captured during border fighting between Libya and Chad in 1988 They were trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills, officials said, at a base near Ndjamena, the Chadian capital. The plan to use the exiles fit neatly into the Reagan Administration's eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi.

Hifter, leader of these failed efforts, became known as the CIA's "Libya point man," having taken part in numerous regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996. So, his arrival in 2011 at the height of the uprising signaled an escalation of the conflict from an armed uprising to an international operation. Whether Hifter was directly working with US intelligence or simply complimenting US efforts by continuing his decades-long personal war against Gaddafi is somewhat irrelevant. What matters is that Hifter and the Libyan National Army, like LIFG and other groups, became part of the broader destabilization effort which successfully toppled Gaddafi and created the chaotic hellscape that is modern Libya.

Such is the legacy of the US dirty war on Libya.

The Past is Prologue

It is September 2020. Americans are focused on an election between an Orange Fascist criminal and an old-school right-wing Democrat war criminal. Where Donald Trump projects chaos and disorder, Biden projects stability, order, and a return to normalcy. If Trump is the virus, then surely Biden is the cure.

It is September 2020. Libya prepares to enter its eighth year of civil war. Slave markets like the one in Bani Walid are as common as youth literacy centers were in Gaddafi's Libya. Armed gangs and militias wield power even in areas nominally under government control. A warlord regroups in the East as he looks to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates for support.

It is September 2020 and the US-NATO war on Libya has faded to a distant memory as other issues like Black Lives Matter and police murder of Black youth have captured the public imagination and discourse.

But these issues are, in fact, united by the bond of white supremacy and anti-Blackness. The Libya once known as the "Jewel of Africa," a country that provided refuge for many sub-Saharan African migrant workers while maintaining independence from the US and the former colonial powers of Europe, is no more. In its place is a failed state that now reflects the kind of vicious anti-Black racism forcefully suppressed by the Gaddafi government.

Libya as the global exemplar of the exploitation and disposability of the black body.

Squint a little and you can see President Joe Biden getting the old band back together. Hillary Clinton welcomed into the Oval Office as an influential voice, someone to give words to the demented thoughts of the living corpse serving as Commander-in-Chief. Derek Chollet and Ben Rhodes laughing together as they buy another round at their favorite DC hangout, toasting to the re-establishment of order in Washington. Barack Obama as the éminence grise behind the political resurgence of the liberal-conservative dominant structure.

But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.

Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.

AVmaster , 13 hours ago

Number of wars the boy king and his minions started: 6, that we know of: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

(Not withstanding the proxy wars during the "muslim spring" like in egypt)

Number of wars Trump has started: 0

This is NOT including the ongoing wars that trump inherited but has dialed back somewhat, like reduced troop presence in iraq/afghan.

fucking truth , 12 hours ago

Trump hasn't started any but he still feeds the beast, hopefully his next four will see a correction to this behaviour,one can only hope.

ay_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago

Has no choice.

The economic reality is the MIC is a big part of the US domestic economy.

Shut that down and you would go into a full blown depression.

If you build bullets, missile, bombs, F35's etc. they have to be used or you have to start scrapping them.

The issue though is not the MIC as such but the lack of any moral integrity and disregard for human life by those mentioned in the article. Once the country was put into this position by them it is much more difficult to extract.

Now I think those in the article should be prosecuted for not going to Congress to declare a war and fund it correctly as this is supposed to be the check and balance of a rogue president.

play_arrow
Bollixed , 2 hours ago

Regarding the MIC, many of those companies consist of manufacturing entities comprised of engineers, factory infrastructure and logistics infrastructure funded by government spending that could realistically be 'retooled' to produce things that could benefit society instead of piss money away on the tools of destruction. America is in need of a massive infrastructure overhaul from our electric grid to our transportation modes to name just two. Nothing is preventing those MIC giants from refocusing their efforts toward a better America versus the current focus they are paid to undertake. It's a matter of priorities and right now I find their priorities misplaced and vulgar.

The money is available at their current funding rates, the manpower and brain power is there, what is lacking is the will to turn the ship around and start putting humans before profits. There is no need to go into a full blown depression as with the shut down of that capacity if those entities are given a mandate to redirect their output for the good of society and create things of lasting value. In other words, take the retooling mindset that turned refrigerator factories into weapons factories like they did in WW2 and take the weapons factories and turn them into entities for the betterment of society. And then wean them off of the government teat.

DeepStateThrombosis , 3 hours ago

Unused funds from the Pentagon can be redirected to the Wall and other Defense protections not known to the public at this time.

ay_arrow
DaiRR , 1 hour ago

DemoRats and NeoCons will try every way possible to keep the wars going.

The USA is incredibly blessed to have Donald J. Trump in the White House.

play_arrow 1
muggeridge , 11 hours ago

To think Americans demonstrated in the millions to stop the Vietnam war exposed as a fraud by Daniel Ellsberg in the PENTAGON PAPERS. Obama did admit that the removal of Ghadaffy was his biggest foreign policy mistake. Clinton also in trouble over Tunisia while Secretary of State with US ambassador killed in 2012. She took responsibility but was found not to have acted improperly by US Congress. However her part in this tragedy remains an open question. Today the only Middle Eastern country still standing IRAN supported by China. Syria supported by Russia. Cold Wars never go away?


play_arrow 2
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago

Cold war is an inevitable consequence of a MIC that must continually produce and expend munitions to keep its part of the economy going.
2 play_arrow

scaleindependent , 10 hours ago

Final Jeopardy, genius!

What is Syria and Iran?


HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war.

lay_arrow
muggeridge , 10 hours ago

Regime Change as our modus operandi to serve the cause of military superiority as if pre-set by computer.

How everything became war and the military became everything by Rosa Brooks Tales of the Pentagon.

Something funny happened on the way to the forum; Broadway musical. Hail Caesar?

play_arrow
CheapBastard , 7 hours ago

Hey, military contractors have to put food on the table also, even if it means murdering millions of innocent people in Yugoslavia (like Clinton did) or in the middle east (like Bush and Obama did).

play_arrow
GreatUncle , 3 hours ago

Yep some people don't get it.

With all the military contractors now moved into peaceful protests maybe we actually need more war to keep them gainfully employed.

Get the picture?


2 play_arrow
SoilMyselfRotten , 3 hours ago

HIS acts against those countries ARE acts of war

Don't forget also blockading Venezuela


No1uNo , 9 hours ago

No Libya story is complete without mentioning David Shayler- the MI6 agent turned whistleblower who was tasked with blowing up Gaddafi in his car - but refused to do so when he was accompanied by his wife and children. (under the Tony Blair govt). -yep.
Shayler later went into a bizarre series of personas -which is understood by many as self preservation tactic - (testimony of mentally unstable is not recognised in court - so no threat).

Then there's the covert ratlines of gathering the ex-Libyan army weapons & shipping them to ISIS Syria via Turkey and White Helmets (see James Corbett) organised by HRC via Benghazi -so no rescue for US Ambassador & team (RIP) HRC prefer'd keep op covert. Carrier 50 miles off coast -HRC killed US Diplomats & support team. -Biden knew.

Also check out the courageous Dilyana Gaytandzhieva who runs armswatch .com and some SM in her name. for laypersons overview of extent of games-within-games & wheels-within-wheels in arms trade/ chem weapons "research". She's currently researching the Beirut bombings - which will be another revelation when it hits.

sauldaddy , 11 hours ago

That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to Africa .....Q- That awkward moment when you find out the first Black President brought slavery BACK to Africa

_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 13 hours ago

Qaddafi kept African migrants out of the Mediterranean and away from Europe's shores.
Sarkozy couldn't allow that knowing what was in store for Europe.
He predicted what would happen to Europe were he to be deposed. He was right. Macron's (and Merkel's) policies are proof.
That and the gold dinar was his undoing.
.
P.S. Don't tell the leftists, but Libya was the only case of a successful socialist state. On second thought, it might be funny to see them publicly defending Qaddafi.

Ms No , 13 hours ago

That may work for a while when you pull black gold out of the ground, for a while. Oil declines and free **** armies breed faster. Then you are Saudi Arabia and we are about to see how that ends up.

play_arrow
not dead yet , 12 hours ago

Libyan youth unemployment was over 30% because these spoiled kids with their families getting oil checks in the mail every month refused to do menial jobs. Qaddafi kept the black Africans out of the boats by letting them do the work the kids and other Libyans thought was beneath them. A lot of the money the Africans made they sent home which was spent in the local economies which increased jobs there. Libya also invested heavily in Africa which created lots of jobs. These actions kept the number of Africans headed to Europe a trickle. Once Qaddafi was gone so were all the jobs in Libya and the money that flowed into Africa dried up and jobs were lost. A lot of businesses the Libyans created in Africa were confiscated by the local governments and no doubt given to cronies who ran them into the ground.

No1uNo , 9 hours ago

Gaddafi thought wrongly that job description would save him. Also suggested trading oil for €uro's over dollar$, which blew the lid on powder keg. In the end they say it was the oil, though my thinking was DC think tanks didn't want a monied "Mexico" on south coast of Euroland - could make Europe too financially powerful & too difficult to control.

play_arrow
. . . _ _ _ . . . , 6 hours ago

I had heard about selling oil for Euros in relation to Saddam, but not to Qaddafi. Qaddafi was about the gold Dinar.
??

No1uNo , 6 hours ago

Yep, it's what can happen if I'm not careful when I post and try to watch a documentary at the same time.
Thanks for your vigilance.

In case anyone's interested: ex-mossad agent - 57mins
https://archive.org/details/victor-ostrovsky-1995

play_arrow
Steverino , 13 hours ago

Find the Libyan gold that dissapeard.... and one likely finds the source of the overthrow....

quanttech , 13 hours ago

try the french treasury...

Bill300 , 12 hours ago

Look no further than Hillary's brother. General Gage, a former Special Forces Colonel, had been hired by Hillary, et al, to assemble a merc army to secure Qaddafi's gold amidst the fog of war and transport it to Haiti to be laundered thru Hugh Rodham's little gold mine. Does anyone really think Obama sold enough books to buy a $12M seaside mansion in Massachusetts and the Washington DC home?

These people are so evil.

Justapleb , 12 hours ago

That's certainly titillating. Do you have a source that puts these things together?

I tried some Google searches, but I already know those searches are censored so it is not an easy thing to find

dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago

you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to know whats in the soil

DaCrustyDad , 13 hours ago

Imagine if some country invaded us and slaughtered about 23.5 million (apples for apples based on the 500k civilians killed out of 7,000,000)? Obama and the Clinton's should be playing basketball at Pelican Bay the rest of their lives at best.

quanttech , 12 hours ago

It's mind boggling.

Trump dropped 7400 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019. That would be like 60,000 bombs dropping on the US one year.

Arch_Stanton , 9 hours ago

Libya was a modern, secular Arab state. A model for the rest of Islam. Who the f@@k decided it was appropriate to reduce Libya to a 19th century sh1thole?

Shifter_X , 9 hours ago

Hillary ******* Clinton

Constitution101 , 6 hours ago

on instruction from the cabalist banksters who never permit a rival currency system.

Qaddafi's gold-backed dinar throughout Nth Africa would have exposed and displace their petrodollar scam in which they infinitely print their cronies untold trillion$.

end the fed, and all central banks.

Best Satan in Town , 6 hours ago

That's the story in a nutsh-ell

desertboy , 10 hours ago

The petrodollar centrality gets monotonously overplayed. For anyone who cares to look, the geopolitics of the West/NATO are the geopolitics of all its central bank owners as an interlinked group, who are keeping all their options open.

Destroying Libya went beyond the petrodollar to the fight for influence in Africa's future, where France's history in Africa has made it the designated hitter. Note the new CFR-type buzz on a "resurgent France" due to this role.

No1uNo , 8 hours ago

I maintained elsewhere on this thread, was advice of DC think tanks he was taken out. Because a well funded, well educated, low cost, labor factory resource state on south coast of eurozone makes europe too competitive to DC tank's interests. (and open Africa's growing economy to cheap - outside eurozone - euro profiting business interests).

Gaddafi was never a threat to Europe, but europe buying his oil and building his economy......different story.

No1uNo , 9 hours ago

B-I-N-G-O !
get your case of beer for that one!

not dead yet , 11 hours ago

Qaddafi would have not met with death if he only wanted to sell oil in the Gold Dinar. Instead he wanted the Gold Dinar as the currency for all of Africa. The system was being set up along with 4 central banks to manage African economic and monetary affairs when Libya was attacked. Libya also invested heavily in Africa creating lots of jobs and enhancing communications. Unlike the IMF and World Bank with their draconian edicts attached to their loans, like no loans for fossil fueled power plants and other eco garbage, almost guaranteeing default the Libyan Development Fund attached no such garbage to their loans making success possible. Europe was charging Africa $500 million a year for use of their satellites. Qaddafi ponied up $300 million of the $400 million needed to put up Africa's first satellite screwing Europe out of $500 million a year. Qaddafi was also the driving force for Africa for Africans and which kept US African command and it's troops out of Africa. Now the US has troops all over Africa. Qaddafi really was bad. Bad for Western exploitation of Africa.

At the time of Qaddafi's demise the Libyan Development Fund had $32 billion in banks around the world. Western governments and media tried to claim it was money stolen by Qaddafi. Last I knew the Libyan's, the rightful owners of that money, haven't seen a penny.

Constitution101 , 6 hours ago

great info.

got a good concise source?

dark pools of soros , 4 hours ago

you have to dig deep to get little nuggets of truth about Libya since so many sides want to tarnish and twist to push their agenda and greed on its riches

SmokeyBlonde , 12 hours ago

America, as a country, deserves whatever happens just for electing and re-electing Obama.

Far too many grifters, Bolsheviks, pedocrats, and sub-moron IQ feral ghetto rats oh-so-pleased with themselves for being so enlightened and bringing chaos to the whole F'n world.

ReflectoMatic , 11 hours ago

The Democrats are working with the globalist at the United Nations & World Economic Forum. The program being run is the destruction of the United States and elimination of humans, per instructions from "The Cult of Rasur", which is located in the jungle at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica but now renamed as the United Nations University For Peace. The university teaches occult and meditation and only graduates 20 students per year, those students then take positions of influence within the UN. The cult was founded by Maurice Strong & Dr Muller, Strong also created the Agenda 21 & World Economic Forum, plus in 1982, the more exclusive secret group of 300 called just "World Forum" which met in Vail Colorado near his hippie commune at the Baca Grande in the San Luis Valley.

The GAIA Theory which was converted into GAIA Religion at the Maurice Strong Hippie Commune in Colorado. David Perkins was there, apparently one of the first hippies to arrive at the commune around 1978. In this podcast we get a rare look into the mindset of the globalist and the creation of Agenda 21.

http://radiomisterioso.com/audio/David_Perkins_6_21_18.mp3

It's not clear if David Perkins & his partner, Chris O'Brian, are aware of Maurice Strong & Klaus Schwab conducting the special and secret World Forum of 300 at Vail in 1982. At that 1982 event the concepts David Perkins describes, combined with concepts gotten by paranormal activities at Mount Rasur in Costa Rica, were passed down to the 300 and thus began the creation that has brought the world to a standstill.

Chris O'Brian has an interesting podcast also, describing the Maurice Strong hippie commune, in this he describes meeting Lawrence Rockefeller at the commune.

https://slvoices.com/2019/12/21/the-mysterious-san-luis-valley-part-1/

I saw it posted here that Amschel Rothschild Said Rothschilds Have Met with Satan met the Devil in Colorado , now we know where in Colorado.

And finally, who the heck is this guy, the one in the middle? MJ-12 captured this photo of him in Hollywood in 1972, he was then usually seen in company of Curtis LeMay, grandson of the General who founded JPL NASA MJ-12, then in 1982 he was at that World Forum in Vail and in charge of covertly poisoning them all with LSD. He was born in Berkley or Alameda in 1951 while his mother was at theater watching "Day The Earth Stood Still". Seems there is a message which needs to be understood.

https://vault.myvzw.com/webcs/7V1ewnG0Xl

David Champaign, night manager at the Christie Lodge in Avon Colorado, can give further description and verification that the ultra-secret World Forum did occur.

If you listened to that podcast, there was mention of the "group of psychics" at the Baca hippie commune. The guy in the photo, the link just above, the photo was taken in the presence of Allen J Funk MJ-12, Funk's only friend took the photo, Bob Custer. Bob shared hotel rooms with the Stones & Monkeys while on concert tour as official photographer. The guy in the photo and Bob were taken one night, in Allen's white Cadillac convertible, to a house in the hills east of JPL Pasadena. There he met Bob's ex, Val, and Val's work associates, the work Val and associates did was some secret psychic project in Central America and perhaps in Colorado, usually Val just came over to Bob's house to visit when Val was not off at those remote locations. Secret about it they were.

Shifter_X , 8 hours ago

These are self-loathing humans. Imagine wanting to destroy the human race.

SMH

bobroonie , 13 hours ago

Obama bombed Libya in defense of Islamic terrorists he sold weapons to. 600 requests for more security from Ambassador Stevens unanswered.. But when defense contractor Osprey Global's Sidney Blumenthal called Clinton gave him special treatment. Lots of money to be made for a defense contractor and the Secretary of State that starts the war.

not dead yet , 12 hours ago

At the time Stevens died, he was not murdered he died of smoke inhalation as the invaders set the place on fire and the safe room wasn't air tight, Benghazi was the most dangerous place on earth for diplomats. Attempted murders and kidnappings of diplomats were so rife that most governments closed their missions and evacuated their people. Stevens was well aware of this and he went to Benghazi, the US Embassy is in Tripoli, anyway with his last meeting running guns with the Turks. By doing so he signed his death warrant. According to many at the time Stevens was begging for more security shortly before he left for Benghazi he was offered a military security detachment that was already in Tripoli and Stevens refused. Seems Stevens and Hillary didn't want the military to know what they were up to.

quanttech , 12 hours ago

the ambassador got what was coming to him. he was a terrorist, plain and simple.

the rest of the Americans were rescued ... by Qadaffi loyalists. the Americans are shy to admit this.

David2923 , 5 hours ago

Facts you probably do not know about Libya under Muammar Gaddafi:

• There are no electricity bills in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

• There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

• If a Libyan is unable to find employment after graduation, the state pays the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.

• Should Libyans want to take up a farming career, they receive farm land, a house, equipment, seed and livestock to kick start their farms – all for free.

• Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country.

• A home considered a human right in Libya. (In Qaddafi's Green Book it states: "The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others.")

• All newlyweds in Libya receive 60,000 Dinar (US$ 50,000 ) by the government to buy their first apartment so to help start a family.

• A portion of Libyan oil sales is credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

• A mother who gives birth to a child receives US $5,000.

• When a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidizes 50% of the price.

• The price of petrol in Libya is $0.14 per liter.

• For $ 0.15, a Libyan local can purchase 40 loaves of bread.

• Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Libya can boast one of the finest health care systems in the Arab and African World. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge.

• If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2,300/month accommodation and car allowance.

• 25% of Libyans have a university degree. Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. Today the figure is 87%.

• Libya has no external debt and its reserves amount to $150 billion – though much of this is now frozen globally.

Here is photo of the man who helped kill the Col shaking hands with the Col. https://news.antiwar.com/2011/03/03/un-postpones-praising-gadhafis-human-rights-record/

Vivekwhu , 5 hours ago

You have explained why Libya was perfectly ripe for looting by the US Evil Empire and its slave states.

dark pools of soros , 5 hours ago

Yes I've been shining a light on this for years. The true history of Libya should red pill EVERYONE that can still think for themselves.

We are destroying George Washington statues while worshiping a black african american president who destroyed the one rare prosperous socialist African nation.. which now has slave trading!!!! all because it didn't share it's water to french/italian bottlers. And of course the Gold Dinar becoming the African currency.

Lokiban , 11 hours ago

Gadhaffi's two mistakes leading to this war.
Threaten to sell his sweet oil in gold dinars

Threaten French president Sarkozy to pull out all of his money out of France and reveal to the public the donations he made to the French presidential campaign of Sarkozy, which we know is illegal because foreigners can't donate money.

That sealed his fate. America needed to stop this gold for oil scheme just like it did in Iraq and French president Sarkozy's presidency was ont he line.

NuYawkFrankie , 12 hours ago

Slick Willy --> War Criminal

Chimp --> War Criminal

Obongo --> War Criminal

Hillarity --> War Criminal

Groper Joe --> War Criminal

Etc... etc... etc...

Are you at least BEGINNING to see a pattern here???

If not, you soon will do as 'the chickens come home to roost' and ZOG focusses it's attention on YOUR a$$!

Apeon , 11 hours ago

Apparently you are not old enough to remember Johnson

NuYawkFrankie , 8 hours ago

I'm holding "Johnson" as we speak... and the most I can accuse him of is being a naughty - sometimes a VERY naughty- boy. Looks like he's due for another spanking!

NAV , 2 hours ago

But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.

Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.

Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.

Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more natural resources than any other.

But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of liberty - the DEEPSTATE.

NAV , 2 hours ago

But in Libya, there is no going back, no fixing the past to escape the present.

Perhaps the same might be true of the United States.

Obama left this country and Libya in rags, what else is there to say.

Yet Obama lives, while Gaddafi is dead, a man who had the good of his people in mind and already was using primary water from which eventually all of Africa could be watered and developed into a paradise for his people, a people who live on a continent rich with more natural resources than any other.

But this could not be allowed by the Devil's Globalists who want to own all the world's resources in order to make beggars of all mankind. Obama was their man. He not only betrayed Africa but all men for a $40,000,000 pot of silver proffered by the world enemy of liberty - the DEEPSTATE.

you know it makes sense , 5 hours ago

Who writes this crap and who believes a word of it ?.

No mention that Gaddafi planned to set up a new gold backed African money to sell his oil rather than the euro or the dollar. 143+ tons of gold and 140 tons of silver went missing.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

truepublica.org.uk/global/hillary-emails-reveal-nato-killed-gaddafi-stop-libyan-creation-gold-backed-currency/

It was because of this lie and NATO's involvement in the destruction of Libya that both Russia and China vowed never again to allow this to happen to another country

taglady , 7 hours ago

Trump: "lock her up" became "she's been through enough." What has she been through exactly? "Make America great again" became we need to bail out Boeing and the rest because of an "invisible enemy." It's invisible alright, because it doesn't exist. The only invisible enemy are the parasites shoveling our money into their own very deep pockets in every conceivable way. Like Biden and his entire family and the Clintons and the Obamas and many others have been doing for many years. Like Bush and Cheney made out so well after 911. That's how Gates and the pharmaceutical industry became so bloated while real Americans have struggled to make ends meet.

taglady , 7 hours ago

Interesting coalition between finance, government and media. Like when Bush announced the necessary, unconstitutional war and changes to our society after 911. We didn't get to vote on these changes. No referendum ever happened. Just an announcement in the media and media spin on public opinion, then preplanned actions by corrupt officials. This alliance was never more obvious than during the cv response. We are censored and silenced while liars and thieves are given the bully pulpit to beat us over the head with their idiocracy to enrich very few parasites, again. Then the public is blamed for the rogue actions of government/ business/media. America is bad. We just keep voting for these dummies. Except our voting system is run by the same corrupt dummies who keep getting re-elected. Hmmm. Just like they did to Kadafi and many others. Suddenly Libya is poor. What happened to all of Kadafi's gold? Probably the same thing that happened to the Pentagon trillions and SS "surplus" and public pensions across America. Taxation without representation leaves us broke, without a voice and broken. What are we going to do about it?

Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago

The problem is you believe imperialism and colonialism has ended in the African continent when that clearly isn't the case, this Libyan regime change op being the latest example of interference you are claiming no longer exists.

John C Durham , 1 hour ago

Actually the end of colonialism that FDR ("Winston, Colonialism is the Cause of this War. This war is going to end all Colonialism".) wished for is hardly over. We got Democratic Party's Truman, not the great Henry Wallace, remember?

Libya only proves this true.

LEEPERMAX , 5 hours ago

America's "BOTCHED CIA OPERATION OF THE CENTURY" as they funneled GADDAFI WEAPONS from the PORT OF BENGHAZI into SYRIA as OBAMA & CO. completed their agenda to DESTABILIZE THE MIDDLE EAST and eventually ALL OF EUROPE.

NO MORE . . . NO LESS

QABubba , 5 hours ago

This is the very reason I sat out the 2016 election. They say citizens don't vote foreign policy but I did. The "We came, we saw, he died" statement illustrated that our leaders didn't have a clue as to the geopolitical damage we had done. The US supported a "no fly zone" in the UN Security Council. Russia supported it. Gaddafi declared his own, stating that none of his air force would fly. The US and their allies quickly "redefined" it to mean they could destroy his air force on the ground, and once destroyed, any of his antiaircraft guns, and once destroyed, any of his tanks and artillery (which don't fly), and his troop convoys.

Gaddafi's, Russia's, perhaps North Korea's big mistake was believing the US would stand by their agreement in the UN Security Council. This and the Eastward creep of Nato may very well be the deciding factor's in Putin's view that he has no responsible actors in the West to deal with. North Korea was watching. Any dream of getting a denuclearized North Korea just receded by about 50 years.

And of course, our presstitute media had a starring role as always. The average American thinks this was a just war, and knows nothing of the slave markets, and nothing about the flood of African immigrants, who are majority muslim, and have no plans whatsoever to assimilate, into Europe. The leaders of France and supposedly Great Britain have stabbed their citizens in the back, as they will now have to watch European culture destroyed.

Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago

Many thanks are due to Draitser for this excellent report on the vile activities of the US Evil Empire in Libya. The power motives have been laid bare, but the massive greed of the US/EU imperial elites have not been detailed. The greed for Libyan oil by France and Italy is well known but the US also looted Libyan gold, just as they looted Ukrainian gold after the 2014 Maidan coup.

By removing Gaddaffi (and who can forget Clinton's evil words "We came, we saw, he died") and looting the gold they scuppered the plans to create a gold-backed dinar for all of Africa, that would have challenged the use of USD, French-controlled "Franc" and other fiat currencies.

That would have been shocking for the US/EU imperial elite that regards Africa as their private fiefdom to loot at will.

Combined with a lust for power, the US/EU imperial elites have an insatiable greed. After all, what use is an empire if the elites can't gorge themselves at will?

lastugro , 10 hours ago

... and Medvedev led Russia abstained (did not veto the vote) at the UNSC session where the intervention was approved. Russia bears a tacit responsibility.

Michael Norton , 11 hours ago

Obama supplied ISIS with leftover weapons from the Libya operation to take out Bashar Assad in Syria. That didn't work out for him too well, did it? Got an ambassador and some CIA spooks killed in Benghazi.

dogfish , 9 hours ago

And Trump steals the oil, the oil that is desperately needed by the suffering Syrians. Trump is a real humanitarian.

Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago

Obama believed every word he was fed about the R2P Right to Protect fantasy concocted at the U.N. At the same time if you knew how dangerous the man was with his Green Revolution and Desert sorcery you would have had him killed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/barack-obama-says-libya-was-worst-mistake-of-his-presidency

The first step of his plan was the Libyan African Gold Dinar which would have been a commodity backed gold cuerrency. This would have broken Rothschild and most of the colonial banking systems. On its own it was a just move but not even the Chinese could have an African Bloc form that fast with that much growth. Imploding the CFA system would have destroyed France as we know it and made it poorer than Poland.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3520920/Now-Nat-Rothschild-hobnobs-with-Gaddafi-jnr.html

https://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/articles/573aeac75632a39742ed39a0/

Second factor was his ruthless plans to deal with his Islamic Nationalist and Monarchist "Brothers". Gaddafis Green revolution could have spread across the desert wastes and easily overthrown the Al Sauds and trapped Arab natioanlists in their citites. Not a powerful fighter but understood desert warfare. It was the cost of Soviet equipment and the French adapted technicals that made him weaker. The Wars of the Sahara desert like those of Polisario Front and Libyan Chad War were decided by mobility.

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

Finally there were reports amongst the occultists that the man was obsessed with the Occult and the Djinn. Giving a warlord his own banking system and access to African black Magic was enough even for the Jesuits to view the man as a threat to global peace. Rumours the djinns warned him of advance of air strikes and gave strength to his soldiers in the deserts made him a force to be reckoned with in his borders. The association with Abu Nidal is rumoured to have revealed things about the nature of these desert beings. If he had the innate gift for it his tribe probably would have joined us at some point. Reports he had fallen out with the real Green a man a sage and advisor to the Islamic leaders point to a major rupture with the Islamic creed.

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

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

https://eng-archive.aawsat.com/theaawsat/news-middle-east/colonel-gaddafi-using-african-magic-to-prolong-his-reign-libyan-rebel-officer

Only God can really judge whether his plan to emancipate Africa was his own power grab to free the continent or another mad man trying to join the global elite by enslaving them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwiCkU73NA

Maghreb2 , 5 hours ago

The Moroccans learnt a lot from that mess. Islamic world lacks something like the Jesuits to keep these things under wraps.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-goldman-sachs-libya/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USJCcZGbb7w

SmokeyBlonde , 4 hours ago

It would appear, at this point in time, that regardless of motive of his plan, the US-backed alternative has turned out far worse. The only positive result is more money in the pockets of the MIC and the opportunity to play war games in the desert.

Maghreb2 , 2 hours ago

Like I said he was a dangerous man. It takes one to rock the boat like he did. End of the day the system could have been put in place for the African Gold Standard to start to expand into areas that were tired of the Central African Franc system but it would have destroyed Rothschild and led to hundreds of million of Black Muslims having resources to throw at Israel.

https://www.investigaction.net/fr/macron-libye-la-rothschild-connection/

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjyRchz8PFY

Making Chad, Senegal and Mali into something like Yugoslavia with Chinese and Russian Weaponry was beyond the imaginings of Africom. Would have lowered the birth rates with the development and solved the migration and economic crisis. Having these countries like Sweden would have also created living space for white liberals who were highly educated. Instead all the money vanished with the Kleptokrats. Its only insane Facists who want dead Africans on their doorsteps in Berlin and on the television that agree with this madness.

Euafrica, Eurabia could be avoided by making sure the Africans slow their birth rates through development and saving wealth rather than following it to Europe when the big men run with gold and dollars.

At the same time he was known as a devil to the Arabs and the dissidents. Sort of like Rockefeller with the company towns and corporate face. You ask the bastards to resign and why all these people has vanished and gives you statistics on how many electrical appliances have been handed out and says he was never in charge and you don't know how the system works.

https://www.countercurrents.org/janson170812.htm

Hard to say but he played the game. Robbed Bunker Hunt which was enough for us. Bunker C%nt as we called him when he tried to bring down the Morgue in Texas. Stuff like that is why the Illuminati are feared. Its hard for anyone to gauge what is going on and what the domino effects are. He was trained by the Americans and British and supplied with Socialist apparatus. Gianni Agnelli the suavest yid since Joseph kept NATO off his back. He had ties to the U.S deep State as well but that goes back to Wheelus.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/24/business/libya-s-fiat-stake-sold-for-3-billion.html

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

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/09/archives/bp-and-bunker-hunt-sue-coastal-states-on-libya-oil-alternative.html

Like we said about the Occult everyone has a backer but that man had demons watching over him. According to some. Thin line between a Djinn and Shaytan when politics and murder get involved.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gaddafis-son-had-fingers-cut-off/news-story/ca6d3416e46441842ac8aca3edb11cb7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcgNqHnjLK8

freedommusic , 5 hours ago

Failed nation states make a perfect platform for a profitable global criminal enterprise.

voting machine , 6 hours ago

Allen Dulles couldn't have scripted this operation any better.

This is right out of the CIA hand book. Regime change 101

Jackprong , 7 hours ago

As is painfully evident, there is no clear way to know how much was spent other than to take the word of those who prosecuted the war. With no congressional oversight, and no clear documentary record, the war on Libya disappears down the memory hole, and with it the idea that there is a separation of powers, Congressional authority to make war, or a functioning Constitution.

Got an answer for this: CUTBACKS!

bshirley1968 , 3 hours ago

" The story begins with Bernard Henri-Lévy, the French philosopher, journalist, and amateur foreign service officer who fancied himself an international spy. "

"Lévy was born in 1948 in Béni Saf , French Algeria , to an affluent Algerian Jewish family. "

you_do , 6 hours ago

The war against Libya is a crime .

The arguments for it are mostly fake .

The real reason is the threat against the `dollar`.

JeanTrejean , 6 hours ago

It's the Frenchmen Sarkozy and B.H. Levy who are responsible for this agression.

The USA and NATO (outside Europe) were just "dumb followers".

Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago

Nothing dumb about Obomber: why did he loot and murder in Libya (or Yemen, Ukraine, Syria etc)? Because he CAN!!!

Joiningupthedots , 21 minutes ago

Everything The West touches turns to rat ****.

Mercifully Russia recognised its mistake with Libya and stepped in to save Syria from the same fate.

Every country, its military bandits politicians involved in the unprovoked attack and subsequent destruction of Libya can be considered........WAR CRIMINALS.

Hopefully one day they will be stupid enough to attack Russia or China and be completely destroyed for their stupidity.

OTBorder@CA , 1 hour ago

First of all, Gadhafi gave an unconditional surrender that was brokered by international diplomatic channels over a month before our invasion. Obama & his minions ignored it. We knew many pilots that flew "missions" over Libya during this war & were involved in a massive bombing campaign. Don't forget the Wikileaks where France signed onto the war on the condition they got a % of Libya's gold. My wish is that someday history will tell the truth about the bastard Obama. Read the Lost Arab Spring by, Walid Phares to see all of the other Countries Obama tried to overthrow & have radical Islamic Terrorists replace the peaceful governments.

csc61 , 1 hour ago

The author gives these idiots far too much credit. People must come to the understanding that presidents and politicians (on all sides) simply do as they're told. It is the hidden hand, the international financiers, who are ruining the world. Politicians are mere pawns ... minions willing to sell their souls for a few short years of presumed power, only to scurry off afterward to play the role of elder statesmen. Politicians are nothing more than privileged degenerates who proved early in their political lives they could be easily corrupted and compromised. It is not them who do the damage directly - these things would happen no matter who's in charge. No, they're simply the ones pushed out front to sign documents and take blame for the world's ruination ... a small price they are willing to pay to feed their narcissistic appetites.

Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago

I would caption that image as "Who is going first to the platform and rope... Biden thinks he has won a Prize and is excited , The Kenyan says you first Bro (loser) and the white Privileged woman is laughing as she says , You have nothing on Me... Bitches, I bury mine deep and dead, I do not swing

Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago

Fair enough..

Now that we've completed stage 1 of the harvest, perhaps we ought boost the Republic of Liberty, and hopefully, temper the anxious wrath of folks..

Libya was a catastrophic mistake, borne of hubris, vanity, intellectual rigidity, vainglory, and confusion. Hubris on the part of some, Sarkozy comes to mind, vanity on the part of some, Hillary Clinton comes to mind, confusion on the part of some, Obama comes to mind, and Ideological rigidity on the part of some, Biden comes to mind, and vainglorious pride on the part of some, the security establishment and their directors come to mind..

Having cleared that, it's no use crying over spilt milk, what's necessary, if the humility to acknowledge errors is available, is contributing rationally, and pernitently, to fixing the errors, and not by the same thinking that led to the errors, but fresh thinking that ought now understand that..

What's sown, is what's reaped, but MERCY it is, mitigates the harvests of depravity, via the provision of energy to restitute, and make amends..

The caveat however, is that mercy is NEVER deployed without REPENTANCE and RECALIBRATION,
which are the foundational pillars that make MERCY provide the energy to effect RESTITUTION..

Having clarified that, it's pertinent to inform, that Providence is NOT interested, in any way, shape, or form, in the damnation of anyone and why?

Well, which loving father is interested in the damnation of his children, no matter how depraved?

Still, patience ought not be mistaken for coddling and why?

With one, patience, the intent is to provide time for change..

With the other, coddling, the gambit is the turning of blind eyes to depravity..

But seeing as God, the Almighty Father is CONSISTENTLY Just, we can conclude then, that patience is the prerequisite for either Mercy or Damnation and how so?

Because if patience is deployed, and the depraved utilize it to change, then their salvation is self directed..

And if not, utilized that is, then their damnation as well, is self obtained..

And thus is the Justice and Honor of Divine Providence satisfied..

It's that simple..

And on that note VP Biden, we'll no longer refer to you as that, but as Joseph..

That ought awaken in you the grave responsibility on your shoulders, like that of the Biblical Joseph, whose father made for him, a "Coat of MANY colors.."

And if you be perceptive Joseph, you're now about to wear E Pluribus Unum (Coat of many colors..), created as a singular garment (ONE NATION..), for a reason (the glorification of Provident Divinity..
)

And the glorification?

That E Pluribus Unum (coat of many colors created as a singular garment..), ought demonstrate to all who see it worn, the goodness, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, and LOVE of the Provider of the Coat..

And considering Joseph, that in service of the Republic, you've not withheld the fruit of your loins, it's appropriate then, that you ought now demonstrate that love for the Republic, by putting it first, just as you'd put the fruits of your loins first, except above Divine Providence, known to you, as God Almighty..

So then Joseph, as we begin the next stage of the harvest, remember your oath that "you keep your promises..", you'll be judged by that oath..

And Joseph, "a promise is a debt..", it MUST be paid..

And to boost you energetically, here's Parton the Sweet Voiced Nightingale..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h7I_9MMcWvk

Good luck and God speed...

[Sep 12, 2020] KILLING GAPON

Sep 12, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 10:30 pm

KILLING GAPON
Stalker Zone
September 4, 2020

Note:

At the time of writing, he is still in a coma in the intensive care unit, in the same German clinic. What happened to him, no one can say for sure yet (or does not want to).

Written before it was not unsurprisingly "revealed" by the Germans that Navalny was poisoned with "Novichok".

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 11:30 pm

I recall how in 2012, having spouted his usual bullshit to the mob at Bolotnaya, Navalny left the stage but did not join the sheeple, some of whom wished to storm the police lines containing them in order that they not cross a nearby bridge over the Moscow River and head for the Kremlin, but went the opposite way, where a line of OMON personnel prevented persons from venturing any further.

A gap then appeared in the OMON cordon, through which the Bullshitter nonchalantly proceeded, whither no one knows.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 12:39 am

I used to teach a bloke at KPMG who believed that Navalny was employed by the FSB. He was a regular sort of bloke: mid-30s, married, young family, well educated, widely travelled, a tax specialist.

Politically, he was right of centre, but not much: certainly not a Libtard and no rampant nationalist either.

He had a younger brother, he told me, who was still at college and whom he considered to be a dickhead because he was a Navalny hamster who attended the Bullshitter's unsanctioned assemblies.

There have been a few Orcs who have expressed their opinion to me over the years that Navalny is a latter-day "Father Gapon".

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 9:37 am

Western regime-change tuners would do well to take notice that Navalny is popular with disaffected children of the elite and the intelligentsia for the same reason The Rolling Stones and Deep Purple were beloved by the youth of my generation – because adults despised them. I still believe Ritchie Blackmore is the greatest rock guitarist who ever lived, but if he announced he was moving to Canada to run for Prime Minister, I would just laugh. There is no crossover in those skills. Well, I couldn't actually give less of a fuck who is the next Prime Minister of Canada, so perhaps it's not a good example, and Blackmore would doubtless do as well as anyone else. But you see my point, I'm sure. Being a Navalny-follower is cool because it is an act of rebellion. Lyosha was a real-estate lawyer, and his understanding of massive organizations like the Ministry of Finance or the labyrinthine workings of the tax code is strictly at the newspaper-commenter level. To be fair, that's true of many Prime Ministers and Presidents as well, but they rely on Heads of Departments and Ministers to know that stuff. Navalny seems to think those people would serve him loyally and make his imaginings come to life if he could just win. It's surprising he has not looked to America there, too, for his inspiration. Was that Obama's experience? I don't think so. Nor is it Trump's.

I suppose Lyosha reasons that if he could just get elected, Harvard would send a team of experts to help him remodel Russia, and doubtless it would. But that was tried once already, and I think the reaction to a repeat attempt would be a little less welcoming this time around.

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 11:23 pm

Fort Russ:

German Claims Over Navalny Just Another Campaign Against Russia – Fort Russ
September 3, 2020

https://fort-russ.com/2020/09/german-claims-over-navalny-just-another-campaign-against-russia/

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 1:47 am

Now the laying down of the cards onto the table begins!

Омский врач заявил об отсутствии токсикантов в организме Навального
11:43

Omsk doctor says there were no toxicants in Navalny's body

"Любой токсикант, проходя через наши органы детоксикации (а это печень, почки и лёгкие), оставит след. В данном случае в течение всего времени пребывания ни почки, ни лёгкие, ни печень не были (поражены. -- RT)", -- уточнил Александр Сабаев в разговоре с RT.

"Any toxicant passing through our detoxification organs (which are the liver, kidneys and lungs) will leave a trace. In this case, during his entire stay, neither his kidneys, nor his lungs, nor his liver were (affected. – RT) ", Alexander Sabaev clarified in a conversation with RT.

And I am willing to bet that at the Omsk hospital they have records of their analyses on hand to prove this. They used a USA manufactured machine to do these analyses, by the way.

This is called "presenting evidence".

Over to you, "Free World" doctors at the Berlin Charité clinic -- better said "Porton Down" and Bundeswehr laboratories!

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 1:48 am

Cue that "guy" from Porton Down!

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 1:50 am

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 9:41 am

I guess their hope was that Russia would just deny and then subside into sullen acceptance when it could not be heard. It does not look like that is going to happen. If Germany has to admit to fabricating its case, or even to confess it was mistaken, it will do 'great propaganda damage' – to use Karl's phrase – to the west in general and Germany in particular. Russia should not let up, and not accept non-answers like 'results classified for reasons of national security'.

JEREMN September 4, 2020 at 1:56 am

Hello again, folks. This is going to be interesting. Dilyana Gaytandzhieva has been working away on researching that lab in Georgia. There has now been a data leak of hundreds of documents from the lab. She had discovered something fishy going on there earlier in the year, a biological warfare program run on Georgian soil by the US. Interesting, everyone involved in fighting disinformation then turned on her and said it was Russian propaganda. More recently, there have been claims in the media further obscuring the actual work there by saying that the lab has been working on COVID research. Right. Anyway, Dilyana's twitter feed is worth checking.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1301547512696901634&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fthenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com%2F2020%2F07%2F31%2Fthe-ceaseless-lies-of-eva-bartlett-or-the-partisan-scrubbing-of-western-consciousness%2F&siteScreenName=wordpressdotcom&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH September 4, 2020 at 2:10 am

Thank you – Dilyana deserves the same accolades as Eva Bartlett.

http://dilyana.bg/

Her original major report on this topic:

http://dilyana.bg/bulgarian-journalist-confronts-robert-kadlec-over-the-us-secret-bio-weapons/

Look forward to sharing further developments.

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 9:42 am

That's a great catch, Jeremn; well done.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 2:18 am

Now here's something for those who think that Putin was "a moron" for allowing Navalny to go to Germany for treatment:

Knowing full well that Navalny had not been poisoned by anything, let alone "Novichok", and having irrefutable evidence that this was the case, the powers-that-be here allowed the Bullshitter to go to Germany, where the Evil Russians rightly assumed that the Germans, on CIA advice, would attempt to use the Novichok gambit, a scam that they felt was an astounding success in the UK.

Now it looks as though the wicked Orcs might now be able to kill 2 birds with one stone: to reveal what lying bastards those who hold the levers of power in the USA snd its vassal states are and to "debunk" (favourite term used by our erstwhile Venezualian troll) the Skripal story.

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 11:23 am

I don't think that was a clever plan by the Russians – I actually think it was an unpleasant surprise when Germany revealed that it, too, cannot be trusted because it is an agent of Washington, or at least that there are powerful American influences in Berlin. I am beginning to get a little respect back for Merkel, as she always has to be putting off some special-interest group or other which is trying to back her into a corner; and, as we're all aware, she is not a well woman.

Russia was right, I believe, to permit Navalny's transportation as it was at the wish of the family, as you stated, and the western media is always ready to scream that Russians are not free to make their own decisions. A note of caution should have been introduced, though, by Germany's picking up the tab; Russia should have known then that something opportunistic was afoot. But now Germany is in a very awkward position, and Russia is actually on pretty solid ground – all it has to do is keep putting the screws to Germany and demanding an explanation for why there was no 'nerve agent' in Navalny's samples before he left Russia, but it magically showed up in Germany. Not to mention that the Germans tried to go with poisoning using a cholinesterase-inhibitor until there was a rational explanation for that, and only then switched to Novichok. The Germans are on the back foot now.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 12:05 pm

"Der Spiegel" has now said that traces of poison have been found on Navalny's clothing, skin etc..

They just wont give up!

But are they still saying he was Novichocked? If they are, then why aren't his fellow passengers on the Tomsk – Moscow flight not dropping dead like flies? For that matter, why isnt Navalny dead? In fact, why didn't he die immediately after drinking his Novichocked tea?

And where were the men in the hazmat suits?

German military toxicologists find traces of Novichok in Russian opposition figure Navalny's blood, urine & skin – Der Spiegel
4 Sep, 2020 18:20

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 11:11 pm

Ummm .how did Lyosha get such a heavy dose of poison that it was all over him, and he has no clue where it came from? Or is that why he's been kept in a coma – so he doesn't have to provide any answers?

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 4:29 am

TASS:

4 SEP, 12:31
Belarusian data on alleged faked poisoning of Navalny handed over to FSB -- Kremlin
The presidential spokesman said Russian doctors were more open about Navalny's condition than German colleagues

"In all fairness, we should probably draw everyone's attention to the fact that the Omsk hospital provided more information about the patient's health than, for example, the Berlin hospital is doing right now. Our doctors behaved much more transparently with regard to informing both journalists and all those interested than their German colleagues do."

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 4:30 am

And the Navalnyites' silence over this matter remains deafening!

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 4:33 am

Amazingly stumm remains Navalny's ophthalmologist Vasilyeva, who usually has a lot to say.

ET AL September 4, 2020 at 4:54 am

She's gone out to stock up on more vasiline.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 5:22 am

What a frightful image that conjures up: the snap of tight fitting surgical gloves as she puts them on her hands before sticking her right index finger into a big jar of that goo!

No KY jelly in the the gas-station with missile, see: just good ol' Vaseline.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 5:16 am

ТАКОЙ ИНТЕРЕСНЫЙ НОВИЧОК. ПОДЕЙСТВОВАЛ ТОЛЬКО НА НАВАЛЬНОГО СПУСТЯ 40 МИНУТ ПОСЛЕ ВЗЛЁТА

Such interesting Novichok. It only worked on Navalny 40 minutes after takeoff.

According to a young woman, the blogger [Navalny -- ME] suddenly felt unwell about 40 minutes after take-off.

A passenger on the Tomsk-Moscow flight, in an interview with 5 -tv.ru , spoke about the incident with Alexey Navalny on board the plane. The girl noted that she initially saw the blogger at the airport in the cafeteria, where she was drinking coffee. According to her, the man was sitting at a table and enjoying tea.

When boarding, the passenger noticed that Alexei Navalny was behind her and she asked him for a photo to be taken of him and her together. The celebrity reacted positively to his fellow traveller's request, after which the girl went to her seat.

"It seemed to me that he was feeling fine, absolutely. I had a photo taken of me and him: you can't tell from it that he was somehow in bad way. We took photos; I went to my place. I sat at the tail-end, where it all happened. We took off. Some flight time had already passed, maybe 40 minutes, and he went to the toilet. I didn't see him come out, I tried to sleep. I woke up because of a stewardess screaming that medical assistance was needed", said the passenger.

The call of the cabin crew was answered by a woman who tried to bring Alexei Navalny to life. While this was happening, his companions – a girl and a lad -- were shouting: "Lyosha [Navalny -- ME] , don't close your eyes! Lyosha, breathe!"

The passenger said that at some point, Alexei Navalny began to shout in an inhuman voice. This greatly frightened some of the passengers.

"In the end he began to shout 'beluga' [expensive brand of black caviar -- ME] , unlike a human being. It scared everyone very much. I burst into tears there then and I started to panic. His cheeks were slapped. The pilot announced an emergency landing in Omsk", the girl said.

After the landing, a medical team came on board. After having been examined, the blogger was immediately put on a saline drip and was soon carried out of the aeroplane on a stretcher. By that time, according to the incident witness, Alexei Navalny was already unconscious.

The blogger's fellow passenger emphasized that when the aircraft was being refueled, people in the cabin were vigorously discussing the incident. One of the passengers suggested that Alexei Navalny had had an overdose of illegal drugs.

"When all this was happening, we were already at the refueling station and there was a discussion going on between people. The woman who had tried to provide him with medical assistance said: "Everything will be fine with him. He will now be cleaned up there and he will be released". There were shouts from passengers: "Addict! Serves him right! ", "This is an overdose!" said the blogger's fellow passenger.

The girl added that many began to intercede for Alexei Navalny and reject assumptions about his taking drugs.

The blogger is currently in a serious condition, doctors say that he is stable. He was put into a drug-induced coma ad connected to a ventilator. A final diagnosis has not been established. A full investigation is underway.

Earlier, 5 -tv.ru reported that the police did not believe in the intentional poisoning of Navalny.


Ate something that was a little off, Lyosha? And washed down with moonshine vodka?

JEREMN September 4, 2020 at 6:25 am

Beluga the caviar? Or Beluga, the secret operation designed to destabilize the Russian government and blacken Putin's name?

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 6:36 am

Or maybe he had a fixation on white whales?

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 11:36 am

Belugachok – the GRU's fearsome new nerve weapon.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 10:29 am

DW

What a heap of shite from Konstantin Eggert!

Opinion: Will Vladimir Putin ride out the Navalny storm?

The consequences of what German Chancellor Angela Merkel all but called an assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny could be serious and substantial for Vladimir Putin, says DW's Konstantin Eggert.

https://p.dw.com/p/3hxQK

Russian society should have been the first to react to Alexei Navalny's predicament. But do not expect tens of thousands of people at the gates of the Kremlin, chanting "We won't forget, we won't forgive," as they usually do during anti-Putin protests.

Do they really do that "at the gates of the Kremlin"?

Many are also afraid. What happened to the opposition leader was most probably designed to warn the politically active: "This is what happens when you cross the authorities' path."

The public will most probably remain as indifferent to the fate of Navalny as to the struggle of the "brotherly" Belarusian people for civil rights. Russians are preoccupied with the coronavirus pandemic, anxious about their jobs and the future of their families. Many are also afraid. What happened to the opposition leader was most probably designed to warn the politically active: "This is what happens when you cross the authorities' path."

That a fact, Eggert?

Navalny is not just a "blogger," as the Kremlin's propagandists like to call him. He is a politician who has actively formulated an alternative political and economic agenda for Russia. Even his temporary departure from the political scene is a blow to all critics of the Kremlin. It is difficult to replace him.

An economic agenda you say? Are you serious?

The question is how cohesive and organised his supporters are. The inability to garner broad popular support has plagued all Russian anti-authoritarian movements for centuries, starting with the "Decembrist" uprising in 1825.

Broad and popular support? Now I know you are pulling my pisser!

No one really expects an objective and transparent investigation from Moscow into the poisoning. The key question now is how seriously Germany and its EU and NATO allies respond.

Talking about transparency, where's the fucking evidence that your pals say they have, proving that "Novichok"was used to assassinate the charlatan who you like to label as a politician and not a foreign agent?

Having taken responsibility for Navalny's fate, the German government has also taken on a moral burden so serious that it is now almost impossible to shed it without incurring lasting damage.

Responsibility for the Bullshitter's fate?

Moral burden?

Oh fuck off will ya!

No, on second thoughts don't! Let's analyse the heap of shite you wrote for DW in, say6 months' time, and see how it compares with the reality of Russian politics.

And I tell you what: Navalny will be alive and well before that time, he will not be president of Russia, but he will still be a blogger hired by the US State Dept.

However, he but won't be blogging from his present home address: he'll be blogging from Berlin or even further afield, perhaps from the USA.

ET AL September 4, 2020 at 11:01 am

Stop flogging yourself ME and let it go. I almost posted a piece by Lithuanian gobshite and FM
Linas Linkevičius. I will not give those likes the oxygen of publicity unless there is actually something new. It seems that Merkel is 'coming under pressure' because she refuses to be bounced in to immediate action of do something and NATO of course have commented. This is the same NATO that wants 'discussions with Turkey' but that Greece completely rejects. Who's falling apart here again?

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 11:58 am

Well, just a small quibble – Von Eggert did not say Navalny had broad popular support – he said the opposite, citing an INABILITY to garner broad political support.

If Lyosha has a complete plan for Russia under his leadership, he's keeping it under wraps except for loving peeks offered to western reporters; I have never seen a complete and coherent election platform from Navalny. If anyone has, please post it here. That means a serious plan in which objectives like – for example – 'reduce taxes' are costed and the explanation provided for where the money will come from makes sense. Of course every political candidate cites the need for reforms, and doubtless reforms are always needed, nobody has a perfect plan. But it is one thing to say 'reduce taxes' and other vote-compelling inducements, and quite another to do it and still have enough money for the state to carry out needed improvements to public infrastructure.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 12:16 pm

Eggert wrote:

But do not expect tens of thousands of people at the gates of the Kremlin, chanting "We won't forget, we won't forgive," as they usually do during anti-Putin protests ."

My stress.

And they don't do that during anti-Putin protests -- ever..

For one thing, Navalny and his mostly juvenile mob are not allowed anywhere near the Kremlin..

That's why the charlatan always surfaces at Pushkin Square metro station and, like a Pied Piper, tries to lead his hamsters downhill along Tverskaya Street towards Manezh Square and the Kremlin. When doing this, he usually gets lifted about 100 metres away from the metro station by Putin's brutal, thuggish police.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 10:48 pm


Follow me, kids!

CORTES September 4, 2020 at 12:21 pm

The Saker lays into the incompetents tasked with execution of the RF's Security Services' "wet works":

https://thesaker.is/russians-are-the-dumbest-most-incompetent-idiots-on-the-planet/

No mention of beluga



[Sep 12, 2020] Clearly abother case of Novichok poisoning

Sep 12, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 7:02 pm

BBC

Alexei Navalny: Two hours that saved Russian opposition leader's life

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54012278

An open and shut case! Clearly Novichok poisoning, a deadly poison made only in Russia, and the Russians have already used it at least once. The most deadly nerve agent known to man and part of the brutal armament that Putin's thugs use on their murderous missions.

I rest my case, m'lud.

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 8:15 pm

Germany has denied allegation of falsification of the Navalny case
3 September 2020

MOSCOW, September 3 – RIA Novosti. The statement made by the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, about the falsification of data on the "poisoning" of Navalny is not true, the press service of the German Cabinet told RIA Novosti.
Earlier, at a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Lukashenko said that Minsk had intercepted a conversation between Warsaw and Berlin, which denied allegations of the blogger's poisoning. He promised that he would give the Russian side a transcript of this "interesting dialogue, which clearly indicates that this is falsification".

"Of course, Mr. Lukashenko's statement does not correspond to reality. Yesterday the Federal Chancellor, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister expressed their views on the new circumstances in the Navalny poisoning case There is nothing to add", the cabinet told the agency.

In Moscow, they noted that they had not yet received this evidence.

"Lukashenko hast just announced this. He said that the material would be transferred to the FSB. There is no other information yet", Peskov told RIA Novosti.

What a duplicitous creep Lukashenko is!

Always jumping to one side of the fence to the other and thinking he is so smart in doing so.

Then again, perhaps he has such damning evidence, but even if he had, nobody would believe it, because Germany, being a vassal state of the USA, is on the side of freedom and democracy.

"Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit für das deutsche Vaterland" as one sings there to a well known tune.


[Sep 12, 2020] Novichok, Navalny, Nordstream, Nonsense

Sep 12, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

JAMES LAKE September 3, 2020 at 9:08 pm

Good article by ex Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray. Novichok, Navalny, Nordstream, Nonsense

" Once Navalny was in Berlin it was only a matter of time before it was declared that he was poisoned with Novichok. The Russophobes are delighted. This of course eliminates all vestiges of doubt about what happened to the Skripals, and proves that Russia must be isolated and sanctioned to death and we must spend untold billions on weapons and security services. We must also increase domestic surveillance, crack down on dissenting online opinion. It also proves that Donald Trump is a Russian puppet and Brexit is a Russian plot.

I am going to prove beyond all doubt that I am a Russian troll by asking the question Cui Bono?, brilliantly identified by the Integrity Initiative's Ben Nimmo as a sure sign of Russian influence.

I should state that I have no difficulty at all with the notion that a powerful oligarch or an organ of the Russian state may have tried to assassinate Navalny. He is a minor irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia, but not being a major threat does not protect you against political assassination in Russia.

What I do have difficulty with is the notion that if Putin, or other very powerful Russian actors, wanted Navalny dead, and had attacked him while he was in Siberia, he would not be alive in Germany today. If Putin wanted him dead, he would be dead.

Let us first take the weapon of attack. One thing we know about a "Novichok" for sure is that it appears not to be very good at assassination. Poor Dawn Sturgess is the only person ever to have allegedly died from "Novichok", accidentally according to the official narrative. "Novichok" did not kill the Skripals, the actual target. If Putin wanted Navalny dead, he would try something that works. Like a bullet to the head, or an actually deadly poison.

"Novichok" is not a specific chemical. It is a class of chemical weapon designed to be improvised in the field from common domestic or industrial precursors. It makes some sense to use on foreign soil as you are not carrying around the actual nerve agent, and may be able to buy the ingredients locally. But it makes no sense at all in your own country, where the FSB or GRU can swan around with any deadly weapon they wish, to be making homemade nerve agents in the sink. Why would you do that?

Further we are expected to believe that, the Russian state having poisoned Navalny, the Russian state then allowed the airplane he was traveling in, on a domestic flight, to divert to another airport, and make an emergency landing, so he could be rushed to hospital. If the Russian secret services had poisoned Navalny at the airport before takeoff as alleged, why would they not insist the plane stick to its original flight plan and let him die on the plane? They would have foreseen what would happen to the plane he was on.

Next, we are supposed to believe that the Russian state, having poisoned Navalny, was not able to contrive his death in the intensive care unit of a Russian state hospital. We are supposed to believe that the evil Russian state was able to falsify all his toxicology tests and prevent doctors telling the truth about his poisoning, but the evil Russian state lacked the power to switch off the ventilator for a few minutes or slip something into his drip. In a Russian state hospital.

Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered. And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok

There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.

The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about 40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency. But my reasons are very different from those of the USA, which is concerned about the market for liquefied gas to Europe for US produces and for the Gulf allies of the US. Key decisions on the completion of Nord Stream 2 are now in train in Germany.

The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt.

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 9:50 pm

I do hope that Murray was writing cynically when he penned the following words above about Navalny:

He is a minor irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia

His popularity here is minimal and his political base statistically zilch, the incessant swamping of the Russian blogosphere with his praise by his hamsters notwithstanding.

I saw one of such hamster's nonsense only the other week in which the retard wrote that Navalny is the most well-known person in Russia and another post of yet another hamster who presented a list of policies that the bullshitter would follow "when he becomes president".

MOSCOWEXILE September 3, 2020 at 10:13 pm

The whole crock of Navalny -- Novichok shite neatly summed up by a comment to Murray's article linked above:

Goose
September 4, 2020 at 00:28
We're being asked to believe by people calling themselves serious journalists, that the Kremlin's thought process was thus :

Let's poison this guy with Novichok. Nobody will know it was us and there'll be no diplomatic fallout.

Completely illogical.

Logic has no part in this machination, dear chap: the people to whom these lies are directed are fucking stupid: uneducated, brain-dead, browser surfing, soap opera and "Celebrity Come Dancing" and "Reality TV" and porn watching morons.

Oh yes! And in the UK they're daily fed pap about "The Royals": every day without fail the UK media presents page after page of "stories" concerning "Kate and Wills" and "Harry and Megan".

And much of the rest of the UK media is full of shite about "football" and its prima donnas -- that's "Associated Football" or "soccer" as they prefer to say in North America, and not "Rugby Football" -- better said: not "Rugby League Football".

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 9:28 pm

BBC

It gets worse and worse:

Alexei Navalny: Nato says Russia must disclose its Novichok programme
Published 13 hours ago

Nato has called for Russia to disclose its Novichok nerve agent programme to international monitors, following the poisoning of activist Alexei Navalny.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said members were united in condemning the "horrific" attack.
He added there was "proof beyond doubt" that a Novichok nerve agent was used against Mr Navalny.

Where is the proof????????

You just say so or some "guy" at Porton Down or some Bundeswehr Scheißkerl laboratories?

Get fucked Stoltenberg!

And Peskov, a word of advice: Shut the fuck up and say nothing.

Don't believe that silence from you will be taken as proof of guilt!

You and the Russian state are guilty of everything as charged by the very nature of the fact that you are Russian, "the other"!

Sound familiar?

It's what the Nazis said about every Jew: guilty of all accusations because of their ethnicity -- not their religion, note: Christianized Jews were still "Jews". They were guilty of all charges from the moment of each and every one's birth as a "Jew".

And the sickening thing is that "woke" arseholes the world over condemn racism, but racism directed against Russians is fair game.

The West stinks!

It is a vile sump of festering shite.

Thank Woden I live in Russia!

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 9:38 pm

Trump the moron:

Trump says he's seen NO PROOF of Russian opposition activist Navalny's poisoning – but has no reason to doubt Germany's conclusion
5 Sep, 2020 00:30 / Updated 26 minutes ago

Trump the believer!

It's called blind faith.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 9:41 pm

From the above linked RT article:

The US president has received heavy criticism for his reluctance to immediately join NATO allies in pressing Russia over the Navalny incident, which CNN called "the latest instance of Trump failing to speak out and call for answers from the Kremlin on issues ranging from election interference to possible bounties on US troops in Afghanistan."

I presume that the concept of "burden of proof" is now a dead letter in the Free West.

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 11:16 pm

I thought that whole Russia-offered-bounties-for-dead-US-troops thing had been 'debunked' for good. Several western sources which are sometimes not snapping-turtle crazy said there was nothing to it. So why are they still citing it?

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 10:17 pm

Editorial Independent [wall]:

Alexei Navalny is one of the most important leaders of what passes for political opposition in President Putin's Russia. Some say he is, in effect, "the" leader of the opposition in Russia. He has just been the subject of an assassination attempt, and lies in an induced coma in a German hospital. It's worth repeating: the leader of the opposition to Vladimir Putin has been poisoned, perhaps fatally, using novichok, a chemical weapon banned by international treaty. There is little doubt that, in one form or another, formal or informal agents of the Russian state would have been part of the plot, especially given the evidence of novichok, and that the highest circles of the Russian establishment would either have knowledge of the attack, or made it apparent to any shady blah, blah. blah ..

Now don't you folks go and forget, BoJo recently made Evgeny Lebedev, the owner of that rag and who penned the above shite, a Baronet.

Lebedev has dual Russian/British citizen and has lived in the UK since he arrived there as an 8-year-old with his KGB papa, who had landed a cushy number at the Soviet Embassy.

Papa Lebedev went back to Russia, where in the immediate post-Soviet years of Russia he made a mint and became an "oligarch", namely an extremely successful thief who had pillaged Russia. His son became a UK citizen in 2010.

Evgeny Lebedev is now a life peer and may now plonk his arse (and get paid for doing so!) in one of the chambers of the British legislature, the one whose members are unelected: they are there either through their aristocratic "birthright" or are appointees, such as is Lebedev.

When BoJo appointed Lebedev as a life peer, the moronic Russophobes in the UK accused that fool of a British PM of being under the Evil One's control.

Just shows you how they know shag all about Russia and Russians.

That's because they are all tossers.

MOSCOWEXILE September 4, 2020 at 10:33 pm

Опубликована запись разговора Берлина и Варшавы по делу Навального
20:40 04.09.2020 (обновлено: 05:19 05.09.2020)

Recording of conversation between Berlin and Warsaw on Navalny case published
20:40 09/04/2020 (updated: 05:19 09/05/2020)

MOSCOW, September 4 – RIA Novosti. The state Belarusian media has published a recording of the negotiations between Berlin and Warsaw on the situation with Alexei Navalny, intercepted by Minsk .
RIA Novosti is publishing a transcript of this dialogue.

– Hello, good afternoon, Nick. How are we getting on?

– Everything seems to be going according to plan. The materials about Navalny are ready. They'll be transferred to the Chancellor's office. We'll be waiting for her statement.

– Has the poisoning been definitely confirmed?

– Look, Mike, it's not that important in this case. There is a war going on. And during a war, all sorts of methods are good.

– I agree. It is necessary to discourage Putin from sticking his nose into the affairs of Belarus. The most effective way is to drown him with the problems in Russia, and there are many of them. Moreover, in the near future they will have elections, voting day in the Russian regions.

– This is what we are doing. How are you doing in Belarus?

– To be honest, not that well, really. President Lukashenko has turned out to be a tough nut to crack. They are professional and organized. It is clear that Russia supports them. The officials and the military are loyal to the president. We are working on it. The rest [of this conversation] we'll have when we meet and not on the 'phone.

– Yes, I understand. See you then, bye.

MARK CHAPMAN September 4, 2020 at 11:21 pm

I find it hard to believe this is real. Lukashenko is 'a tough nut to crack'? The Belarusian government is 'professional and organized'? Well, you never know with the Poles. But it seems so perfectly to confirm western perfidy that it must be made up. Who would be stupid enough to say things like that on the phone?

MOSCOWEXILE September 5, 2020 at 12:17 am

Who would be stupid enough to say things like that on the phone?

"Fuck the EU!" said on the 'phone by Noodles to Ambassador Pietwat.

JEN September 5, 2020 at 4:13 am

And "Yats is our man!" Victory Noodles crowed to Pie-whacked.

Don't forget also that Jens Stoltenberg was dumb enough to think he could drive a taxi around Oslo and pick up paying passengers without their recognising him and commenting on his poor driving skills and knowledge of Oslo streets.

MOSCOWEXILE September 5, 2020 at 5:43 am

And on hearing off a Latvian (?) politician, who had been observing the "Revolution of Dignity" and was involved in an investigation into the deaths of the "Heavenly Hundred", that there were good grounds to believe that those martyrs for Ukrainian freedom had been martyred by being shot in the back by their fellow countrymen who were of a fascist bent, Lady Ashton said: "Gosh!""

Now that really was a dumb utterance to make on the phone, considering the circumstances.

MOSCOWEXILE September 5, 2020 at 7:32 am

Dejevsky in today's Independent [wall]:

It is also worth underlining that the Russian pilot who decided to make an emergency landing in Omsk, rather than proceed to Moscow, may have saved Navalny's life, as may the doctors in Omsk who – despite their professed doubts about poison – administered atropine, the closest treatment there is to a novichok antidote, early on. The claim, made by some, that this was a brazen attack, with the Kremlin's fingerprints all over it, designed to be found out and interpreted as a "two fingers up" to the west, does not stack up.

But the German findings that probably the most influential Russian opposition leader was poisoned and that the substance used was the same as the one identified in the Skripal case – a military-grade nerve agent, moreover, that is associated with Russia, even though it was developed in the Soviet-era and can be found outside Russia – means that the Kremlin has a case to answer. Yes, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the Kremlin is all denials, but the onus is now squarely on Putin to make his case in the court of international opinion.

" the doctors in Omsk who – despite their professed doubts about poison – administered atropine, the closest treatment there is to a novichok antidote, early on."

That a fact, Doctor Dejevsky?

" everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and the Kremlin is all denials, but the onus is now squarely on Putin to make his case in the court of international opinion"

Burden of proof?

Russia has been accused! Russia is not obliged to prove its innocence, FFS!!!!

Where is the evidence to back up the accusation????

MOSCOWEXILE September 5, 2020 at 7:33 am

Link to above:

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/novichok-alexei-navalny-poison-russia-putin-germany-a9703756.html?r=10355

JENNIFER HOR September 5, 2020 at 1:19 pm

Of course the Omsk hospital doctors had to apply atropine because Navalny's groupies were squealing that he had been poisoned. They would have squealed again and accused the hospital of malpractice if the hospital had not used the drug.

MOSCOWEXILE September 5, 2020 at 9:42 am

Sputnik:

Russian Doctors Suggest Setting up Joint Group With German Colleagues on Navalny Case
5 September 2020
18:56

https://sputniknews.com/world/202009051080376439-russian-doctors-suggest-setting-up-joint-group-with-german-colleagues-on-navalny-case/

Russian doctors have proposed to their German colleagues that they establish a joint group on the case of Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny, the president of Russia's National Medical Chamber, noted paediatrician Leonid Roshal, told reporters on Saturday.

Will the Germans agree?

I shouldn't imagine so. They and the rest of the West have crossed the Rubicon:

Alea iacta est!


[Sep 11, 2020] MSM's attempts to spin Trump's attacks on senseless wars as disrespect for military at large are a dismal distortion of reality -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... By Tony Cox , a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers. ..."
"... "Trump has lost the right and authority to be commander in chief," ..."
"... "despicable comments" ..."
"... "Killing generals could get to be a habit with me." ..."
"... "right and authority" ..."
"... "when it's required for national security and a last resort." ..."
"... "pattern of public statements ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Sep 11, 2020 | www.rt.com

MSM's attempts to spin Trump's attacks on senseless wars as disrespect for military at large are a dismal distortion of reality 11 Sep, 2020 12:06 Get short URL © Getty Images / David Dee Delgado 29 Follow RT on RT

By Tony Cox , a US journalist who has written or edited for Bloomberg and several major daily newspapers. The New York Times and CNN are desperate to paint Donald Trump as an enemy of the military, due to his desire not to get involved in pointless wars. But this is simply not true, and Trump has the backing of many soldiers.

Someone should tell the New York Times, CNN and other mainstream media outlets that soldiers don't actually like getting killed or maimed for no good reason. Nor do they like generals and presidents who spill their blood in vain.

Alas, ignorance of these obvious truths probably isn't the issue. This is likely just another case of the biggest names in news pretending to not get the point so they can take the rest of us along for a ride in their confidence game of alternative reality.

The latest example is the New York Times spinning President Donald Trump's critique this week of Pentagon leadership and the military industrial complex as disrespect for the military at large. "Trump has lost the right and authority to be commander in chief," the Times quoted retired US Marines General Anthony Zinni as saying. Zinni cited Trump's alleged "despicable comments" about the nation's war dead – reported last week by The Atlantic , citing anonymous sources – as one of the reasons Trump "must go."

ALSO ON RT.COM After Trump helps crush ISIS, end Korea nuke tests and avoid new wars, Republican haters warn he 'imperiled America's security'

Never mind that Trump and all on-the-record administration sources denied The Atlantic's report. The Times couldn't resist when the pieces seemed to fit so well together for the military's latest propaganda campaign against Trump. First the president disses the troops, calling them "losers" and "suckers," then he has the temerity to say Pentagon leaders want to fight wars to keep defense contractors happy.

Except the pieces don't fit. The many people who occupy so-called boots on the ground don't have the same interests as the few people who send them to war. In fact, combat troops are given reason to hate the generals who send them to die when there's not a legitimate national security reason for the war they're fighting. And the US has fought a long line of wars that didn't serve the nation's national security interests. Even when a war is justified, the interests of top brass and front-line soldiers often clash.

Remember that great 1967 war movie, ' The Dirty Dozen' ? A group of 12 soldiers who were condemned to long prison sentences or execution in military prison for their crimes were sent on a 1944 suicide mission to kill high-ranking German officers at a heavily defended chateau far behind enemy lines. After succeeding in the mission and escaping the Germans, the lone surviving convict, played by tough-guy actor Charles Bronson, told the mission leader, "Killing generals could get to be a habit with me."

ALSO ON RT.COM NATO cannot survive a second Trump term

So no, New York Times, speaking out against ill-advised wars does not equal bashing the military. And sorry, General Zinni, but generals, defense contractors and their media mouthpieces don't get to decide who has the "right and authority" to be commander in chief. The voters decided that already, and they expressed clearly that they don't want senseless and endless wars and foreign interventions.

The Times cited General James McConville, the Army's chief of staff, as saying Pentagon leaders would only recommend sending troops to combat "when it's required for national security and a last resort." And no, it wasn't a comedy skit. What's the last US war or combat intervention that measured up to that standard? Let's just say the late Bronson, who died in 2003 at the age of 81, was a young man the last time that happened.

CNN tried a similar ploy on Sunday, while trying to sell the "losers" and "suckers" story in an interview with US Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie. Host Dana Bash said the allegations fit a "pattern of public statements " by the president because Trump called US Senator John McCain a "loser" in 2015 and said McCain shouldn't be considered a hero for being captured in the Vietnam War. She repeatedly suggested to Wilkie, who didn't take the bait, that Trump's attacks on McCain, who died in 2018, showed disrespect for the troops.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1302611067995074561&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fop-ed%2F500455-trump-military-media-lies%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

Apparently, this follows the same line of propagandist thought which told us that saying there are rapists among the illegal aliens entering the US from Mexico – which is undeniably true – equals saying all Mexicans are rapists. In CNN land, a bad word about McCain is a bad word about all soldiers.

McCain was a warmonger who didn't mind getting US troops killed or backing terrorist groups in Syria. If he had his way , many more GIs would be dead or disabled, because the intervention in Syria would have been escalated and the US might be at war with Iran. Soldiers wouldn't want their lives wasted in such conflicts.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=339455679800700928&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fop-ed%2F500455-trump-military-media-lies%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

All wars are hard on the people who have to fight them, but senseless wars are spirit-crushing. An average of about 17 veterans commit suicide each day in the US, according to Veterans Administration data . Veterans account for 11 percent of the US adult population but more than 18 percent of suicides.

The media's deceiving technique of trying to pretend that ruling-class chieftains and front-line grunts are in the same boat reflects a broader campaign of top-down revolution against populism. The military is just one of several pro-Trump segments of the population that must be turned against the president. Other pro-Trump segments, such as police , are demonized and attacked.

Trump has managed to keep the US out of new wars and has drawn down deployments to Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan – despite Pentagon opposition. His rival, Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, can be expected to rev up the war machine if he takes charge. His foreign policy adviser, Antony Blinken, lamented in a May interview with CBS News that Trump had given up US "leverage" in Syria.

Trump also has turned around the VA hospital system, ending decades of neglect that left many veterans to die on waiting lists.

Like past campaigns to oust Trump, the notion that he's not sufficiently devoted to the troops might be a tough sell. No matter how good their words may sound, the people who promote endless wars without clear objectives aren't true supporters of the rank and file.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Sep 11, 2020] Peak of Sinophobia- Boom Bust looks at US crackdown on Chinese students -- RT Business News

Sep 11, 2020 | www.rt.com

More than 1,000 Chinese students have had their visas revoked by the United States since June, after being accused of espionage for the Chinese military. azn_okay 1 hour ago There really hasn't been a time when the US wasn't sinophobic to some degree. It's one of those things that is normalised because China is supposedly the enemy and because of this, the Chinese are dehumanised. The fact that Trump has seen little backlash speaks volumes of the anti-China sentiment in the US. Enriquecost 8 minutes ago Every year more than 200,000 Chinese students go to the US. That is too much

[Sep 11, 2020] 'Legitimate response to the erroneous US moves'- China imposes tit-for-tat restrictions on American diplomats -- RT World News

Sep 11, 2020 | www.rt.com

Beijing has introduced reciprocal restrictions on American diplomats and other staff at the US embassy and consulates in China, including Hong Kong, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced.

A diplomatic note announcing tit-for-tat restrictions had been recently sent to Washington, the ministry said on its website.

These measures are China's legitimate and necessary response to the erroneous US moves.

The limitations on the actions of "senior diplomats and all other personnel" were introduced to persuade Washington to lift restrictions it earlier placed on Chinese diplomats in America which "disrupted China-US relations," it added.

Last week, the Trump administration said that Chinese diplomats would from now on have to get approval from the US State Department before visiting American university campuses or staging cultural events with more than 50 people attending outside embassy grounds.

ALSO ON RT.COM Beijing slams Washington's new restrictions on Chinese diplomats as 'delusional', promises 'legitimate response'

The announcement followed the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston in July, which the US has accused of spying. Earlier, Chinese diplomats were also ordered to inform US authorities of any meetings with state and local officials as well as communications with educational and research institutions.

Washington and Beijing have been trading jabs for months now as tensions keep mounting between the two countries over a whole range of issues.

They include a US crackdown on Chinese telecom giant Huawei and popular video sharing app TikTok over spying claims, as well as the backing of independence movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan by the White House.

[Sep 11, 2020] Will the alleged Alexey Navalny poisoning sink the Nord Stream 2 pipeline- It might, but it shouldn t -- RT Op-ed

Sep 11, 2020 | www.rt.com

Will the alleged Alexey Navalny poisoning sink the Nord Stream 2 pipeline? It might, but it shouldn't 11 Sep, 2020 17:39 / Updated 4 hours ago Get short URL © REUTERS/Stine Jacobsen/File Photo; © AFP/Vasily MAXIMOV 11 Follow RT on RT

By Dr. Karin Kneissl , who works as an energy analyst and book author. She served as the Austrian minister of foreign affairs from 2017-2019. In June, she published her book on diplomacy 'Diplomatie Macht Geschichte' in Germany through Olms, and in early September her book 'Die Mobilitätswende', or 'Mobility in Transition', was released in Vienna by Braumüller. The cacophony of noise generated in the wake of the attack on the Russian opposition figure is drowning out the reality. As Angela Merkel has always maintained, the German-Russian gas deal is purely a commercial project.

Nord Stream has always had the ingredients to drive sober-minded Germans emotional. I remember energy conferences in Germany back in 2006 when already the idea of such a gas pipeline as a direct connection from Russia to Germany provoked deep political rows, not just in Berlin but across the EU.

Conservatives disliked it for the simple reason that it was a "Schröder thing," the legacy of social democrat Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who lost the election of September 2005 to Angela Merkel. Schröder had negotiated the project with his good friend, President Vladimir Putin, and then chaired the company in charge of implementing it.

READ MORE Nord Stream 2 must be completed: Don't politicize Russian energy project over Navalny situation – Merkel Party politics and pipelines

Around that time, I was invited to an energy conference in Munich by the conservative think tank, the Hanns Seidel Foundation, managed by the Bavarian party CSU, the traditional junior partner of the ruling CDU in the government. The bottom-line of the debate on Nord Stream was negative, with the consensus being that the German-Russian pipeline would lead to the implosion of a European common foreign policy and damage the EU's energy ambitions.

I attended many other such events across Germany, from parliament to universities, and listened carefully to all the arguments. The feelings towards Nord Stream were much more benign at meetings held under the auspices of the SPD.

But over the years, the rift between different political parties evaporated, and a consensus emerged which supported enhanced energy cooperation between Berlin and Moscow. Politicians of all shades defended the first pipeline, Nord Stream 1, after it went operational in 2011, bringing Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

They also enthusiastically supported the creation of the second, Nord Stream 2, better known by its acronym NS2. This $11bn (Ł8.4bn) 1,200km pipeline is almost finished and was due to go online next year.

But now, in the very final stage of construction, everything has been thrown in limbo thanks to the alleged poisoning of Russian opposition figure Alexey Navalny.

NS2 has always been controversial. Critics, such as the US and Poland, have argued that it makes Germany too reliant on energy from a politically unreliable partner. President Trump last year signed a law imposing sanctions on any firm that helps Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish it. The White House fears NS2 will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.

These sanctions have caused delays to the project. A special ship owned by a Swiss company menaced with sanctions had to be replaced. And prior to that, various legal provisions were brought up by the European Commission that had to be fulfilled by the companies in retrospect.

Now the case of Navalny, currently being treated at a Berlin clinic after being awoken from a medically induced coma, has thrown everything up in the air again. It has triggered a political cacophony that threatens relations between Germany, the EU, Russia, and Washington. And at the center is the pipeline.

READ MORE 'Fraught with consequences for Russian-German relations': Moscow furious with Berlin over lack of cooperation on Navalny

Various German sources, among them laboratories of the armed forces, have alleged that Navalny had been poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas (SPD) stated in an interview published on Sunday by Bild: " I hope the Russians don't force us to change our stance on Nord Stream 2 – we have high expectations of the Russian government that it will solve this serious crime ." He claimed to have seen " a lot of evidence " that the Russian state was behind the attack. " The deadly chemical weapon with which Navalny was poisoned was in the past in the possession of Russian authorities ," he insisted.

He conceded that stopping the almost-completed pipeline would harm German and broader European business interests, pointing out that the gas pipeline's construction involves "over 100 companies from 12 European countries, and about half of them come from Germany." Maas also threatened the Kremlin with broader EU sanctions if it did not help clarify what happened "in the coming days." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded by labeling the accusations "groundless" and Moscow has staunchly denied any involvement in the affair.

The whole matter is complicated by domestic political considerations in Germany. CDU politician Norbert Röttgen, who heads up foreign affairs within the ruling party and has demanded that the pipeline should be stopped, is among those conservatives vying to lead the CDU in the run-up to Chancellor Angela Merkel's retirement next year. Meanwhile, Merkel is still trying to strike a balance between the country's legal commitments, her well-known mantra that NS2 is a " purely commercial project, " and what is now a major foreign policy crisis.

The chancellor had always focused on the business dimension. But most large energy projects also have a geopolitical dimension, and that certainly holds true with Nord Stream.

When I was Austria's foreign minister, I saw first-hand the recurring and very harsh criticism of the project by US politicians and officials. I remember the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in a speech at the margins of the UN General Assembly in September 2018 that focused solely on NS2. I replied by pointing out to him that pipelines are not built to annoy others, but because there is demand. One thing was certain – the US opposition to Nord Stream would not wane and now the Navalny case has given it new impetus. What we are witnessing is a tremendous politicization of the pipeline with a wide range of people all shouting very loudly.

ALSO ON RT.COM Craig Murray: Opposition figure Navalny may possibly have been targeted by Russian state, but Western narrative doesn't add up Diplomatic confrontation instead of solution

So here we are, in a very poisoned atmosphere where it might be difficult to revise positions without losing face. The social democrat Maas, just like the conservative Röttgen and many others, have taken to the media for different reasons. In my observation, it might have to do with their respective desires to take a strong position in order to also mark their upcoming emancipation from the political giant Merkel (she is due to step down next year).

Due to her professional and empathetic handling of the pandemic, she is today much more popular than before the crisis. That makes it difficult for a junior partner, represented by Foreign Minister Maas, and for all those who wish to challenge her inside the party.

What is needed is to get the topic out of the media and out of the to-and-fro of daily petty politics. Noisy statements might serve some, but not the overall interests involved. And there are many at stake. It is not only about energy security in times of transition, namely moving away from nuclear, but much wider matters.

As a legal scholar, I deem the loss of trust in contracts. Vertragstreue, as we call it in German – loyalty to the contract – will be the biggest collateral damage if the pipeline is abandoned for political reasons. This fundamental principle of every civilization was coined as pacta sunt servanda by the Romans – agreements must be kept. Our legal system is based on this. Who would still conclude contracts of such volumes with German companies if politics can change the terms of trade overnight?

ALSO ON RT.COM German FM links Nord Stream 2 to Navalny, threatens sanctions as Moscow accuses Berlin of dragging feet on alleged poisoning probe Remember South Stream

In June 2014, construction sites on the coasts of the Black sea, both in Russia and Bulgaria, were ready for starting the gas pipeline South Stream. After pressure from the European Commission, the work never started. The political reason was the dispute on Ukraine – in particular, the annexation of the Crimea. However, the legal argument was that the tenders for the contracts were in contradiction with EU regulations on competition. Tens of thousands of work permits, which had been issued from Bulgaria to Serbia etc., were withdrawn. The economic consequence was the rise of China's influence in the region. South Stream was redirected to Turkey.

So here we are in the midst of a diplomatic standoff. It is a genuine dilemma, but it could also turn into a watershed. Will contracts be respected or will we move into a further cycle of uncertainty on all levels? Germany is built on contracts, norms (probably much too many) and not on arbitrariness.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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

silvermoon 5 hours ago

All these weeks have passed and Germany has still not shown shared actual evidence of their Navalny tests with Russia though. That is the same as saying we found the gun with your finger prints on it but never showing it.

Count_Cash silvermoon 3 hours ago

Correct, Germany has only since 10th September (if confirmed) shared any 'evidence'. That is sufficient intervening time to concoct any test result and associated materials that they want - another Diesel scandal. Indeed people will ask why when you had the patient on 22nd of august, it took you so long to send samples to the OPCW, despite almost immediately yelling Poison!

gainwmn silvermoon 5 hours ago

U stupid sheep: Germany did show it to the OPCW, i.e. the organization RF is the member of, and therefore the latter gets the full access to all the data provided by Germany, as well as any other of 192 members. Kremlin lies and demands in this regard is more than ridiculous, they completely destroy any shred of trust left to all RF governmental structures and regime itself.

Teodor Nitu gainwmn 3 hours ago

Riiight!...Those Russians...not only their chemical weapons are no longer working, but they are no longer capable to choose the proper time to use them, or so the story goes. Think about it; they 'used' novichok to kill the Skripals and they are still alive and well (supposedly), now they (Russians) 'used' novichok again to kill Navalny and he is alive and getting better.

Besides, they chose the absolutely wrong time to do it. With Skripals it was just before the opening of the World Cup in Russia and now, just before the finishing of the North Stream 2 pipeline.

It sounds that they are sabotaging their own interests, aren't they? Are they (Russians) that stup!d? Some 'smart' posters here seem to believe it. But lets get real, one has to be able to see beyond the length of his nose, in order to understand what is really going on.

silvermoon Teodor Nitu 2 hours ago

Russia had all their chemical weapons legally destroyed. Along with hundreds of countries. The US, UK and Israel never did. Navalny the innocent anti Putin. Can't win one way try another.

Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago

So why is Russia still asking for it? Clearly, something is being withheld. As for the OPCW, their credibility has been shot for years with all their fake Syrian chem weapon attack reports.

seawolf 6 hours ago

Even if there was not Navalny's story, they could invent another to stop the project.

Abraxas79 seawolf 4 hours ago

Exactly. I hope Russia is the one that abandons it. Let Germany be the one that decides to cancel it and go along with it. Concentrate on supplying China and other Asian nations and internal consumption. Forget about Europe. You don't have to turn off the current supply, just charge more for it when the market allows. Looks like the next German leader according to this article is quite the Russophobe, which means relations will only get worse.

Pro_RussiaPole Abraxas79 2 hours ago

If this navalny farce does end up cancelling the NS2 project, Russia should stop all gas transit to western Europe through Poland and Ukraine by spring of next year. Tell those countries that will be cut off that Russia can either sell them LNG, or that they will have to connect to other sources of gas. Because if certain countries are so against Russian gas, then why are they not doing anything against Russian gas going through Poland and Ukraine, and why isn't Trump threatening sanctions on these countries for doing so?

Blue8ball713 RTjackanory 3 hours ago

Its a far longer list and it have the fingerprints of GB secret services all over it.

Reply Gabriel Delpino seawolf 46 seconds ago It is not in the interest of Germany to stop de project. Reply

magicmirror 6 hours ago

Europe should have nothing to do with the USA ....... proved time and time again they cannot be trusted. All they want is markets, resources and consumers. They lie, they cheat, they steal...... (quoting mr Pompeo, I think). A big opportunity to win Europe's independence.

SmellLaRata 5 hours ago

All due respect for Mr. Navalny but since when does an individual fate of one person dictates the fate for millions ? And c' mon Germany. Your hypocrisy is so utterly laughable. You ignore the Assange and Snowden cases, the slaughter of Kashoggi, the brutal beating of yellow vests, the brutal actions against the Catalans ... but Navalni. Not even a hint of a proof of government involvemen. But it fits the agenda, does it? The agenda which is dictated by the deep state agitators who so much flourished under Obama.

gainwmn SmellLaRata 4 hours ago

Even being not a fan (to say the least) of the US foreign and some of the domestic policy, I have to point out that tried by U analogy is largely out of balance: first, the issue in Navalny (as well as in Scripals' and others cases acted on with poisons) case is not so much the assassination attempt on a person's life, as the banned use of chemical weapons, the ban RF's signature has been under since 1993. And that conclusion (Russia's guilt) has not been made by the UK or Germany or any other country alone, but the OPCW - the organization not only RF is the member of, but also 191(!) other countries, out of which not a single country (except RF) rejected that conclusion!; second, the US did not made attempt on either Snowden's or Assange's life, with any kind of weapon, not already mentioning the weapons banned by the international agreements American government(s) signed. This is a large - I would say - decisive difference! As far as Kashoggi's case or other cases sited by U, RF did not react with sanctions against the respective perpetrators either, thus demonstrating the same disregard for the law and order as the US did... therefore making all lies about innocent RF and evil US, foolish, at the least.

Pro_RussiaPole gainwmn 2 hours ago

The US and its lackeys are killing Assange. They are doing it slowly. And many voices going along with a lie does not make the lie true. Because these poisoning allegations are lies. The accused were never allowed to see the evidence or challenge it. And there is the whole issue of politicized reports coming out of the OPCW that contradicted evidence and reality.

Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago

After completing the pipe and it start running Russia must turn off all Ukraine pipes. No more gas for free from Russia, Ukraine must start importing LNG from thier reliable partner USA. I think imports from USA will be good for Ukrainian Nazi people

Abraxas79 Nathi Sibbs 4 hours ago

How are they going to pay for it? Ukraine's only exports these days are its women to various brothels across Europe and North America.

Hilarous 5 hours ago

The German leaders know very well that the case of Navalny will never be resolved and exists for no other reason than to seize a pretext to demonize Russia and to end Nord Stream 2 in exchange for US freedom gas

magicmirror Hilarous 4 hours ago

freedom gas and handsome presents .....

SandythePole 3 hours ago

This is an excellent account by Dr Karin Kneissl. It is a genuine dilemma for 'occupied' Europe. Its occupying master does NOT want NS2 and will do anything to stop it. Russia suffers sanctions upon sanctions, but still gallantly tries to maintain friendly and honourable business relations with its implacable neighbours. For how much longer is this to continue? Surely there must be some limit to the endless provocations of occupied Europe and its Western master. Perhaps it is time to shut off the oil and gas and leave Germany to sail under its own wind.

dunkie56 3 hours ago

Perhaps Russia should disengage with Germany/EU totally and forge ahead in partnership with China and India and whoever wants to do business. let the EU tie it's ship to the sinking US ship and drown along with it's protection racket partner! Then Russia should build a new iron curtain between itself and all countries who want to align with the EU..in the long run Russia has tried to forge a partnership with the West but it just has not born any fruit and even as pragmatic as Russia is they must be coming to the conclusion they are flogging a dead horse!

Blue8ball713 dunkie56 2 hours ago With 146 million citizen Russia is too small to be a real partner to anyone like China or India. Best fit is the EU, but the EU is controlled or better said occupied by the USA. Its part of their hegemonial system. So Russia is left out in the rain..

micktaketo 5 hours ago

I am not sure if it is the right thing to do but I think Russia should sue the German authorities if this deal is withdrawn and if it is have nothing to do with Germany again along with other corrupt countries that cannot prove or at the least bring forth their evidence to be seen, to be transparent to all even Russia the first, because Russia is the one being accused. These countries must think we the people are all completely stupid and Russia more so. This corruption stinks to high heaven and is obvious to all sane people who love fairness. You cannot trust an entity that believes in getting what they want by hook or by crook. Russia learn your lesson ! So you countries that love whats good for you and your people do not cheat them for they voted for you to help them. Germany do not kick yourself, it will hurt your people. Saying, There is more than one way to skin a cat, they say.

Mutlu Ozer 3 hours ago

There is a simple concept to investigate a crime to find the criminals: Just look at whose benefit the crime is? EU politicians are certainly smart people to know this basic concept of criminal investigation. However, now they are playing a new strategy about how to domesticate(!) not only Russia China as well... Germans are the main actors in the stage of the WW-I and WW-II. I surely claim that Germans would be the main architect of the last war, WW-III.

[Sep 11, 2020] From 9-11 to the Great Reset by Pepe Escobar

Sep 11, 2020 | www.unz.com

9/11 was the foundation stone of the new millennium – ever as much indecipherable as the Mysteries of Eleusis. A year ago, on Asia Times, once again I raised a number of questions that still find no answer.

A lightning speed breakdown of the slings and arrows of outrageous (mis)fortune trespassing these two decades will certainly include the following. The end of history. The short unipolar moment. The Pentagon's Long War. Homeland Security. The Patriot Act. Shock and Awe. The tragedy/debacle in Iraq. The 2008 financial crisis. The Arab Spring. Color revolutions. "Leading from behind". Humanitarian imperialism. Syria as the ultimate proxy war. The ISIS/Daesh farce. The JCPOA. Maidan. The Age of Psyops. The Age of the Algorithm. The Age of the 0.0001%.

Once again, we're deep in Yeats territory: "the best lack all conviction/ while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

All along, the "War on Terror" – the actual decantation of the Long War – proceeded unabated, killing Muslim multitudes and displacing at least 37 million people.

WWII-derived geopolitics is over. Cold War 2.0 is in effect. It started as US against Russia, morphed into US against China and now, fully spelled out in the US National Security Strategy, and with bipartisan support, it's the US against both. The ultimate Mackinder-Brzezinski nightmare is at hand: the much dread "peer competitor" in Eurasia slouched towards the Beltway to be born in the form of the Russia-China strategic partnership.

Something's gotta give. And then, out of the blue, it did.

A drive by design towards ironclad concentration of power and geoconomic diktats was first conceptualized – under the deceptive cover of "sustainable development" – already in 2015 at the UN ( here it is , in detail).

Now, this new operating system – or technocratic digital dystopia – is finally being codified, packaged and "sold" since mid summer via a lavish, concerted propaganda campaign.

Watch your mindspace

The whole Planet Lockdown hysteria that elevated Covid-19 to post-modern Black Plague proportions has been consistently debunked, for instance here and here , drawing from the highly respected, original Cambridge source.

The de facto controlled demolition of large swathes of the global economy allowed corporate and vulture capitalism, world wide, to rake untold profits out of the destruction of collapsed businesses.

And all that proceeded with widespread public acceptance – an astonishing process of voluntary servitude.

None of it is accidental. As an example, over then years ago, even before setting up a – privatized – Behavioral Insights Team, the British government was very much interested in "influencing" behavior, in collaboration with the London School of Economics and Imperial College.

The end result was the MINDSPACE report. That was all about behavioral science influencing policymaking and most of all, imposing neo-Orwellian population control.

MINDSPACE, crucially, featured close collaboration between Imperial College and the Santa Monica-based RAND corporation. Translation: the authors of the absurdly flawed computer models that fed the Planet Lockdown paranoia working in conjunction with the top Pentagon-linked think tank.

In MINDSPACE, we find that, "behavioral approaches embody a line of thinking that moves from the idea of an autonomous individual, making rational decisions, to a 'situated' decision-maker, much of whose behavior is automatic and influenced by their 'choice environment'".

So the key question is who decides what is the "choice environment'. As it stands, our whole environment is conditioned by Covid-19. Let's call it "the disease". And that is more than enough to beautifully set up "the cure": The Great Reset .

The beating heart

The Great Reset was officially launched in early June by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the natural habitat of Davos Man. Its conceptual base is something the WEF describes as Strategic Intelligence Platform : "a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making".

It's this platform that promotes the complex crossover and interpenetration of Covid-19 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution – conceptualized back in December 2015 and the WEF's choice futuristic scenario. One cannot exist without the other. That is meant to imprint in the collective unconscious – at least in the West – that only the WEF-sanctioned "stakeholder" approach is capable of solving the Covid-19 challenge.

The Great Reset is immensely ambitious , spanning over 50 fields of knowledge and practice. It interconnects everything from economy recovery recommendations to "sustainable business models", from restoration of the environment to the redesign of social contracts.

The beating heart of this matrix is – what else – the Strategic Intelligence Platform, encompassing, literally, everything: "sustainable development", "global governance", capital markets, climate change, biodiversity, human rights, gender parity, LGBTI, systemic racism, international trade and investment, the – wobbly – future of the travel and tourism industries, food, air pollution, digital identity, blockchain, 5G, robotics, artificial intelligence (AI).

In the end, only an all-in-one Plan A applies for making these systems interact seamlessly: the Great Reset – shorthand for a New World Order that has always been glowingly evoked, but never implemented. There is no Plan B.

The Covid-19 "legacy"

The two main actors behind the Great Reset are Klaus Schwab, the WEF's founder and executive chairman, and IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva. Georgieva is adamant that "the digital economy is the big winner of this crisis". She believes the Great Reset must imperatively start in 2021.

The House of Windsor and the UN are prime executive co-producers. Top sponsors include BP, Mastercard and Microsoft. It goes without saying that everyone who knows how complex geopolitical and geoeconomic decisions are taken is aware that these two main actors are just reciting a script. Call the authors "the globalist elite". Or, in praise of Tom Wolfe, the Masters of the Universe.

Schwab, predictably, wrote the Great Reset's mini-manifesto. Over a month later, he expanded on the absolutely key connection: the "legacy" of Covid-19.

All this has been fully fleshed in a book , co-written with Thierry Malleret, who directs the WEF's Global Risk Network. Covid-19 is described as having "created a great disruptive reset of our global, social, economic and political systems". Schwab spins Covid-19 not only as a fabulous "opportunity", but actually as the creator (italics mine) of the – now inevitable – Reset.

All that happens to dovetail beautifully with Schwab's own baby: Covid-19 "accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution". The revolution has been extensively discussed at Davos since 2016.

The book's central thesis is that our most pressing challenges concern the environment – considered only in terms of climate change – and technological developments, which will allow the expansion of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In a nutshell, the WEF is stating that corporate globalization, the hegemonic modus operandi since the 1990s, is dead. Now it's time for "sustainable development" – with "sustainable" defined by a select group of "stakeholders", ideally integrated into a "community of common interest, purpose and action."

Sharp Global South observers will not fail to compare the WEF's rhetoric of "community of common interest" with the Chinese "community of shared interests" as applied to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is a de facto continental trade/development project.

The Great Reset presupposes that all stakeholders – as in the whole planet – must toe the line. Otherwise, as Schwab stresses, we will have "more polarization, nationalism, racism, increased social unrest and conflicts".

So this is – once again – a "you're with us or against us" ultimatum, eerily reminiscent of our old 9/11 world. Either the Great Reset is peacefully established, with whole nations dutifully obeying the new guidelines designed by a bunch of self-appointed neo-Platonic Republic sages, or it's chaos.

Whether Covid-19's ultimate "window of opportunity" presented itself as a mere coincidence or by design, will always remain a very juicy question.

Digital Neo-Feudalism

The actual, face-to-face Davos meeting next year has been postponed to the summer of 2021. But virtual Davos will proceed in January, focused on the Great Reset.

Already three months ago, Schwab's book hinted that the more everyone is mired in the global paralysis, the more it's clear that things will never be allowed (italics mine) to return to what we considered normal.

Five years ago, the UN's Agenda 2030 – the Godfather of the Great Reset – was already insisting on vaccines for all, under the patronage of the WHO and CEPI – co-founded in 2016 by India, Norway and the Bill and Belinda Gates foundation.

Timing could not be more convenient for the notorious Event 201 "pandemic exercise" in October last year in New York, with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security partnering with – who else – the WEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No in-depth criticism of Gates's motives is allowed by media gatekeepers because, after all, he finances them.

What has been imposed as an ironclad consensus is that without a Covid-19 vaccine there's no possibility of anything resembling normality.

And yet a recent, astonishing paper published in Virology Journal – which also publishes Dr. Fauci's musings – unmistakably demonstrates that "chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread". This is a "relatively safe, effective and cheap drug" whose "significant inhibitory antiviral effect when the susceptible cells were treated either prior to or after infection suggests a possible prophylactic and therapeutic use."

Even Schwab's book admits that Covid-19 is "one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years" and its consequences "will be mild compared to previous pandemics".

It doesn't matter. What matters above all is the "window of opportunity" offered by Covid-19, boosting, among other issues, the expansion of what I previously described as Digital Neo-Feudalism

or Algorithm gobbling up Politics. No wonder politico-economic institutions from the WTO to the EU as well as the Trilateral Commission are already investing in "rejuvenation" processes, code for even more concentration of power.

Survey the imponderables

Very few thinkers, such as German philosopher Hartmut Rosa, see our current plight as a rare opportunity to "decelerate" life under turbo-capitalism.

As it stands, the point is not that we're facing an "attack of the civilization-state" . The point is assertive civilization-states – such as China, Russia, Iran – not submitted to the Hegemon, are bent on charting a quite different course.

The Great Reset, for all its universalist ambitions, remains an insular, Western-centric model benefitting the proverbial 1%. Ancient Greece did not see itself as "Western". The Great Reset is essentially an Enlightenment-derived project.

Surveying the road ahead, it will certainly be crammed with imponderables. From the Fed wiring digital money directly into smartphone financial apps in the US to China advancing an Eurasia-wide trade/economic system side-by side with the implementation of the digital yuan.

The Global South will be paying a lot of attention to the sharp contrast between the proposed wholesale deconstruction of the industrial economic order and the BRI project – which focuses on a new financing system outside of Western monopoly and emphasizes agro-industrial growth and long-term sustainable development.

The Great Reset would point to losers, in terms of nations, aggregating all the ones that benefit from production and processing of energy and agriculture, from Russia, China and Canada to Brazil, Indonesia and large swathes of Africa.

As it stands, there's only one thing we do know: the establishment at the core of the Hegemon and the drooling orcs of Empire will only adopt a Great Reset if that helps to postpone a decline accelerated on a fateful morning 19 years ago.

[Sep 09, 2020] Proof of collusion at last! - IRRUSSIANALITY

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Guardian ..."
"... BNE Intellinews ..."
"... bne IntelliNews ..."
"... The idea, therefore, that Paul Manafort was an agent of influence for the Russian government flies against everything we know about what he actually did. As for Kilimnik, maybe he is a Russian intelligence agent – I'm not in a position to say. But if he is, he's a very weird one, who spent years actively pushing the Ukrainian government to pursue a policy which directly contradicted Russian interests. ..."
"... None of this, needless to say, appears in the US Senate report. Instead, the report chooses to focus on the apparently shocking revelation that Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, as if this sharing of private information was in some ways a massive threat to national security and proof that Manafort was working for the Russians. The fact that both Manafort and Kilimnik spent years doing their damnedest to undermine Russia is simply ignored. Go figure! ..."
Sep 09, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

PROOF OF COLLUSION AT LAST! SEPTEMBER 2, 2020 PAULR 18 COMMENTS

Despite the secondary roles played some bit part actors in the Russiagate drama, the central figure in allegations that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to be elected as president of the United States has always been Trumps' onetime campaign manager Paul Manafort. The recent US Senate report on Russian 'interference' in the 2016 presidential election thus started off its analysis with a long exposé of Manafort's comings and goings.

Simply put, the thesis is as follows: while working in Ukraine as an advisor to 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich, Manafort was in effect working on behalf of the Russian state via 'pro-Russian' Ukrainian oligarchs as well as Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska (a man with 'close ties' to the Kremlin). Also suspicious was Manafort's close relationship with one Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the US Senate claims is a Russia intelligence agent. All these connections meant that while in Ukraine, Manafort was helping the Russian Federation spread its malign influence. On returning to the USA and joining the Trump campaign, he then continued to fulfill the same role.

The fundamental flaw in this thesis has always been the well-known fact that while advising Yanukovich, Manafort took anything but a 'pro-Russian' position, but instead pressed him to sign an association agreement with the European Union (EU). Since gaining independence, Ukraine had avoided being sucked either into the Western or the Russian camp. But the rise of two competing geopolitical projects – the EU and the Russia-backed Eurasian Union – was making this stance increasingly impossible, and Ukraine was being put in a position where it would be forced to choose. This was because the two Unions are incompatible – one can't be in two customs unions simultaneously, when they levy different tariffs and have different rules. Association with the EU meant an end to the prospect of Ukraine joining the Eurasian Union. It was therefore a goal which was entirely incompatible with Russian interests, which required that Ukraine turn instead towards Eurasia.

Manafort's position on this matter therefore worked against Russia. Even The Guardian journalist Luke Harding had to concede this in his book Collusion , citing a former Ukrainian official Oleg Voloshin that, 'Manafort was an advocate for US interests. So much so that the joke inside [Yanunkovich's] Party of Regions was that he actually worked for the USA.'

If anyone had any doubts about this, they can now put them aside. On Monday, the news agency BNE Intellinews announced that it had received a leak of hundreds of Kilimnik's emails detailing his relationship with Manafort and Yanukovich. The story they tell is not at all what the US Senate and other proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy would have you believe. As BNE reports:

Today the Yanukovych narrative is that he was a stool pigeon for Russian President Vladimir Putin from the start, but after winning the presidency he actually worked very hard to take Ukraine into the European family. As bne IntelliNews has already reported, Manafort's flight records also show how he crisscrossed Europe in an effort to build support in Brussels for Yanukovych in the run up to the EU Vilnius summit.

On March 1, his first foreign trip as newly minted president was to the EU capital of Brussels. The leaked emails show that Manafort influenced Yanukovych's decision to visit Brussels as first stop, working in concert with his assistant Konstantin Kilimnik In a memorandum entitled 'Purpose of President Yanukovych Trip to Brussels,' Manafort argued that the decision to visit Brussels first would underscore Yanukovych's mission to "bring European values to Ukraine," and kick start negotiations on the Association Agreement.

The memorandum on the Brussels visit was the first of many from Manafort and Kilimnik to Yanukovych, in which they pushed Yanukovych to signal a clear pro-EU line and to carry out reforms to back this up.

To handle Yanukovych's off-message antics, Manafort and Kilimnik created a back channel to Yanukovych for Western politicians – in particular those known to appreciate Ukraine's geopolitical significance vis-à-vis Russia. In Europe, these were Sweden's then foreign minister Carl Bildt, Poland's then foreign minister Radosław Sikorski and European Commissioner for Enlargement Stefan Fule, and in the US, Vice President Joe Biden.

"We need to launch a 'Friends of Ukraine' programme to help us use informal channels in talks on the free trade zone and modernisation of the gas transport system," Manafort and Kilimnik wrote to Yanukovych in September 2010. "Carl Bildt is the foundation of this informal group and has sufficient weight with his colleagues in questions connected to Ukraine and the Eastern Partnership. ( ) but he needs to be able to say that he has a direct channel to the President, and he knows that President Yanukovych remains committed to European integration."

Beyond this, the emails show that Manafort and Kilimnik also tried hard to arrange a meeting between Yanukovich and US President Barack Obama, and urged Yanukovich to show leniency to former Prime Minister Yuliia Timoshenko (who was imprisoned for fraud).

It is noticeable that the members of the 'back channel' Manafort and Kilimnik created to lobby on behalf of Ukraine in the EU included some of the most notably Russophobic European politicians of the time, such as Carl Bildt and Radek Sikorski. Moreover, nowhere in any of what they did can you find anything that could remotely be described as 'pro-Russian'. Indeed, the opposite is true. As previously noted, Ukraine's bid for an EU agreement directly challenged a key Russian interest – the expansion of the Eurasian Union to include Ukraine. Manafort and Kilimnik were therefore very much working against Russia, not for it.

The idea, therefore, that Paul Manafort was an agent of influence for the Russian government flies against everything we know about what he actually did. As for Kilimnik, maybe he is a Russian intelligence agent – I'm not in a position to say. But if he is, he's a very weird one, who spent years actively pushing the Ukrainian government to pursue a policy which directly contradicted Russian interests.

None of this, needless to say, appears in the US Senate report. Instead, the report chooses to focus on the apparently shocking revelation that Manafort shared Trump campaign polling data with Kilimnik, as if this sharing of private information was in some ways a massive threat to national security and proof that Manafort was working for the Russians. The fact that both Manafort and Kilimnik spent years doing their damnedest to undermine Russia is simply ignored. Go figure!

[Sep 06, 2020] Oh, look, no masks! And you thought that Obama official dirty tricks will be unmasked up by the investigation done by the Mueller team?

Sep 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

... ... ...

And in the nation's capital - Play it again, Sam.

Oh, look, no masks! And you thought that got covered up by the investigation done by the Mueller team? Let's go over this one more time:

The document declassified by DNI Grenell shows that there were 14 unique days when the NSA received requests to "unmask"--the first was on 30 November 2016 by UN Ambassador Samantha Power and the last came on 12 January from Joe Biden. There were two separate requests on the 14th of December by Samantha Power, which indicates two separate NSA reports. Samantha Power would not have to submit two requests for the same document.

[Sep 03, 2020] Suggesting that Biden mental health is deteriorating to an alarming degree is now classified by neoliberal MSM as the insunuation driven by Russia

Bolshevism repeats first as a tragedy, second as a farce.
Notable quotes:
"... "so basically, any legitimate grievance or concern of citizens is a Russian plot ." ..."
Sep 03, 2020 | www.rt.com

"so basically, any legitimate grievance or concern of citizens is a Russian plot ." Other commenters tweeted that they didn't need any help from Moscow to clearly see that Biden's mind is failing .

See also: Russia now also to blame for US protests & Covid-19 disinformation – latest conspiracy from former intel head turned CNN analyst

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper went on CNN to accuse Russia of interfering in US affairs including the Covid-19 pandemic, Portland and Kenosha protests, and election meddling while giving no real evidence.
Clapper, who has previously said Russians are "typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever," was more than happy to push more xenophobic Russia conspiracy theories during a Monday CNN interview when prompted by anchor Alisyn Camerota.

[Sep 02, 2020] Media offers new weapon to protect Biden- Suggesting his mental health is failing means you're part of a Russian conspiracy -- RT USA News

Sep 02, 2020 | www.rt.com

The US Department of Homeland Security reportedly blocked the distribution of a July intelligence bulletin warning of a Russian plot to promote "misinformation" that the Democratic presidential candidate is in poor mental health.

The report by ABC News on Wednesday cited internal emails, and the media outlet said a DHS spokesperson confirmed that distribution of the bulletin to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies had been delayed. The spokesperson said the bulletin didn't meet quality standards, including having sufficient evidence and context, for dissemination, ABC said.

ALSO ON RT.COM Trump and Dems take turns playing 'Russian card' – which only proves it's the joker

Democrats will likely pounce on the report to allege that the DHS blocked the warning to help President Donald Trump win the November election and that the Trump campaign's criticism of Biden's mental state is part of the Russian misinformation effort. Twitter users are already promoting the new collusion theory, asking " which 'homeland' does DHS serve?" and saying, " Trump and Putin are one."

The ABC report downplayed portions of the intelligence bulletin unrelated to Russia, including warnings that Iranian and Chinese state media outlets are promoting suggestions that Trump "suffers from psychosis" and may be in poor physical health. It also sets up the argument that any future criticism of the Democrat's mental soundness is Russian misinformation.

One Twitter user said the report is "laying the groundwork for 'anyone commenting on Joe's decline is in league with Russia' takes," while another inferred, "so basically, any legitimate grievance or concern of citizens is a Russian plot ." Other commenters tweeted that they didn't need any help from Moscow to clearly see that Biden's mind is failing .

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1301139632483004416&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F499739-dhs-russia-intelligence-delay%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px

Online speculation has grown over Biden's expanding series of infamous gaffes, such as welcoming his audience to the wrong place and then trying to pass it off as a joke when he gave a July speech in his home state of Delaware.

The Democrat has also stumbled in unscripted moments to know where he is , such as praising the beauty of Vermont when he was actually campaigning last year in New Hampshire, and whom he's with, such as mistaking his wife for his sister in a primary victory speech in March. He bragged in February that he negotiated the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. Deng died in 1997.

READ MORE RT is accused of supporting QAnon. But with Russiagate back for 2020, who are the real state-funded conspiracy theorists?

Democrats have tried to revive the Trump-Russia collusion narrative despite the failure of special prosecutor Robert Mueller to prove that the Trump campaign worked with Moscow to win the 2016 presidential election.

When the Office of the Director of National Intelligence informed congressional committees last week that intelligence briefings on election security issues would no longer be done in person, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a statement saying, "The American people have both the right and the need to know that another nation, Russia, is trying to help decide who their next president should be."

The statement ignored the fact that Russia isn't the only country that has been accused of using disinformation and other means to influence the 2020 US elections. A US intelligence report last month warned that Russia, China and Iran, among others, have sought to influence voters and that mass use of voting by mail will make it easier for foreign countries to interfere. China and Iran also allegedly sought to discredit Trump, according to the intelligence warnings.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Sep 02, 2020] The CIA, Organized Crime, the Media and Elections -- A Guide by Doug Valentine

Dec 08, 2016 | washingtonbabylon.com
By - 0

Doug Valentine's new book, The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World , is a compilation of newly updated articles and recent interviews. The book, which discusses a part of history that is rarely mentioned nowadays but is vital to understand as we enter the Trump era, is divided into four sections. The first covers the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam; the second looks at how the agency manages the War on Drugs; the third reviews how the Phoenix program became the model for Homeland Security and the War on Terror; and the fourth takes a look at the the CIA's influence on the media.

The CIA created the Phoenix program in South Vietnam in 1967 as a means of identifying, capturing, detaining, interrogating and assassinating the civilian leaders of the insurgency. As detailed in the book, the program has become the template for Homeland Security, as well as for waging the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.

The following edited excerpt, which focuses on the CIA's illegal domestic spying program, Chaos, was omitted from the book. It is taken from an interview Valentine did with Guillermo Jimenez in November 2014, originally titled "The CIA Has Become the Phoenix."

Cloaked in secrecy, the CIA is rarely written about and poorly understood. But while researching the infamous Phoenix program, Valentine managed to penetrate the agency and interview dozens of agency officers. His Phoenix research materials are available to the public at the National Security Archive. His interviews with several CIA officers are available online here and here .

GUILLERMO JIMENEZ: The Phoenix Program has recently been republished by Open Road Media as part of their Forbidden Bookshelves series. Would you mind sharing with us how your book was chosen for the series? What do you make of this new-found interest in Phoenix; what the CIA was up to in Vietnam; and what the CIA is up to generally?

VALENTINE: When the book came out in 1990, it got a terrible review in The New York Times . Morley Safer, who'd been a reporter in Vietnam, wrote the review. Safer and the Times killed the book because in it I said Phoenix never would have succeeded if the reporters in Vietnam hadn't covered for the CIA.

Several senior CIA officers said the same thing, that "So and so was always in my office. He'd bring a bottle of scotch and I'd tell him what was going on." The celebrity reporters knew what was going on, but they didn't report about it in exchange for having access. I said that in the book specifically about The New York Times . So I not only got the CIA angry at me, I also got the Vietnam press corps angry at me too.

Between those two things, the book did not get off to an auspicious start. The Times gave Safer half a page to write his review, which was bizarre. The usual response is just to ignore a book like The Phoenix Program . But The New York Times Book Review serves a larger function; it teaches the media elite and "intelligentsia" what to think and how to say it. So Safer said my book was incoherent, because it unraveled the bureaucratic networks that conceal the contradictions between policy and operational reality. It exposed Bill Colby [who ran Phoenix for the agency and later became CIA director] as a liar. Safer was upset that I didn't portray his friend and patron as a symbol of the elite, as a modern day Odysseus.

Luckily, with the Internet revolution, people aren't bound by the Times and network news anymore. They can listen to Russia Today and get another side of the story. So Mark Crispin Miller and Philip Rappaport at Open Road chose The Phoenix Program to be the first book they published. And it's been reborn. Thanks to the advent of the e-book, we've reached an audience of concerned and knowledgeable people in a way that wasn't possible 25 years ago.

It's also because of these Internet developments that John Brennan, the director of CIA, thought of reorganizing the the agency. All these things are connected. It's a vastly different world than it was in 1947 when the CIA was created. The nature of the American empire has changed, and what the empire needs from the CIA has changed. The CIA is allocated about $30 billion a year, so the organizational changes are massive undertakings. If you want to understand the CIA, you have to understand how it's organized.

JIMENEZ: I want to talk to you about that but first I'd like to touch upon the CIA's infiltration of the US media. I find it curious, because the way that you describe it, it's not so much a deliberate attempt to censor the media. There's a lot of self-censorship as a result of that already existing relationship. Is that how you see this?

VALENTINE: Yes. The media organizes itself the way the CIA does. The CIA has case officers running around the world, engaged in murder and mayhem, and the media has reporters covering them. The reporter and the case officer both have bosses, and the higher you get in each organization, the closer the bosses become.

The ideological guidelines get more restrictive the higher up you go. To join the CIA, you have to pass a psychological assessment test. They're not going to hire anybody who is sympathetic towards poor people. These are ruthless people who serve capitalist bosses . They're very rightwing, and t he media's job is to protect them. Editors only hire reporters who are ideologically pure, just like you can't get into the CIA if you're a Communist or think the CIA should obey the law.

It's the same thing in the media. You can't get a job at CNN if you sympathize with the Palestinians or report how Israel has been stealing their land for 67 years. The minute you say something that is anathema or upsets the Israelis, you're out. The people who enforce these ideological restraints are the editors and the publishers. For example, while covering the merciless Israeli bombardment of civilians in Gaza in 2014, Diana Magnay was harassed and threatened by a group of bloodthirsty Israelis who were cheering the slaughter. Disgusted, Magnay later referred to them as "scum" in a tweet. She was forced to apologize, transferred to Moscow, and banished forever from Israel.

In a similar case, NBC correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin was playing soccer with four young boys in Gaza when Israel shelled the playing field. Mohyeldin witnessed their murders, which he reported in a series of tweets. Without ever providing a reason, NBC pulled Mohyeldin from Gaza and prevented him from ever returning. NBC replaced Mohyeldin with Israeli sympathizer Richard Engel.

Any dictator would be happy with the way American media is organized. The minute you step out of the box, they fire you or send you off to Siberia . It's a homogenous system. Not just the media and CIA, but politicians too. As the 2016 primaries proved, you can't be a candidate for either party unless you pass the ideological test. You must be a freewheeling capitalist. You must support Israel with billions of tax payer dollars. You must give the military whatever weapons it wants. That's the nature of the American state. These things naturally work together because that is the way it has been structured for 240 years.

JIMENEZ: We've seen pseudo alternatives emerge in the Internet posing as adversarial or anti-establishment when they're anything but. We've seen this growing trend, and it's something to be mindful of as we look for these sources on the Internet.

VALENTINE: The Internet is a free for all, so you have to approach it the way any enlightened person approaches every part of America, which is buyer beware. Capitalism is not designed to protect poor people or make sure people lead healthy, fulfilling lives. It's designed to make sure the super-rich can steal from the poor. There's only so much wealth and the rich want it.

The rich want to monopolize information too. Is a particular piece of information on the Internet coming from a reliable source? Who knows? Just because some of it is true doesn't mean that all of it is true. To be able to discern whether the information is accurate or complete, you must be grounded in the reality that the capitalist system are organized to oppress you, keep you in the dark and off balance as much as possible. It's a game of wits and you've got to be smart about it. Buyer beware.

JIMENEZ: Now I'd like to talk about the recent organizational changes in the CIA. It stems from an article in The Washington Post by Greg Miller. The headline is "CIA Director John Brennan Considering Sweeping Organizational Changes." What the article is saying is that Brennan wants to restructure the CIA using the model of their Counterterrorism Center; merging different units and divisions, combining analysts with operatives into hybrid teams that will focus on specific regions of the world. This sounds to me like the organizational changes that were born out of Phoenix and that were exported to other parts of the world over the years. The CIA appears to be applying the same structure to all of its operations. Is that how you read this?

VALENTINE: Yes, and it's something that, from my perspective, was predictable, which is why The Phoenix Program was re-released now, because what I predicted 25 years ago has happened. And you can only predict accurately if you know the history.

The CIA initially, and for decades, had four directorates under an executive management staff: Administration, Intelligence, Operations, and Science and Technology. Executive management had staff for congressional liaison, legal issues, security, public relations, inspections, etc. Administration is just that: staff for finance, personnel, and support services like interrogators, translators and construction companies. Science and Technology is self-explanatory too, but with a typical CIA twist – science for the CIA means better ways to kill and control people, like the MKULTRA program. And now there's a fifth directorate, Digital, that keystrokes and hacks foreign governments and corporations.

The Operations people overthrew foreign governments the old fashioned way, through sabotage and subversion. The Operations Directorate is now the National Clandestine Service. The Intelligence Directorate, which is now called Analysis, studied political, economic and social trends around the world so that executive management could mount better operations to control them.

The Operations Directorate was divided into several branches. The Counterintelligence (CI) branch detected foreign spies. Foreign Intelligence (FI) staff "liaison" officers worked with secret policemen and other officials in foreign nations. They collected "positive intelligence" by eavesdropping or by recruiting agents. The Covert Action branch engaged in deniable political action. The Special Operations Division (now the Special Activities Division) supplied paramilitary officers. There was also a Political and Psychological branch that specialized in all forms of propaganda.

These branches and directorates were career paths for operations officers (operators) assigned to geographical divisions. An FI staff officer might spend his or her entire career in the Far East Asia Division. The managers could move people around, but those things, generally speaking, were in place when the CIA began. The events that led to the formation of the current Counterterrorism Center began in 1967, when US security services began to suspect that the Cubans and the Soviets were infiltrating the anti-war movement. Lyndon Johnson wanted to know the details, so his attorney general, Ramsay Clark, formed the Interdepartmental Intelligence Unit (IDIU) within the Department of Justice. The IDIU's job was to coordinate the elements of the CIA, FBI and military that were investigating dissenters. The White House wanted to control and provide political direction to these investigations.

The Phoenix program was created simultaneously in 1967 and did the same thing in Vietnam. It brought together 25 agencies and aimed them at civilians in the insurgency. It's political warfare. It's secret. It's against the rules of war. It violated the Geneva Conventions. It's what Homeland Security does in the US: bringing agencies together and focusing them on civilians who they think look like terrorists.

The goal of this kind of bureaucratic centralization is to improve intelligence collection and analysis so reaction forces can leap into the breach more quickly and effectively. In 1967, the CIA already had computer experts who were traveling around by jet. The world was getting smaller and the CIA, which had all the cutting edge technology, was way out in front. It hired Ivy Leaguers like Nelson Brickham to make the machine run smoothly.

Brickham, as I've explained elsewhere, was the Foreign Intelligence staff officer who organized the Phoenix program based on principles Rensis Likert articulated in his book New Patterns of Management . Brickham believed he could use reporting formats as a tool to shape the behavior of CIA officers in the field. In particular, he hoped to correct "the grave problem of distortion and cover-up which a reporting system must address."

Likert organized industries to be adaptable, and the CIA organized itself the same way. It was always reorganizing itself to adapt to new threats. And in 1967, while Brickham was forming Phoenix to neutralize the leaders of the insurgency in South Vietnam, James Angleton and the CIA's Counterintelligence staff were creating the MHCHAOS program in Langley, Virginia, to spy on members of the anti-war movement, and turn as many of them as possible into double agents.

Chaos was the codename for the Special Operations Group within Angleton's Counterintelligence staff. The CIA's current Counterterrorism Center, which was established in 1986, is a direct descendent of Chaos.

The CIA's CT Center evolved from the Chaos domestic spying mechanism into the nerve center of the CIA's clandestine staff. Same thing happened with the CIA's Counter-Narcotics Center at the same time. Both are modeled on Phoenix, and both are wonderful tools for White House cadres to exercise political control over the bureaucracies they coordinate. These "centers" are the perfect means for policing and expanding the empire; they make it easier than ever for the CIA to track people and events in every corner of the world. The need for the old-fashioned directorates is fading away. You don't need an entire directorate to understand the political, social and economic movements around the world anymore, because the United States is controlling them all.

The US has color revolutions going everywhere. It's got the World Bank and the IMF strangling countries with debt, like the banks are strangling college students and home owners here. The War on Terror is the best thing that ever happened to US capitalists and their secret police force, the CIA. Terrorism is the pretext that allows the CIA to coordinate and transcend every government agency and civic institution, including the media, to the extent that we don't even see its wars anymore. Its control is so pervasive, so ubiquitous; the CIA has actually become the Phoenix.

JIMENEZ: Right.

VALENTINE: It's the eye of god in the sky; it's able to determine what's going to happen next because it's controlling all of these political, social and economic movements. It pits the Sunnis against the Shiites. It doesn't need slow and outdated directorates. These Phoenix centers enable it to determine events instantaneously anywhere. There are now Counterterror Intelligence Centers all over the world. In Phoenix they were called Intelligence Operations Coordinating Centers. So it's basically exactly the same thing. It's been evolving that way and everybody on the inside was gearing themselves for this glorious moment for 30 years. They even have a new staff position called Targeting Officers. You can Google this.

JIMENEZ: Right, right, exactly.

VALENTINE: The centers represent the unification of military, intelligence and media operations under political control. White House political appointees oversee them, but the determinant force is the CIA careerists who slither into private industry when their careers are over. They form the consulting firms that direct the corporations that drive the empire. Through their informal "old boy" network, the CIA guys and gals keep America at war so they can make a million dollars when their civil service career is over.

JIMENEZ: The Washington Post and subsequent articles frame it as if these changes are drastic. But to hear you, it's a natural progression. So what does this announcement mean? Is the CIA putting out its own press release through the Washington Post just to give everyone the heads up?

VALENTINE: Well, everybody in the CIA was worried that if the directorates were reorganized, it would negatively affect their careers. But executive management usually does what its political bosses tell them to do, and Brennan reorganized in 2015. He created a fifth directorate, the Directorate for Digital Innovation (DDI) ostensibly as the CIA's "mantelpiece". But, as the Washington Times reported, "it is the formation of the new 'mission' centers – including ones for counterintelligence, weapons and counter-proliferation, and counterterrorism – that is most likely to shake up the agency's personnel around the world."

The CIA's "ten new Mission Centers" are designed to "serve as locations to integrate capabilities and bring the full range of CIA's operational, analytic, support, technical and digital skill sets to bear against the nation's most pressing national security problems."

This modernization means the CIA is better able to control people politically, starting with its own officers, then everyone else. That's the ultimate goal. Politicians, speaking in a unified voice, create the illusion of a crime-fighting CIA and an America with a responsibility to protect benighted foreigners from themselves. But they can't tell you what the CIA does, because it's all illegal. It's all a lie. In order for the politicians to hold office, they have to cover for the CIA. Their concern is how to explain the reorganization and exploit it. They squabble among themselves and cut the best deals possible.

[Sep 01, 2020] Are We Deliberately Trying to Provoke a Military Crisis With Russia by Ted Galen Carpenter

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There has been a long string of U.S. provocations toward Russia. The first one came in the late 1990s and the initial years of the twenty-first century when Washington violated tacit promises given to Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders that if Moscow accepted a united Germany within NATO, the Alliance would not seek to move farther east. Instead of abiding by that bargain, the Clinton and Bush administrations successfully pushed NATO to admit multiple new members from Central and Eastern Europe, bringing that powerful military association directly to Russia's western border. In addition, the United States initiated "rotational" deployments of its forces to the new members so that the U.S. military presence in those countries became permanent in all but name. Even Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was uneasy about those deployments and conceded that he should have warned Bush in 2007 that they might be unnecessarily provocative. ..."
"... Such provocative political steps, though, are now overshadowed by worrisome U.S. and NATO military moves. Weeks before the formal announcement on July 29, the Trump administration touted its plan to relocate some U.S. forces stationed in Germany. When Secretary of Defense Mike Esper finally made the announcement, the media's focus was largely on the point that 11,900 troops would leave that country. ..."
"... Among other developments, there already has been a surge of alarming incidents between U.S. and Russian military aircraft in that region. Most of the cases involve U.S. spy planes flying near the Russian coast -- supposedly in international airspace. On July 30, a Russian Su-27 jet fighter intercepted two American surveillance aircraft; according to Russian officials, it was the fourth time in the final week of July that they caught U.S. planes in that sector approaching the Russian coast. Yet another interception occurred on August 5, again involving two U.S. spy planes. Still others have taken place throughout mid-August. It is a reckless practice that easily could escalate into a broader, very dangerous confrontation. ..."
"... The growing number of such incidents is a manifestation of the surging U.S. military presence along Russia's border, especially in the Black Sea . They are taking place on Russia's doorstep, thousands of miles away from the American homeland. Americans should consider how the United States would react if Russia decided to establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico, operating out of bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. ..."
"... I think this has been bipartisan policy since at least 1947. Unlikely to change anytime soon, even with realists gaining ground. Perhaps expanding NATO east, sending support to Ukraine, and intervening in Syria (despite attempts to leave, the best we can get at this point are small troop reductions that most likely are redeployed to neighboring countries) aren't the best idea after all? ..."
"... they think Russia is a weak state and can do nothing therefore they are free to do as they please. ..."
"... the US leadership wants ether country to take a shot at some thing US. Then then can scream and stomp their feet that no one on earth is allowed to trade with ether country and the US can block all trade with ether country. ..."
"... The other thing at play is Americans love it when their leaders act like gangsters. That's why leaders do it. Nothing will get you votes faster in the US than saying your going to kill people. I see US citizens try that non-sense about it's all Washington we don't want that. But you keep voting for people that are going to give you the next war fix. When you stop they will stop. ..."
"... if people are convinced that Russia is a weak state -- then it is easier to approve adventures abroad -- including ringing Russia. ..."
"... Please explain to me, a Russian person, what kind of anti-American policy Russia is spreading in countries? If we exclude acts of counteraction against American expansion and aggression against Russia? ..."
"... The only people that are destroying Americans are within our borders, wielding power to fulfill their mission -- enrich themselves, keep the borders open, and our military all over the globe. ..."
"... I think there is a third option besides escalation and deescalation - exhaustion. Projecting power across the globe is expensive, it is a slow but steady drain on US resources, which are needed elsewhere (for example to quell the riots in major US cities). ..."
"... I see it as exhaustion by corruption. The US military is increasingly bureaucratic, political and ineffectual. Our weapons are gold-plated, hyper-tech focused and require highly-skilled people to maintain them, which means we can't quickly train new people up. The weapons themselves are so complex and expensive that there is no way to manufacture them at scale quickly. ..."
"... Read Jean Lartegy's "The Centurions." That is the direction where the tactically brilliant, but strategically incompetent US military leadership is headed. ..."
"... Stop focusing on what Trump says and look at what his administration does. Troops in Poland and Eastern Europe, Nord Stream 2, intrusive US reconnaissance flights along Russia's borders, support of Ukraine, interference with Russian patrols in Syria, the continuing attempt to destabilize Assad in Syria, the destruction of JCPOA, global sanctions campaign on Russia among others, withdrawal from arms control treaties, accusation that Russia was cheating on INF treaty, hiring dozens of anti-Russia hardliners, etc, etc. ..."
"... I don't think US-Russian cooperation is doable at this point--or any time soon. Given how erratic US policy is--yawing violently from one direction to another--Russia has no reason to accept the damage to its relationship with China that shifting to a strategic arrangement with the US would entail. The risk is too high and the potential rewards too uncertain. ..."
"... We have pretty much alienated the Russian state under Putin, and now we're trying to wait him out, with the expectation that there is no one of his capabilities to maintain the strategic autonomy of the Russian state in the longer term and that once he exits the scene, some Yeltsin-like stooge will present himself. ..."
"... Everyone is focusing on Russia because of the Russia hoax. Dems started a new cold war based on an irrational fear that Russia was threatening our democracy. ..."
"... The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael McFaul. ..."
Aug 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Tensions are becoming dangerous in Syria and on Russia's back doorstep. US soldiers stand near US and Russian military vehicles in the northeastern Syrian town of al-Malikiyah (Derik) at the border with Turkey, on June 3, 2020. (Photo by DELIL SOULEIMAN/AFP via Getty Images)

A dangerous vehicle collision between U.S and Russian soldiers in Northeastern Syria on Aug. 24 highlights the fragility of the relationship and the broader test of wills between the two major powers.

According to White House reports and a Russian video that went viral this week, it appeared that as the two sides were racing down a highway in armored vehicles, the Russians sideswiped the Americans, leaving four U.S. soldiers injured. It is but the latest clash as both sides continue their patrols in the volatile area. But it speaks of bigger problems with U.S. provocations on Russia's backdoor in Eastern Europe.

A sober examination of U.S. policy toward Russia since the disintegration of the Soviet Union leads to two possible conclusions. One is that U.S. leaders, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, have been utterly tone-deaf to how Washington's actions are perceived in Moscow. The other possibility is that those leaders adopted a policy of maximum jingoistic swagger intended to intimidate Russia, even if it meant obliterating a constructive bilateral relationship and eventually risking a dangerous showdown. Washington's latest military moves, especially in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea, are stoking alarming tensions.

There has been a long string of U.S. provocations toward Russia. The first one came in the late 1990s and the initial years of the twenty-first century when Washington violated tacit promises given to Mikhail Gorbachev and other Soviet leaders that if Moscow accepted a united Germany within NATO, the Alliance would not seek to move farther east. Instead of abiding by that bargain, the Clinton and Bush administrations successfully pushed NATO to admit multiple new members from Central and Eastern Europe, bringing that powerful military association directly to Russia's western border. In addition, the United States initiated "rotational" deployments of its forces to the new members so that the U.S. military presence in those countries became permanent in all but name. Even Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was uneasy about those deployments and conceded that he should have warned Bush in 2007 that they might be unnecessarily provocative.

As if such steps were not antagonistic enough, both Bush and Obama sought to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The latter country is not only within what Russia regards as its legitimate sphere of influence, but within its core security zone. Even key European members of NATO, especially France and Germany, believed that such a move was unwise and blocked Washington's ambitions. That resistance, however, did not inhibit a Western effort to meddle in Ukraine's internal affairs to help demonstrators unseat Ukraine's elected, pro-Russia president and install a new, pro-NATO government in 2014.

Such provocative political steps, though, are now overshadowed by worrisome U.S. and NATO military moves. Weeks before the formal announcement on July 29, the Trump administration touted its plan to relocate some U.S. forces stationed in Germany. When Secretary of Defense Mike Esper finally made the announcement, the media's focus was largely on the point that 11,900 troops would leave that country.

However, Esper made it clear that only 6,400 would return to the United States; the other nearly 5,600 would be redeployed to other NATO members in Europe. Indeed, of the 6,400 coming back to the United States, "many of these or similar units will begin conducting rotational deployments back to Europe." Worse, of the 5,600 staying in Europe, it turns out that at least 1,000 are going to Poland's eastern border with Russia.

Another result of the redeployment will be to boost U.S. military power in the Black Sea. Esper confirmed that various units would "begin continuous rotations farther east in the Black Sea region, giving us a more enduring presence to enhance deterrence and reassure allies along NATO's southeastern flank." Moscow is certain to regard that measure as another on a growing list of Black Sea provocations by the United States.

Among other developments, there already has been a surge of alarming incidents between U.S. and Russian military aircraft in that region. Most of the cases involve U.S. spy planes flying near the Russian coast -- supposedly in international airspace. On July 30, a Russian Su-27 jet fighter intercepted two American surveillance aircraft; according to Russian officials, it was the fourth time in the final week of July that they caught U.S. planes in that sector approaching the Russian coast. Yet another interception occurred on August 5, again involving two U.S. spy planes. Still others have taken place throughout mid-August. It is a reckless practice that easily could escalate into a broader, very dangerous confrontation.

The growing number of such incidents is a manifestation of the surging U.S. military presence along Russia's border, especially in the Black Sea . They are taking place on Russia's doorstep, thousands of miles away from the American homeland. Americans should consider how the United States would react if Russia decided to establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico, operating out of bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

The undeniable reality is that the United States and its NATO allies are crowding Russia; Russia is not crowding the United States. Washington's bumptious policies already have wrecked a once-promising bilateral relationship and created a needless new cold war with Moscow. If more prudent U.S. policies are not adopted soon, that cold war might well turn hot.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur (2019).


Tradcon 5 days ago • edited

I mean, I think this has been bipartisan policy since at least 1947. Unlikely to change anytime soon, even with realists gaining ground. Perhaps expanding NATO east, sending support to Ukraine, and intervening in Syria (despite attempts to leave, the best we can get at this point are small troop reductions that most likely are redeployed to neighboring countries) aren't the best idea after all?

Mike P Tradcon 4 days ago

This is a very anti American article! Patriots know that where the U.S. gives political or economic ground Russia and other adversaries will fill the vacum with policies intended to destroy American peoeple. So no, it is not a bad idea to be involved in Syria and Ukraine in fact it is a very good idea.

northernobserver Mike P 4 days ago

The entire framing of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood as "pro American" and those who oppose them as "anti American" is delusional.
Russia is a weak state trying to maintain its natural spheres of influence along the Curzon line. Why has the State Department/ Pentagon decided to try and roll this back? How the F to they expect Russia to react. How would America react if a foreign power tried to turn Mexico into a strategic asset. So why is it ok to make Ukraine into a Nato member? It's reckless and ultimately it is pointless. Weakening Russia further serves little strategic purpose and potentially threatens to destabilize the Balkans and mid east with Turkish adventurism. What will America do if the Turks seize Rhodes under some pretext?

Syria is another case of State Department midwits not understanding the results of their regime change. What purpose does it serve to put a Sunni extremist government in Damascus. How hateful do you have to be to subject Syria's minorities to genocide at the hands of an ISIS sympathetic government? How do you delude yourself that such a regime will serve America's interests in the long run? So you can own Iran before the election? You are trading victory today for permanent loss tomorrow. It's insane.

Aen Elle northernobserver 4 days ago
How the F to they expect Russia to react.

Just like you, they think Russia is a weak state and can do nothing therefore they are free to do as they please. Also, since Turkey is a NATO member and as such an ally to the U.S. shouldn't you be cheering in good faith for Turkey and against Russia?

Bianca Aen Elle a day ago

You got that one. Because Turkey is a thorn in NATO side. It has massive economic interests in Russia, China and the rest of Asia. The "adventure" in Syria is coordinated with Russia to the last detail, while playacting tensions. US problem in Syria is not Russia or Turkey, but Russia AND Turkey.

As US is frowning at Egypt Al-Sisi , or Saudi MBS -- it is because they frown at Egypt AND Russia, as well as Saudi Arabia AND Russia.
Basically, countries nominally counted in OUR camp are frowned upon when collaborating with the ENEMY countries.
Our foreign policy is stuck in Middle East -- and cannot get unstuck. Cannot be better illustrated then Pompeo addressing Republican convention from Jerusalem.

The only way Russia can challenge encirclement is by challenging US in its home away from home -- Middle East. And creating new realities in the ground by collaborating with the countries in the region -- undermining monopoly.

And as the entire world is hurting from epidemic related economic setbacks, Russia and China are economies that are moving forward. And nobody in the Middle East can afford to ignore it.

J Villain northernobserver 4 days ago

I agree with you with the exception of Russia being weak. One day the US which has never seen any thing in advance will push Russia one time to many and find the Russian Army in Poland and Romania. That is if China doesn't take out some thing precious to the US in the mean time like a U2, aircraft carrier etc.

There are two things at play here. The first is the US leadership wants ether country to take a shot at some thing US. Then then can scream and stomp their feet that no one on earth is allowed to trade with ether country and the US can block all trade with ether country.

The other thing at play is Americans love it when their leaders act like gangsters. That's why leaders do it. Nothing will get you votes faster in the US than saying your going to kill people. I see US citizens try that non-sense about it's all Washington we don't want that. But you keep voting for people that are going to give you the next war fix. When you stop they will stop.

PJ London J Villain a day ago

I agree with your assessment except Russia will not put troops into any country without the express request from the legitimate government. They are not going into Poland and especially not Romania (Transnistria maybe) why would they? The countries do not have any resources that Russia wants. The only reason to put troops into Belarus is to maintain a distance between Poland and the borders.

Russia needs nothing from the rest of the world except trade. Un-coerced, free trade. This drives the US corporations crazy as no one will trade with the US anymore without coercion.

PS the same goes for China with the proviso that Taiwan is part of China and needs to be reabsorbed into the mainstream. It will take +20 years but China just keeps the pressure on until there will be no viable alternative.

Bianca northernobserver a day ago

It has never meant to serve American interests. Ever. Once you put it in perspective, it makes sense.

But if people are convinced that Russia is a weak state -- then it is easier to approve adventures abroad -- including ringing Russia.

The problem for never satiated Zealots is the following -- regional powers in the Middle East are hitching their wagons to Eurasian economic engine. That is definitely true of Turkey, Egypt and even Saudi Arabia. The tales of Moslem Brotherhood are here to interpret something today from the iconography from the past. And to explain today what an entirely different set of leaders did -- be that few years ago or one hundred years ago. Same goes for iconography of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Communism, Socialism, authoritarianism, and other ISMS.

Those icons serve the same purpose as icons in religion or in cyber-space. You look at them, or you click -- and the story and explanation is ready made for your consumption. Time to watch actions -- not media iconography to tell us what is going on.

Tradcon Mike P 4 days ago

If we're being purely ideological here those with an overtly internationalist disposition (barring leftists) are those who want to be involved overseas, hardly ones to go on about national interest or pride. Its been a common stance associated with American Nationalism and Paleoconservatives to be anti-intervention, these people (of which I consider myself a part) can hardly be bashed for holding unpatriotic views.)

Russia has a declining population, and an economy smaller than that of Spain. Its hardly a threat and our involvement in Eastern Europe was relatively limited pre-2014 and even so the overall international balance of power hasn't shifted after Russian annexation of Crimea, and the Ukrainians proved quite capable of defending their nation (though not so capable as to end retake separatist strongholds.

Alexandr Kosenkov Mike P 3 days ago

Please explain to me, a Russian person, what kind of anti-American policy Russia is spreading in countries? If we exclude acts of counteraction against American expansion and aggression against Russia? What ideological foundations does Russia have after 1991? Isn't Russia's actions a guerrilla war on the communications of the self-proclaimed "Empire of Good", which is pursuing a tough offensive policy? And is it not because the Russians support a significant part of Putin's initiatives (despite a number of Putin's obvious shortcomings) precisely because they have experience of cooperation with the "Empire of Good" in the 90s: give loans, corrupt officials and deputies, put Russian firms under control big American companies, and then just give orders from the White House.
PS. I beg your pardon my google english

Bianca Mike P a day ago

Another Zealot in Patriot garb. The only people that are destroying Americans are within our borders, wielding power to fulfill their mission -- enrich themselves, keep the borders open, and our military all over the globe.

kouroi 4 days ago • edited

It would be interesting to read the minds of the US pilots engaged in these activities. My guess is that the cognitive dissonance energy in those heads is equivalent to the biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded...

Vhailor 4 days ago

Hmmm... I think there is a third option besides escalation and deescalation - exhaustion. Projecting power across the globe is expensive, it is a slow but steady drain on US resources, which are needed elsewhere (for example to quell the riots in major US cities).

In a major crisis this could lead to a breaking point. What if some US adversary decides to double down and attack (directly or by proxy) US troops and the US will not be able to respond? A humiliating defeat combined with an exhausted public decidedly set against military adventures abroad could cause a rapid retrenchment and global withdrawal.

Kent Vhailor 4 days ago

I see it as exhaustion by corruption. The US military is increasingly bureaucratic, political and ineffectual. Our weapons are gold-plated, hyper-tech focused and require highly-skilled people to maintain them, which means we can't quickly train new people up. The weapons themselves are so complex and expensive that there is no way to manufacture them at scale quickly.

The DOD today is only about personal political position, and grubbing tax-payer dollars for self-aggrandizement. In any real war with a real adversary, we wouldn't stand a chance.

Vhailor Kent 4 days ago

I wouldn't be so pessimistic regarding US military capabilities and I'm neither a US citizen or a fan of US global hegemony.

The US armed forces are made up of professionals. There are some universal advantages and disadvantages of such forces. A professional army is good at fighting wars but bad at controlling territory because of its limited size and higher costs-per-soldier. In order to control territory you need "boots on the ground" in great numbers, standing at checkpoints and patrolling the countryside. They didn't have to be trained to the level of Navy SEALS, for them it is enough if they can shoot straight and won't be scared from some fireworks and the US lacks such forces.

kouroi Vhailor 4 days ago

So how is one going to get the millions of manpower to fulfill these tasks? Pauperize the masses so that joining the army becomes the only viable solution? Introduce the Draft? Provide a pathway for US citizenship for any foreigner that joins, establishing a US Foreign Legion?

And then, how you'll have enough boots on the ground to pacify Russia or China. It took more than a month to establish and secure the beach heads in Bretagne in France in 1944. How do you think you can even get those boots to land in Russia or China, when you know that the ICBMs are going to start flying towards the continental US if something like this will ever happen?

Vhailor kouroi 4 days ago

So how is one going to get the millions of manpower to fulfill these tasks? Pauperize the masses so that joining the army becomes the only viable solution? Introduce the Draft?

It is no longer possible to introduce the draft in the US - even mentioning it would lead to social unrests.

Baruch Dreamstalker Vhailor 4 days ago

The idea of a soft-mandatory year of service with a military option has been floated. It generates neither unrest nor interest.

alan Vhailor 21 hours ago

Read Jean Lartegy's "The Centurions." That is the direction where the tactically brilliant, but strategically incompetent US military leadership is headed.

Scaathor Kent 4 days ago

In addition, those gold-plated weapon systems often do not work as advertised. Look how the multi-billion IADS of the Saudis couldn't protect their refinery complex from a cruise missile attack from Yemen. Look at the embarrassing failures of the LCS and Zumwalt ship classes, and the endless problems with the Ford CVN. The F35 is proving a ginormous boondoggle that will massively enrich LM shareholders but will do squat for US military capabilities.

kouroi Vhailor 4 days ago

It will go on as long as the US is able to benefit of its present ability to print money and have the world use that money...

Baruch Dreamstalker William Toffan 15 hours ago

The alternative is an incumbent who runs against the condition of his own country as an outsider. It take an idiot to support that.

PJ London Feral Finster a day ago

He already did and the Military ignored him.
He backtracked with endless excuses and conditionals.
https://www.nbcnews.com/new...
**
Bill Clinton once reportedly told senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon, "Sarah, there's a government inside the government, and I don't control it."
**
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
– Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States (1856-1924)
**
Do you really think that the adults with so much to lose would allow an idiot like Trump (or Clinton or Obama or Bush) to actually run things?

Feral Finster PJ London a day ago

And then, like the cuck he is, Trump knuckled under. "I like oil!"

Dan Greene bumbershoot 3 days ago

Stop focusing on what Trump says and look at what his administration does. Troops in Poland and Eastern Europe, Nord Stream 2, intrusive US reconnaissance flights along Russia's borders, support of Ukraine, interference with Russian patrols in Syria, the continuing attempt to destabilize Assad in Syria, the destruction of JCPOA, global sanctions campaign on Russia among others, withdrawal from arms control treaties, accusation that Russia was cheating on INF treaty, hiring dozens of anti-Russia hardliners, etc, etc.

I'll repeat: Focus on what Trump does, not what he says, and then total up the pro-Russia and anti-Russia actions of this administration and see what that reveals.

peter mcloughlin 4 days ago

A danger with this "new Cold War" is the assumption it will end like the first one – peacefully. If this is the thinking among policy-makers we are in a very perilous situation. History shows that fatal miscalculations contributed to the First World War, and as a consequence the second. Today there is no room for miscalculation, which will set off unstoppable escalation into a third.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...

I Don't Matter 4 days ago

Russians deliberately repeatedly ram an American vehicle, but I'm sure it's all our fault. Shouldn't have worn that skirt I guess.
Before y'all armchair Putin experts say all your loving things: you have nothing to contribute unless you speak fluent Russian. I watched the video taken and published by the Russians and it was pretty clear what they were doing.

Feral Finster I Don't Matter 4 days ago

The United States is not invited in Syria or wanted. Russian troops are in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate and recognized government.

Whatever happens to American troops there is deserved.

dba12123 . I Don't Matter 3 days ago • edited

Something critical is being missed entirely. The United States has invaded Syria without a mandate from the UN. Its' president has explicitly stated that it is the intention of the US to take Syria's oil. Both are violations of international law. Any hostile action taken against the illegal US presence in Syria is justifiable as self defense. While the US presence in Syria is illegal, Russia's presence is not. Russia was invited into Syria by the UN recognized Syrian government to assist it in defending against the US regime change by Al Qaeda proxy operation..

hooly 4 days ago

establish a major naval and air presence in the Gulf of Mexico, operating out of bases in such allied countries as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

What would happen if China or Russia established bases in the Caribbean and Latin America? Trump joked about selling Puerto Rico, what if the Chinese bought it?

L RNY 4 days ago

If the Israeli's have a problem with Russia being in Syria then Israel should deal with it. Its not our problem and Russia is not our enemy. Infact India is bringing closer relations between Russia and Japan. Which do you want? Russian antagonism because Israel doesn't want Russians in Syria or Russian partnership with India, Japan, Australia and the US dealing with China? Remember....you could spend 1000 years in the middle east and not make a dent in the animosities between peoples there...so one is a futile endeaver...while the other has great benefit.

Carlton Meyer 4 days ago

Note that Russian soldiers are in Syria at the request of its government to help fend off foreign invaders. The American troops are there illegally, with no UN or even Congressional authorization.

Also note the USA risks another Cuban missile crisis by withdrawing from the INF treaty after illegally building missile launch complexes in Romania and Poland that can hit Russia with nuclear cruise missiles.

The USA did much more than "meddle" in Ukraine. The Obama/Biden team openly organized a coup to overthrow its elected President because he didn't want to join NATO and the EU.

https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FnW7lNABfDVk%3Ffeature%3Doembed&display_name=YouTube&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnW7lNABfDVk&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FnW7lNABfDVk%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube

Hrant Carlton Meyer 4 days ago

Is that guy in the middle of the left seated Vlad Klitschko? I great boxer no doubt, but also known for his stunning stupidity. Is he part of the new Ukrainian political elite? Poor Ukraine.

Aen Elle Hrant 4 days ago

Klichko has been the mayor of Ukrainian capital city Kiev since the victory of Euromaidan in 2014 until present day.

longlance 4 days ago

Russia has been threatened & attacked by military powers to its West, East & South for 1000 years. Russia is now lean & mean, but still standing.

Baruch Dreamstalker 4 days ago • edited

A Russian vehicle sideswipes an American vehicle, injuring two US soldiers, and that's an American provocation? An American spy plane claims to be in international waters, and you tack in a "supposedly" in that sentence? "Violating" a tacit promise, really? Russia aggression against Georgia and Crimea is OK because Sphere of Influence? This article is loaded with Blame America First crap usually associated with the Left (much to this liberal's disgust). Never expected to find it here.

Yes, the expansion of NATO east must have looked to Russia like something coming at their borders entirely too fast. I thought it was a terrible idea at the time, and wrote it off to the wheels of a fifty-year-old bureaucracy not knowing how to slow down. Your eye-straining gaze at the tea-leaves for Deeper State motives is unpersuasive, even without your odious prejudices.

kouroi Baruch Dreamstalker 4 days ago

Maybe some play of Rashomon would be in order here. That is your perspective.

Now your honor, what I have seen is that Georgia attacked first and hoped to occupy a certain area that Russian Federation was protecting, As a side comment, I have to point to an Orwellian use of the word "aggressive" and "attack". It seems that anything that the US cannot wantonly control or bomb is inherently aggressive and attacking either directly or indirectly the "rules based order".

Crimea had Russian assets that became endangered. Crimea was part of Russia until 1954, when was donated in an unsanctioned manner to Ukraine. The majority Russian population in Crimea has been persecuted by the Ukrainian state since at least 1994. The Euromaidan would have exacerbated that. A referendum was carried on and just considering ethnic lines, Russians won in their desire to re-unite with the Russian Federation. There aren't many legal arguments against that referendum and that process, if one looks for them...

So the above perspectives have nothing to do with just "sphere of influence" but with direct core interests of the Russian state and its core security...

The deep state is a tool that is trying to fulfill one objective: integration of Russian economy under the control of US and its Oligarchy. Otherwise it will always be a threat. A Nationalist, democratic (but not oligarchic) and sovereign Russia will always be considered an enemy of the world hegemon...

And the provocation is the actual presence in Syria of US troops. Ramming the US military vehicle is not a provocation from Russians, it is a simple eviction notification. End of story!

Hannibal Jubal 4 days ago

Isn't it just amazing how this writer gets to turn an incident of provocation by Russian soldiers into a story of persistent provocation by America. That is remarkable dexterity even for this paper. I am used to them suggesting that we should leave the people of Eastern Europe to the tender mercies of the whims and wishes of a dictator in Moscow - because they are in his backyard. But to be able to switch from that incident to their regular theme is an achievement one can recognize, though not respect. The people of those countries should have a choice about who they associate, and they certainly have a right not to align with people they fear. Calling us for not respecting he rights of other people to decide their fates is right and proper. I enthusiastically support this paper when they do. But when they turn right around and castigate us for not respecting Russia's right to do it - I am flabbergasted.

Dan Greene Hannibal Jubal 3 days ago

"Isn't it just amazing how this writer gets to turn an incident of provocation by Russian soldiers into a story of persistent provocation by America."

How do you know it's an incident of provocation by Russian soldiers? It almost certainly is almost the exact opposite.

Dan Greene 3 days ago • edited

This piece spends too much time re-hashing everything Russia-US since 1990 and fails to focus on the key current issues.

The vehicle incidents in Syria are distinct from the European issue -- see below in this post -- that is generating some of the other tensions the author lists. Syria is really part of the larger Middle East issue.

His brief summary of the latest Syria mishap is inadequate to convey what actually happened.

If you actually look at the video, it does NOT appear to be the case that a Russian vehicle simply "sideswiped" a US vehicle. It appears that the US was maintaining a checkpoint on a road that in effect blocked Russian passage. Given the terrain, the Russians could of course bypass such a checkpoint, which is what they appear to have done. Then, however, other US vehicles left the checkpoint and attempted to block and turn back the Russian bypass movement, and this led to the collision. So the incident is part of a larger US policy to impede Russian operations in NE Syria.

Almost two years ago, Trump ordered US forces out of Syria, and Russia, in agreement with that plan, sent patrols to the NE to ensure that provisions of an stability agreement with Turkey and the Kurds were maintained. But then Trump was almost immediately convinced--by whom is not clear, but ultimately Israel in all probability--to do a 180 and keep US forces in NE Syria, the superficial rationale being to take control of oil, the kind of pirate operation that Trump likes. In fact, the goal of those who influence Trump is to keep Syria weak and unable to rebuild with the expectation that Assad can still be overthrown at some future point. This is the desire of Israel and its operatives in the US.

Trump's zag after the zig of planned withdrawal left the US-Russian understanding in chaos. Now both the US AND the Russians were operating in NE Syria. And over time the US has become more and more aggressive about impeding Russian operations. The Russians claim--credibly--that we are demanding that they, in moving their patrols up to the area of the Syria-Turkey border area not use the M4 highway, the main and direct route and instead follow a secondary route that circuitously follows the border. The Russians don't accept that demand. And the vehicle incidents that we are seeing are the outcome of that disagreement. The Russians are driving up Highway 4 and when they get to the US checkpoint are bypassing and then continuing up the highway. We are aggressively trying to deter them from that route choice.

Not sure why this article does not go into detail on this issue in order to clarify it.

Much of the other stuff the author is talking about here--intrusive air ops in the Black Sea, etc--is really a separate, European issue. The US is highly concerned about the economic interactions between Russia and Europe--especially the big economies of Western Europe and most especially Germany. We are worried that over time Russian-European economic integration will erode our strategic control and dominance over Europe in general.

Hence, we are making common cause with the anti-Russian elements in "the New Europe," i.e., Eastern Europe to try, in essence, to place a barrier between Russia and Western Europe, playing off Poland, the Baltics and Romania, among others, against Russia, Germany, France et al. Moving more US forces into Poland and the so-called "Black Sea Region"; impeding Nord Stream 2 and other Russian pipeline initiatives; indulging in recurrent anti-German propaganda for not maintaining a more robust anti-Russian military posture; fomenting (behind the scenes) the recent disturbances in Belarus; and promotion of the so-called "Three Seas Initiative" intended to weld Eastern and Central Europe together into a reliable tool of US policy are all part of this plan to retain US strategic control of Europe over the long term.

That's what the heightened tensions in Europe are about.

As I said, the Syria issue, part of the larger Middle East struggle, is separate from the parallel struggle for mastery in Europe.

It's all an important topic, but this article doesn't really capture the salient points.

Dan Greene Hannibal Jubal 3 days ago • edited

You're living in a dreamland.

And you're playing word games. Syria's oil is effectively under US control. Yes, we are deriving strategic benefit from it in that we are denying it to the Syrian government in order to further destabilize it. It's not a good policy, but the policy does benefit from denying Syria its oil.

The problem is that most of the oil is on Arab land, not Kurdish land, and the Arabs of the Northeast are now realigning themselves with Assad, so holding on to the oil is likely to get more difficult in the future.

I have no idea what you mean by "slander." Guess that means truths you find inconvenient. Sorry--not in the business of coddling the faint of heart. Trump likes the idea of taking resources which he imagines to be payment for services we have rendered--like leaving the country in a state of ruin. He talked about Iraqi oil that way too, but taking that would be much harder.

Time for you to stop dismissing every reality you don't like as unpatriotic.

dba12123 . Hannibal Jubal 3 days ago

The "Assad regime" is the UN recognized government of Syria. That is the only entity entitled to the country's resources. How is it "the property of the Syrian nation" if the Syrian government and its people no longer have access to it? To whom is the oil being sold? Who is receiving the proceeds of the oil sales?

Here are some of Trump's own words with respect to Syria's oil. "I like oil. We are keeping the oil." 4/11/2019. "The US is in Syria solely for the oil." "We are keeping the oil. We have the oil. The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for oil." "The US military is in Syria only for oil." What part of Trump's public assertion that "We are keeping the oil" are you having difficulty in understanding? How can you say the US "did not take possession of the oil" when Trump could not have been more explicit in saying precisely the opposite? Do you not comprehend that the US presence in Syria has no mandate either from the UN or from the US Congress. Do you not understand that the US presence in Syria is illegal under international law? Do you not understand that "Keeping the oil" is a violation of international law? Your post is one of the most ridiculous I have even read.

Dan Greene Hannibal Jubal 2 days ago • edited

1. It's quite clear from the video that the US had set up a checkpoint on the road at left in the video. (Indeed, we are open about the fact that we are doing so in general in NE Syria.) And it's equally clear that Russian vehicles are seen bypassing those checkpoints. The encounter between US and Russian vehicles takes place off the road. There is only one logical interpretation of what happened. What is your alternative explanation?

2. "No one reading this can believe that Eastern Europeans have genuine cause to fear Russia, or that these countries continually request more military and political involvement than we are willing to provide or that we are not inducing them to do anything or manipulating them."

First of all, there are no current indications of any Russian intent to do anything in regard to Eastern Europe. Yes, one can understand the history, which is why there is anti-Russian sentiment in Eastern Europe, but aside perhaps from the Baltic states in their unique geographic position, there is no country that has any basis in reality to worry about Russian aggression in the present.

Of course, this does not stop the Poles from doing exactly that. And perhaps the Romanians to a much lesser extent. So yes, there is fear in a few key countries based on past history, Poland being the keystone of the whole thing, and yes, we are indeed manipulating that fear in an attempt to block/undermine any economic integration between Germany and Russia. We are also trying to use the "Three Seas Initiative" to block Chinese commercial and tech penetration of Eastern Europe--5G and their plan to rebuild the port of Trieste to service Central and NE Europe.

Do you actually believe Russia, which has lately been cutting its defense budget, is actually going to invade Europe? That really is a fantasy. The only military operations they will take are to prevent further expansion of NATO into Ukraine and Belarus. The real game today is commercial and tech competition. Putin knows it would be disastrous for Russia to start a war with NATO. Not sure why that's hard for you to see.

Your notion of the Russian threat--as it exists today--is wildly exaggerated.

Dr.Diprospan 3 days ago

Once President Putin remarked that there are forces in the United States trying to use Russia for internal political struggle. He added that we will nevertheless try not to be drawn into these confrontations.

A scene from a Hollywood action movie rises before my eyes, when two heroes of the film are fighting and a circular saw is spinning nearby, and each of the heroes is trying to shove a part of the enemy's body under this saw.

The relationship between Russian and American servicemen, I would compare with two hockey teams, when the tough behavior of the players on the ice does not mean that the players of one team would be happy with the death of the entire opposing team, say in some kind of plane crash, since the presence of a strong opponent is a necessary condition for getting a good salary.

Still, I would not completely deny the possibility of a "hot war".

Since the times of the Roman Empire, the West of Europe has been trying to take control of the territory of Europe, Eurasia, and Eurasia, in turn, dreams of mastering the technologies of the West.

The defeat of the 3rd Reich provided the Soviet Union with a breakthrough in the nuclear industry and space...

It's hard to imagine that Russia is capable of defeating NATO, but I can imagine that in the current situation, President Putin can offer China to build military bases in western Russia for a million Chinese servicemen, for 100 thousand on the Chukchi Peninsula, for 500 thousand on Sakhalin...

The extra money for renting military bases in a coronavirus crisis will not hurt anyone.

stevek9 3 days ago • edited

Of all the things about Hillary Clinton to despise, her selfish attempt to explain her loss, and to attack the President (to whom she never conceded the election!) by blaming Russia, is at the top of the list. To generate a completely unnecessary conflict with a nuclear super-power that could burn this country to ashes in minutes, out of personal vindictiveness, ... is lower than it can get.

Denmark002 3 days ago

We are totally messing with fire... we will need Europe but Russia as well to defeat the Chinese.

Dan Greene LostForWords 2 days ago • edited

I don't think US-Russian cooperation is doable at this point--or any time soon. Given how erratic US policy is--yawing violently from one direction to another--Russia has no reason to accept the damage to its relationship with China that shifting to a strategic arrangement with the US would entail. The risk is too high and the potential rewards too uncertain.

We have pretty much alienated the Russian state under Putin, and now we're trying to wait him out, with the expectation that there is no one of his capabilities to maintain the strategic autonomy of the Russian state in the longer term and that once he exits the scene, some Yeltsin-like stooge will present himself.

We thought we were dealing with the main threats to our global hegemony sequentially--Russia "defeated" in the Cold War, and then on to a defeat of "militant Islam" in the Greater Middle East and finally to a showdown with China. But now, the sequencing has fallen apart, and we're trying to prosecute all three simultaneously.

We're in serious trouble.

Ram2017 LostForWords a day ago

Hizbollah arose as a defensive militia because of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is not a terrorist group even though labelled so by the US.

William H Warrick III MD a day ago

You have inverted the facts. The video evidence shows the Americans side-swiped the Russian vehicle and claimed "American soldiers had 'concussions'". A concussion requires loss of consciousness or significant changes in mental function. In football, you have your "Bell rung". You can't add 2+2 correctly. There is no evidence to support that.

Mark Thomason a day ago

No, we are just trying to outdo each other with "Putin-under-the-bed" and all-powerful-Putin causing all the world's evils.

Jamie a day ago

Everyone is focusing on Russia because of the Russia hoax. Dems started a new cold war based on an irrational fear that Russia was threatening our democracy.

Along with Dems, I also blame Putin; he bribed Hillary millions for uranium -- that doesn't lend to good relations.

alan a day ago

The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael McFaul.

[Sep 01, 2020] How Democrats and Republicans made deals to pass Magnitsky Act by Lucy Komisar

Highly recommended!
The foreign policy elite dislikes Russia, always has, and will do anything to keep this "adversary" front and center because their prospects for prestige, power and position depend upon the presence of an enemy. As an example see Strobe Talbot and Michael McFaul.
Notable quotes:
"... Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic senator who never met a war he didn't like. ..."
"... It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989 at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings. ..."
"... To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group. ..."
"... She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship with fraudsters. ..."
"... On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen. ..."
"... Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died. ..."
"... How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal ..."
"... Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act. ..."
"... Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky leg­islation, we will strongly oppose the lifting of Jackson-Vanik." ..."
"... The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate. ..."
"... It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of the law to see how it is based on the fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.) ..."
Aug 19, 2020 | www.thekomisarscoop.com

As the Democratic Convention is in progress, it is fitting to look at how Democrats in Congress and the White House, with Republican collaboration, were responsible for the Magnitsky Act , the law that protects tax fraudster William Browder and his henchman Mikhail Khodorkovsky by erecting a wall against their having to face justice for their financial crimes. And ramps up hostility against Russia.

The fraudster William Browder .

This is a half-hour interview about this I did today on this subject for Fault Lines . And a 15-minute interview for The Critical Hour . Here is an expanded version of what I said.

William Browder in the mid-1990s became manager of the Hermitage Fund, set up with $25 million from Lebanese-Brazilian banker Edmond Safra and Israeli mining investor Beny Steinmez to buy shares in Russian companies.

He says he started the fund, but that is a lie. He was brought in to manage other people's money. But after some years, when the two investors either died or confronted major financial problems, Browder gained control.

Browder doesn't like paying taxes.

Browder was an American who traded his citizenship for a UK passport in 1998 so he could avoid paying U.S. taxes on his stock profits. ( CBS called him a tax expatriate.)

He didn't like paying Russian taxes either. In an early rip-off, he and his partners billionaire Kenneth Dart of Dart cups and New York investor Francis Baker bought a majority of Avisma, a titanium company, that produces material used in airplanes. They cheated minority investors and the Russian tax collector of profits by using transfer pricing.

Corrupt Russian "oligarch" Mikhail Khodorkovsky, photo Lucy Komisar.

You sell your production to a fake company at a low price, then your fake company sells it at the world price. You book lower dividends to cheat minority shareholders, report lower taxes to cheat the Russian people.

Browder and partners bought Avisma from infamous oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the basis of continuing his transfer pricing scam. It was revealed by documents in a lawsuit when Browder and partners sued another infamous guy, Peter Bond, the Isle of man crook handling the rake-offs for not passing on the full amount of the skim. (No honor among thieves!) The legal documents where Browder admits to the scam are linked in this story .

Browder cheats bigtime on Russia taxes

Browder's next corruption was to cheat the Russians of taxes from his stock buys in Russia, to the tune of about $100million. That included claiming as deductions disabled workers who didn't work for him, local investments he never made, profits from stock buys of Gazprom the Russian energy conglomerate that non-Russians were not allowed to buy in Russia.

Investigations started in the early 2000s for $40 mil in evaded takes and led to legal judgments in 2004. When he refused to pay, in November 2005 he was denied a Russian visa and in 2006 he moved all his assets out of Russia. But the Russian tax evasion investigations continued.

Browder's accountant Sergei Magnitsky was arrested for investigation of the tax evasion in 2008, and the European Commission on Human Rights ruled last year that was correct because of the evidence and because he was a flight risk. Browder's fake narrative was that Magnitsky, who he lied was his lawyer , had been arrested because he blew the whistle on a scheme by Russian officials to embezzle money from the Russian Treasury. In his own U.S. federal court deposition , Browder admits Magnitsky didn't go to law school or have a law license. See his brief video on that.

Browder gives speeches that he didn't know how Magnitsky died

Then Magnitsky died of heart failure exacerbated by stomach disease which forensic reports say was not properly treated. Browder first said (in talks at the British foreign policy association Chatham House , London, a month after he died, and San Diego Law School -- video at minute 6:20 -- a year later) he didn't know how Magnitsky died, but after a few years he invented a story that he had been beaten to death.

Jonathan Winer, who helped Browder with his scam.

That story was developed by Jonathan Winer, a former assistant to Senator John Kerry and then a State Department official. Winer was working for APCO, an international public relations company one of whose major clients was the same Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They correctly assumed the western media would do no research. Or at least would not be allowed to report it. And the mainstream media never did, except much later Der Spiegel in Germany, which the rest of the western press ignored.

The plan was to get a U.S. law that would in effect block the Russians from going after certain Americans who had cheated on taxes. They would be Browder and Khodorkovsky, who is actually named in the law.

Khodorkovsky would spend several hundred thousand dollars to buy Congressional support for the Magnitsky Act, clearly money well spent. He duly reported it as lobbying expenses.

Here is how the Democrats and Republicans colluded in the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Much of this comes from Browder's own writings in his mostly fake book "Red Notice." Note the corruption of both parties.

Magnitsky died in November 2009. Only four months later in March 2010, Browder was plotting his Magnitsky hoax, attacking Russians he would claim were responsible for Magnitsky's death. But the bizarre part of the story is that he continued throughout 2010 to say he didn't know how Magnitsky died, including in a videoed Dec 2010 San Diego law school talk. He obviously assumed U.S. media and politicians would not notice or care about the contradictions.

Ben Cardin, senator who signed on to Browder hoax.

Browder got Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin to send a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2010 urging her to ban visas for 60 people Browder had listed (without evidence) as complicit in Magnitsky's death. (Remember 9 months later in a videoed talk at San Diego Law School Browder says he didn't know how Magnitsky died.)

The letter to Hillary Clinton, written (Browder says in his book) by Browder acolyte Kyle Parker, a staffer at the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, I "urge you to immediately cancel and permanently withdraw the U.S. visa privileges of all those involved in this crime, along with their dependents and family members." Immediately? No due process, not even for children and grandparents? Cousins?

Attached to the letter was the list of the sixty officials Browder accused, without evidence, of involvement in Magnitsky's death and a tax fraud against the Treasury.

Browder's fake tax refund fraud

The tax refund fraud was a scheme in which shell companies were set up to sue Browder's Hermitage companies claiming contract violations and damages of $1billion. The Hermitage companies immediately agreed to pay (no evidence of actual bank transfers), then demanded the Treasury pay a tax refund of $230million because they now had zero profits.

Viktor Markelov, tried and jailed for the scam, said he worked with a Sergei Leonidovich, which is Magnitsky's name and patronymic. Other evidence, including an inexplicable delay of months between Browder learning about the his companies being re-registered in other names and him reporting that as "theft," indicates he was part of the scam too.

Note this: Hermitage trustee HSBC filed a financial document in July 2007 saying it was putting aside $7 million for legal costs that might be required to get back the companies. This was five months before the tax refund fraud occurred. Albert Dabbah, chief financial controller for HSBC, confirmed the document's authenticity in U.S. federal court. But Browder and Magnitsky (in his testimony ) said they didn't learn about the "theft" till October 2007.

Theft of his companies? The best defense is a good offense. Accuse others of the crime you committed.

Senator Cardin was requesting that all sixty of Browder's accused have their U.S. travel privileges permanently revoked.

But Hillary didn't buy it. Then House staffer Parker arranged for Browder to testify about the Magnitsky case May 6 th at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, not an official House body but a pressure group set up in the name of a Russophobic former congressman from Hungary.

Congressman Jim McGovern would not send the evidence he promised, because he couldn't. There wasn't any.

The commission chairman was Massachusetts Democratic congressman Jim McGovern, who runs liberal but is a Russophobe who pretends to be a human rights advocate.

Now what is really interesting is that seven months after this May 6 testimony, on December 6, 2010, Browder was telling the San Diego law school (video 6:20 in) that "they put him in a straight jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited outside the door until he died." Nothing about torture or killing. Had Browder forgotten his dramatic beating story?

McGovern at the Lantos Commission hearing asked for no evidence. He said he would introduce legislation, put the 60 names Browder cited in it, move it to the committee and make a formal recommendation from Congress, then pass it on the floor.

McGovern lies about sending evidence

Kimberly Stanton, who runs a propaganda operation and refused to provide evidence.

In July 2019, almost a decade later, I saw McGovern when he spoke at the Council on Foreign Relations. I asked if he would send me evidence backing the claim that Magnitsky was tortured and killed. He agreed and introduced me to an aide. The aide referred me to Kimberly Stanton, director of the Lantos Commission, who refused in an email to provide any information. And said evidence against targeted people is not required!

I also wrote McGovern's press secretary Matt Bonaccorsi and legislative director Cindy Buhl. They ignored repeated requests, never sent me anything. I conclude that Jim McGovern, who pretends to be a liberal civil rights promoter, is a fake and a fraud.

McGovern introduces a Magnitsky bill in the House.

John McCain, he loved fraudsters and wars.

Ben Cardin agreed to be the cosponsor of a Magnitsky Act in the Senate. He sought a Republican cosponsor, John McCain, a Russophobic senator who never met a war he didn't like.

It wasn't the first time McCain helped a fraudster. McCain was one of the corrupt "Keating Five" senators who improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., corrupt chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which collapsed in 1989 at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government (and thus taxpayers). Many investors lost their life savings.

Keating was the target of a regulatory investigation. With powerful senators like McCain advocating his cause, the regulator backed off taking action against Lincoln. Though Keating went to jail. McCain was cited only for exercising "poor judgment." Helping a crook doesn't get you thrown out of the Senate.

To get to McCain and others, Browder hired lobbyist Juleanna Glover, who had been Vice President Dick Cheney's press secretary and then Attorney General John Ashcroft's senior policy adviser. She went with Ashcroft when he left government to run the Washington office of his law firm, the Ashcroft Group.

Juleanna Glover, former aide to Dick Cheney. She can buy you a bill .

She got Browder a meeting with McCain who agreed to sponsor the Magnitsky Act. It fit with his Russophobia and friendship with fraudsters.

On September 29, 2010, Senators Ben Cardin, John McCain, Roger Wicker (Republican of Mississippi) and Joe Lieberman (Democrat of Connecticut) introduced the bill in the Senate. Anyone involved in the false arrest, torture or death of Sergei Magnitsky, or the crimes he uncovered, would be publicly named, banned from entering the United States, and have their U.S. assets frozen.

Remember again that a few months later Browder would tell the San Diego law school he didn't know how Magnitsky died.

Now here is how the law got passed. The Jackson-Vanick amendment put in place in the mid-1970s imposed trade sanctions on the Soviet Union to punish it for not allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate. Well, nobody could emigrate. Eventually 1.5 million Jews were allowed to leave the country.

How the Browder-Magnitsky hoax law got passed in a trade deal

Thirty-seven years later the Soviet Union no longer existed, and everybody could emigrate, but Jackson-Vanik was still on the books. It blocked American corporations from enjoying the same trade benefits with Russia as the world's other WTO members.

So, the U.S. business community said Jackson-Vanik had to go, and the Obama administration agreed. So did John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. They needed an act of Congress.

Meanwhile, Kerry opposed the Magnitsky Act which he considered untoward interference in Russia (is that like saying meddling?) and had been delaying bringing it to vote in committee.

Browder got Senator Joe Lieberman, conservative Democrat from Connecticut, to agree to block Jackson-Vanik repeal unless the administration stopped blocking his Magnitsky Act.

Lieberman and the other cosponsors of the Magnitsky Act sent a letter to Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The letter said, "In the absence of the passage of the Magnitsky leg­islation, we will strongly oppose the lifting of Jackson-Vanik."

John Kerry had good instincts, forced to make bad compromise.

So, Kerry stopped his opposition to the Magnitsky Act.

The two bills were combined. First the bill would be brought up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to pass Magnitsky, then it would go before the Finance Committee to repeal Jackson-Vanik, and then, it would go before the full Senate for a vote.

Kerry called for a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June 2012, with the purpose of approving the Magnitsky Act.

At the hearing, Kerry said that America was not a perfect country, and that the people in that room should be "very mindful of the need for the United States not to always be pointing fingers and lecturing and to be somewhat introspective as we think about these things." (Such nuance would obviously not be allowed today.)

He was "worried about the unintended consequences of requiring that kind of detailed reporting that implicates a broader range of intelligence." He didn't have to worry. Reporting? Intelligence? Actual evidence would never be required! The U.S. was setting up a kangaroo court and calling it a human rights tribunal!

The bill passed the House 365 to 43 on November 16, 2012. Voting "No" were 37 Democrats and 6 Republicans. Among them Maxine Waters and Ron Paul. And surprisingly New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler who since then became a Russophobe. Tulsi Gabbard had not yet been elected.

Kyle Parker told Browder, "There are a number of senators who are insisting on keeping Magnitsky global instead of Russia-only." One was Cardin, but also Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan – a political giant who spent many years fighting, holding hearings, about offshore tax evasion and must have known very well how Browder was a poster child for offshore tax-evading crooks. Also Jon Kyl, Republican from Arizona. Of course, Browder wanted "Russia only," because the purpose of the law was to attack Russia, not to promote global human rights. Cardin withdrew his objection, and the bill was "Russia only."

The Senate vote

The final count December 6, 2012 was 92-4. Levin and three other Democrats – Bernie Sanders as well as Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both of Rhode Island – were the only Senators to vote against it. Elizabeth Warren was not yet in the Senate.

It was signed by Obama a week later. Read Title IV of the law to see how it is based on the fake claims the chief sponsors would not, could not prove. Including "he was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last day of his life" based on zero evidence, just Browder's lies. (I also wrote to Cardin's office and got no reply.)

It was the first pillar of Russiagate, where Cold Warrior Democrats joined forces with Cold Warrior Republicans. The result would be to build a wall against Russia bringing Browder to justice, including getting Interpol to refuse to issue a red notice that would require other countries to arrest him. He would name his book Red Notice as a jab at the Russians.

And the crooks Browder and Khodorkovsky, protected from the rule of law, laughed all the way to their offshore banks. Here's the link to Browder's Mossack Fonseca (on Panama Papers fame) bank.

(Speaking of the rule of law, it doesn't apply to offshore banks, with secret owners of companies and accounts. They are largely run by western banks that make big profits from laundering the money of the world's crooks. Note on any SEC filing where banks have their subsidiaries: Caymans, Isle of Man, Guernsey, BVI, etc. No local clients, just financial fakery: letterbox companies, tax evasion. It's okay. When there's corruption, only the little people go to jail. In the offshore system, the corrupt financial oligarchy rules.)

ShareThis

Click here to donate to The Komisar Scoop

One Response to " How Democrats and Republicans made deals to pass Magnitsky Act "
  1. Pingback: How Democrats and Republicans made deals to pass Magnitsky Act – The Chaos Cat

[Aug 31, 2020] Russiagate without end- US appeals court REVERSES earlier decision to end Flynn criminal case -- RT USA News

Aug 31, 2020 | www.rt.com

A full-bench US federal appeals court has reversed an earlier decision to dismiss the 'Russiagate' case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, returning it to the judge who refused to let the charges be dropped.

In a 8-2 ruling on Monday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Judge Emmet Sullivan, and sent the case back to him for review. Sullivan had been ordered by a three-judge panel in June to drop the case against Flynn immediately, but hired an attorney and asked for an en banc hearing instead.

Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell said the split was "as expected" based on the tone of the oral arguments, pointing to a partisan divide on the bench, and added it was a "disturbing blow to the rule of law."

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1300472878585065477&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fusa%2F499542-appeals-court-denies-michael-flynn%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

The former top lawyer for the Barack Obama administration, Neal Katyal, hailed the decision as "an important step in defending the rule of law" and argued the case should not be dismissed because Flynn had pleaded guilty.

Flynn had indeed pleaded guilty to one charge of lying to the FBI, but Powell moved to dismiss the charges due to the failure of his previous attorneys – a law firm with ties to the Democrats – and the government to disclose evidence that could set him free. After producing documents revealing that the FBI set out to entrap Flynn, had no valid cause to interview him in the first place, and the prosecutors improperly extorted him into a plea by threatening to charge his son, the Justice Department moved to drop all charges.

ALSO ON RT.COM End of Russiagate? DOJ drops case against Trump adviser Flynn that started 'witch hunt'

Sullivan had other ideas, however. In a highly unusual move, he appointed a retired judge – who had just written a diatribe about the case in the Washington Post – to be amicus curiae and argue the case should not be dropped. It was at this point that Powell took the case to the appeals court, citing Fokker, a recent Supreme Court precedent that Sullivan was violating.

Ignoring the fact that Sullivan had appointed the amicus and sought to prolong the case after the DOJ and the appeals court both told him to drop it, the en banc panel argued the proper procedure means he needs to make the decision before it can be appealed.

One of the judges, Thomas Griffith, actually argued in a concurring opinion that it would be "highly unusual" for Sullivan not to dismiss the charges, given the executive branch's constitutional prerogatives and his "limited discretion" when it came to the relevant federal procedure, but said that an order to drop the case is not "appropriate in this case at this time" because it's up to Sullivan to make the call first.

ALSO ON RT.COM 'Russiagate' case against ex-Trump adviser Michael Flynn effectively OVER, as DC appeals court orders to close it

The court likewise rejected Powell's motion to reassign a case to a different judge.

Conservatives frustrated by the neverending legal saga have blasted the appeals court's decision as disgraceful. "The Mike Flynn case is an embarrassing stain on this country and its 'judges'," tweeted TV commentator Dan Bongino. "We don't have judges anymore, only corrupted politicians in black robes."

While Flynn was not the first Trump adviser to be charged by special counsel Robert Mueller's 'Russiagate' probe, he was the first White House official pressured to resign over it, less than two weeks into the job.

With Mueller failing to find any evidence of "collusion" between President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, Democrats have latched onto Flynn's case as proof of their 'Russiagate' conspiracy theory. The latest argument is that the effort to drop the charges against Flynn is politically motivated and proof of Attorney General Bill Barr's "corruption."

Barr is currently overseeing a probe by US attorney John Durham into the FBI's handling of the investigation against Trump during and after the 2016 election, with the evidence disclosed during the Flynn proceedings strongly implicating not just the senior FBI leadership but senior Obama administration figures as well.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Aug 30, 2020] UK's Johnson Reprises Skripal Saga For Navalny -- False Flag Poisoning

Aug 30, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Herodotus , 3 hours ago

If Johnson doesn't play ball, Christopher Steele will prepare a dossier on him.

aspnaz , 2 hours ago

Only the UK would be dumb enough to keep on paying Steele. Jesus, he is like a muck spreader: **** in, **** rain out.

Sandmann , 1 hour ago

Steele was disowned by UK in Jan 2017 in handwritten note to White House

Unknown User , 2 hours ago

Russians build rockets, jets, missiles, nukes, etc. but can't seem to produce a poison. Unlike Brits who successfully poisoned lots of Russians, starting with Ivan the "Terrible" (that's what Brits called Ivan the Fearsome) and his whole family including his son, which Brits insist was killed by Ivan. And remember Rasputin? The one who was poisoned and then shot by a British agent.

Yes. Useless Russians can't do it like the Brits.

PJBloggs , 2 hours ago

It is indeed suspicious that Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared into the embrace of the British deep state and not been heard from since. Their family in Russia got one phone call from a stressed Yulia who they believed couldn't speak freely.
If the Skripals are indeed safe and living willingly & freely in British protection, then the UK should give them a live interview to express their gratitude and reassure their family in Russia.
The silence from the Skripals is more suspicious than what ails Navalny.

aspnaz , 2 hours ago

David Kelly is dead: Skripals are dead.

foxenburg , 1 hour ago

Imagine if a US citizen (version of Yulia) were detained in Moscow and the US consular people wanted to speak with her to check that she was OK....and they were told to buzz off and she didn't want to speak to them. Diplomatic law, signed by all countries, states that consular access MUST be allowed to citizens....even if they don't want it...because otherwise a country has no way of establishing if its citizen has been kidnapped or murdered.

What if the Iranians managed to kidnap Pompeo (Oh, Happy Day!) and when the State Dept went ballistic and said give him back, the Iranians just released a statement; "Mr Pompeo says he does not want to speak to any US officials. He has thanked Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for saving his life. He says please leave him alone. In deference to his security needs, you will never hear from him again".

Ace006 , 34 minutes ago

Full marks. It's astonishing to have Boris on the Russians' case about yet another poisoning (YAP) by them when, hopefully, he's holding two alleged victims incommunicado for over two years. "Oh, THAT, old bean. Bit of a bother. We disappear people in the U.K. all the time."

headfake , 4 hours ago

Why does the UK and US always try to demonise Russia? Where does this deep rooted hatred come from? Were they not allies in WW2? I've never understood this. Is it jealousy or something different? Did they not like the fact the Russians developed their own Nuclear arsenal and therefore cannot be bossed around? Or was it cos they kicked out the bankers?

Herodotus , 3 hours ago

The UK always allys with others in opposition to the strongest military power in Europe. That is their foreign policy. They don't want any single power to be able to dominate the continent. Today, that happens to be Russia. In the past, it was Germany, or France, or Spain.

Arch_Stanton , 2 hours ago

True, but someone should tell pedo island that the 19th century wants its foreign policy back.

PJBloggs , 2 hours ago

Russia under Putin exerts its sovereignty from the globalist banking oligarchy based in London, Wall Street, Israel & Western Eorope. Russia is in the way of the NWO this planned demic is meant to usher in.

JPHR , 2 hours ago

British Empire lost "Great Game to Russia". That started the downfall of that British Empire. US intelligence was groomed by British intelligence during WWII. US hegemony as illustrated by Brzezinsky's "The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997)" still based on the very same McKinder based ideas from the British Empire defining control over Eurasia as a precondition for maintaining that empire. Adding insult to injury Putin twarted US and UK banks in their operation to destroy Russia and acquire its resources.

The malignancy of this ideology is well illustrated in Brzezinski proudly announcing in the intrduction of aforementioned book how his ideas are shared by both Hitler and Stalin:

"Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves geostrategy -- the strategic management of geopolitical interests. It is noteworthy that as recently as 1940 two aspirants to global power, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, agreed explicitly (in the secret negotiations of November of that year) that America should be excluded from Eurasia. Each realized that the injection of American power into Eurasia would preclude his ambitions regarding global domination. Each shared the assumption that Eurasia is the center of the world and that he who controls Eurasia controls the world. "

Sandmann , 1 hour ago

UK has a natural ally in Europe - it is not France - it is Russia.

Uk is run by interests like Bill Browder who buy influence and set the tenor. UK is a very Oligarchic country, highly centralised run for the Benefit of The Few

PJBloggs , 2 hours ago

Navalny was an asset to Putin. With a popularity rating around 2% his party couldn't get seats in the Duma.
Why would you poison him and give The West a propaganda victory at same time The West is trying a colour revolution in your most valuable military ally?

Just like why would you poison Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia just before holding a successful World Cup of football?

By the way where are the Skripals?

Cui Bono?

Volkodav , 2 hours ago

Litvinenko

https://www.unz.com/article/revisiting-litvinenko-what-really-happened/

Litvinenko's Father told his son was dirty, crime involved.

deef , 2 hours ago

Using Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors as Nootropics (smart drugs to enhance memory):

https://peaknootropics.com/using-acetylcholinesterase-inhibitors-nootropics/

Joiningupthedots , 1 hour ago

The Skripals are probably DEAD.......and that happened on the UK's watch under UK control.

The Russian poison meme?

Even the the thickest halfwit that reads The Sun, The Mirror, The Star....the comic strips et al understands that the monkeys in control are actually nothing more than better read versions of themselves.

Johnstone and Co are certainly not more intelligent.......their nonsense utterances and actions prove this.

Vladimirovich , 2 hours ago

Dear Readers,

Sadly the British people are every bit a dopey as others in the western world and will always vote for the worst possible person to 'do the job'. Please be patient.

In the UK Boris Johnson is colloquially known as "The village idiot", and he does his best to match up to that title.

That being so he will remain in office until his masters decide to make a change.

Wish the UK well......PLEASE !

Roger Casement , 2 hours ago

Gangsters always play dumb. So do all politicians.

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Son of Captain Nemo , 2 hours ago

Reading between the lines of B0J0...

We the U.K. who's "sun never sets", requires a generous purchase of British Pound Sterling and $USD by the Russian Central Bank effective immediately before his Nation's "sun sets"!...

And if the Russian Federation should refuse... We shall make up more nasty hasbara stories that aren't true like Skripal/Navalny to our public that doesn't care about either of them!...

aspnaz , 2 hours ago

Yep, "Sun never sets", the government really need to hire some better astronomer, astrologers, maybe witches, to sort this out. I often wonder about this, lying in bed in Wickham in the dark at midnight.

Ace006 , 1 hour ago

Well, technically the British Empire extends to the English Channel these days so what's true in Wickham may not necessarily be true in Norwich.

deplorableX , 3 hours ago

Bojo appears to be struggling with alcoholism which would explain his sticking to a saga which was pretty much fabricated from the get go. Delirium tremens.

bh2 , 3 hours ago

After the absurd plot described by British authorities in the Skripal case, nobody believes these concocted political dramas.

Until both Skripals can be interviewed in public and without an official UK "keeper" hovering about, nobody is going to believe them, either.

Moribundus , 3 hours ago

Evaluation of the finding is misinformation, because without medicinal products from the category, cholinesterase inhibitors, it is not possible to keep the patient in artificial sleep or to connect to artificial lung ventilation, because cholinesterase inhibitor preparations are not a poison but a drug such as diazepam used to treat anxiety or clonazepam, which are used specifically to relax the patient's muscles during artificial lung ventilation.

Thus, the Germans did not find out what caused the comatic condition of the patient, but what the patient was treated in Russia,
respectively given to the patient on board the aircraft, during transport to Germany.

When induced coma, hospitals use relaxants in combo with anaesthetic. Typically those are indeed Choline Sterase inhibitors... So, some of that stuff is in his system the moment they intubated him in hospital.. at least under normal circumstances (learned al lot about covid ICU treatment = induced coma).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme_inhibitor

NuYawkFrankie , 2 hours ago

I have to give credit where it's due:

Nobody - absolutely NOBODY! - can recycle a Silly Schoolboy Script - with a straight face! -as well as the THICK BRITS... even as the rest of Planet Earth laughs its a$$ off!

NIRP_BTFD , 2 hours ago

'Boris Johnson is a Lying ****' - Fugue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_G-FBSf1UI

[Aug 29, 2020] UK's Johnson Reprises Skripal Saga For Navalny -Poisoning- -

Aug 29, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

UK's Johnson Reprises Skripal Saga For Navalny "Poisoning"


by Tyler Durden Sat, 08/29/2020 - 08:10 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Finian Cunningham via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is the latest Western leader to wildly jump on the bandwagon claiming that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was poisoned, and by implication insinuating the Kremlin had a sinister hand in it.

"The poisoning of Alexei Navalny shocked the world," asserted Johnson on Twitter, who went on to call for a "transparent investigation" to find the perpetrators . The British premier didn't explicitly finger the Russian authorities, but that was what he implied.

It's amazing how Boris Johnson, wracked by the political disaster of his sheer incompetent mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic in Britain, somehow has the time and "authority" to poke into Russian affairs.

Johnson's rush to judgement replicates other Western leaders who have concluded without any evidence that Navalny was poisoned in a malicious way. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said he backs the European Union's call for a comprehensive investigation. Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel not only referred to Navalny's condition as "poisoning" but also a "crime".

Boris Johnson's intervention is reminiscent of how he accused the Kremlin of poisoning former MI6 spy Sergei Skripal in March 2018 within days of that incident. Johnson was then the UK's foreign minister. What actually happened to Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the English city of Salisbury remains a mystery since the pair have not been seen or heard of since. Presumably, they are in the custody of the British authorities, who have denied all international norms by not allowing Russia consular access to at least one of its citizens.

As with the Skripal case, the reflexive response among Western governments and media is to accuse Russian authorities of malign involvement in the case of Navalny. Demanding an investigation by the Russian government indicates a high-handed presumption to interfere in Russian internal affairs. It also indicates a Western prejudice to criminalize Moscow over any incident.

As soon as Navalny was hospitalized after apparently being taken ill during a flight last week from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow, Western media headlines immediately inferred it was the result of sinister play. "Putin critic" was ubiquitous in headlines, as were unfounded claims of "poisoning" from drinking tea. (Russian trope alert.)

The Russian doctors who treated Navalny said there was no evidence of poisonous substance found in his body. They said his seizure may have been caused by a fatal drop in blood sugar levels. He is reportedly diabetic. So, from what we can tell, the Russian doctors appear to have saved Navalny's life by their rapid response, but they were unable to make a precise diagnosis. What then merits Western demands for an investigation by the Russian authorities?

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

Here is the strange twist in the story.

Two days after being treated in Russia, Navalny is airlifted on Saturday, August 22, by a private jet to a hospital in Germany, where he continues to reside, reportedly in a coma, which is not life-threatening. The doctors in the Charité hospital in Berlin release a vague statement claiming that it is "likely" he has been "poisoned" . They cite the presence of "cholinesterase inhibitors" in his body as evidence of "poisoning".

The Russian medics were also aware of "cholinesterase inhibitors" being present and were treating Navalny with atropine, a known antidote. But as the Russians point out, cholinesterase inhibitors are widely found in a variety of clinical pharmaceuticals as well as more sinister substances, such as nerve agents. By merely detecting the presence of cholinesterase inhibitors and while not detecting any specific chemical that then does not permit a conclusion of "poisoning", which the Russian doctors refrained from.

Therefore, what we have is a hasty assessment by the German doctors who make a dramatic conclusion, which the Russian counterparts do not, even though both teams were working on the same clinical sample information. Surely, that is unprofessional and unethical on the part of the German medics.

It would appear that the doctors at the Berlin hospital share the same mental condition as Boris Johnson, Angela Merkel and Mike Pompeo. That is, a condition of condemning Russia before any evidence is in. Then let the media pile on the propaganda tropes and "history" of "assassinations" by "Kremlin poisoning"

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

The curious question is: why did the Russia authorities permit the private transport of a Russian citizen out of the country at a time when he was in a serious medical condition? Was the Russian government unnerved by the media accusations of foul play against a dissident figure who has been lionized by the West as some kind of political hero? Did they feel the need to be excessively "open"?

Alexei Navalny, despite his high-profile among Western media, is a minor figure in Russian politics. His so-called anti-corruption campaigns have negligible interest for most ordinary Russian citizens, and minimal political impact for the Russian government. In short, Navalny is a professional gadfly whose importance is blown out of all proportion to its reality by Western media. There is nothing to gain for the Russian authorities in causing injury to this person, assuming that such a malicious event might even be considered.

That may well explain why Russian officials assented to Navalny being airlifted to Berlin, knowing full well that his medical condition was not caused by anything pertaining to deliberate, sinister action. Still, that decision by the Russians seems an odd concession over a matter of sovereignty. It's doubtful that the Americans, British, Germans or others would have followed a similar course for one of their citizens being take abroad, especially one who could be exploited for propaganda value.

Surely, Moscow did not underestimate the mentality of Russophobia which Western politicians suffer from? The cardinal rule is never give hostages to fortune when dealing with buffoons like Britain's Boris Johnson. It looks like Navalny is now one such hostage to anti-Russian fortune.
2 play_arrow smacker , 58 minutes ago

"The curious question is: why did the Russia authorities permit the private transport of a
Russian citizen out of the country at a time when he was in a serious medical condition?"

Because the Russians knew from their own examination of Navalny that the Germans wouldn't
find anything in him they didn't already know about? And this seems to be the case.

What's left is spin and Boris' blustering bullsh1t.

Vivekwhu , 2 hours ago

Boris statement: my name is Boris and I am addicted to Russian Collusion Delusion Virus poisoning.

This idiot actually bongs for Britain and makes more baby Borises!

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 2 hours ago

Mi5/6 are still in control

JPHR , 2 hours ago

By know Steele's reputation is totally destroyed by exposing his supposedly relevant "Russian" sources for the Russiagate dossier as a Brookings Institute employee's bar talk.

Given Steele's involvement with the Litvinenko affair one really ought to revisit any so called British proof especially because the UK refused to follow Chemical Weapons Convention dispute settlement procedure just like it refused to follow that procedure with respect to the Skripal hoax.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/agent-behind-dossier-knew-litvinenko-cgndj8wsb

Again Britain is alleging Russian guilt with a previous hoax as proof.

That is the UK Standard Operating procedure.

interrupt , 3 hours ago

This is classic Russian modus operandi - poison your enemies then deny everything. Works every time.

JPHR , 2 hours ago

Classic is alleging a chemical attack and don't wait for the nonexistent proof and start either attacking like in Syria or expelling diplomats.

The OPCW has been weaponized. MSM has ignored the extensive multiple whistle blowers reports about falsifying reports by the OPCW.

So if the OPCW gets involved with this Navalny incident too that will confirm that this is another western intelligence hoax probably to be used against for example Nordstream 2.

Why-Am-I-Banned , 3 hours ago

Yes a country with a GDP of $1.4 Trillion is the enemy of the world... I'm so sick of this Russian $hit, we need to be partners with them, we have more in common with Russians than you can even imagine

Herodotus , 4 hours ago

Russia has always been ruled by a dictator or quasi-dictator.

Winston Churchill , 4 hours ago

A chronic diabetic slips into a coma on an airline flight ,surely poisoned ?

Yamaoka Tesshu , 3 hours ago

A chronic alcoholic has medical problems? Outlandish! The Russian State furnished the poison alright. It has a monopoly on vodka.

[Aug 27, 2020] Expert reaction to statement from Charit -Universit tsmedizin Berlin hospital that Alexei Navalny may have been poisoned with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitor

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, Metformin is the preferred drug. I started on twice a day, then once I lost 45 pounds, the doctor dropped me to one a day. In fact, now I could stop taking it, but I continue to do so because it has alleged anti-aging properties. The only real negative is that it leeches vitamin B-12 from the body - but I take tons of B-12 anyway, so doesn't concern me. Metformin usually needs to be taken with food because otherwise it tends to give you "the runs". ..."
Aug 24, 2020 | www.sciencemediacentre.org

I've seen this site before - they post statements from various medical people on matters of public medical interest, such as the pandemic. Useful for people who want some background on the chemicals involved.

Posted by: Circe | Aug 25 2020 16:14 utc | 29

Yup. Just ran across that piece while searching for anything on Navalny having diabetes. Found nothing so far beyond that. b's source appears to be the only one mentioning any diabetes in Navalny's medical history. Apparently his personal doctor has denied this, saying that the "diabetes" issue appears to have more a "description" of his medical condition rather than an actual diagnosis.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 25 2020 17:26 utc | 40 And if he's diabetic or even pre-diabetic, there's a suite of meds he'd need to take daily if not requiring insulin, and those meds must be ingested with food--I know.

Yes, Metformin is the preferred drug. I started on twice a day, then once I lost 45 pounds, the doctor dropped me to one a day. In fact, now I could stop taking it, but I continue to do so because it has alleged anti-aging properties. The only real negative is that it leeches vitamin B-12 from the body - but I take tons of B-12 anyway, so doesn't concern me. Metformin usually needs to be taken with food because otherwise it tends to give you "the runs".

I found an article that says the following:

Russian news agency Interfax later quoted officials in Omsk as saying tests had identified the presence of an industrial chemical in his body.

Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs told the agency that since the substance they claim was present is commonly used to increase plasticity in products, "it is possible that it could appear in surface washings through the contact of Alexei Navalny with similar objects, for example, through a plastic cup".

Studies have previously shown that the chemical officials were referring to - 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate - does not have a strong toxic effect on humans.

So it appears from the articles so far that initially the police detected that specific chemical, but medical experts ruled it out as a cause, merely a by-product of having drunk from a plastic cup.

This article discusses the term "metabolic disease", clarifying that it doesn't necessarily mean diabetes.

Bottom line: There is no evidence Navalny had diabetes, although he might well have had either Type 2 or Type 1 diabetes but never diagnosed. However, if he was in a diabetic coma, that should have been detected almost immediately, even by first responders in the ambulance. Beyond that, it appears that whatever chemical was the cause of his condition, it's likely undetectable now.

So another "nothing-burger" which will be seized on to drum up hysteria against Russia. And I've spent *way* too much time on this irrelevant crap.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 25 2020 18:52 utc | 63

[Aug 27, 2020] The Ceaseless Lies of Eva Bartlett; or, The Partisan Scrubbing of Western Consciousness. The New Kremlin Stooge

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I approve of Russia continuing to refer to 'our western colleagues' or 'partners', because it suggests mockery to me so long as nobody in Russia believes it. ..."
Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

That was the first that I'd heard of 'Russia hacking the SK Olympics' so I looked it up and unfortunately I ran across this which may be the article that Hornsby may have read:

* Wired: The Untold Story of the 2018 Olympics Cyberattack, the Most Deceptive Hack in History
https://www.wired.com/story/untold-story-2018-olympics-destroyer-cyberattack/

How digital detectives unraveled the mystery of Olympic Destroyer -- and why the next big attack will be even harder to crack.
####

This is what passes for 'journalism.'

It is full of the usual false and long debunked claims, suppositions and 'detective work', namely Guccifer 2.0 (CIA/whatever creation to cover up the DNC leaks which were not hacked but given by USB stick by Seth Rich as 1st person source former ambassador Craig Murray has told us), but the author knows better. Quite the feather in his cap for writing something that could have come straight out of Langley.

He quotes from FireEye which we know has also been rather loose with the facts (Russian interference in US election machines) and worst of all discovers 'metadata' that proves it was 'Da Kremlin', even though we all know about the NSA's hacking tools and obfuscation programs like MARBLE via Snowden. And plenty more. Yes, Russians are still really clever but they cannot help but use the same IP addresses as previous attacks and 'Hello Mama' in cyrillic like teenage scriptkiddies. Greenberg's real pro.

It just goes to show that they never give up and there is always a journalist at an established publication more than willing to run with it when the story is a bit exciting and involves 'anonymous' security agencies and sources who tell them what they want to hear. Who needs censorship when you live in your own weird reality?

Like Reply

CORTES August 25, 2020 at 1:38 am

Isn't it remarkable how often "edgy" figures are the vehicles used to convey the narrative. It's almost as though it's state-directed.

Just as well, then, that the very notion is preposterous.

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 9:57 am

As I have probably suggested before, Russia has to get used to the idea that the western alliance is its implacable enemy, and its core – the United States – will accept no other solution than Russia's demise in violence or its complete submission to American disposal.

I approve of Russia continuing to refer to 'our western colleagues' or 'partners', because it suggests mockery to me so long as nobody in Russia believes it.

But the American and American-dominated media has escalated the campaign against Russia to the point that it is the root of everything which is wrong with the world. When you would think any reasonable country would lie quiet for awhile, having aroused the ire of its enemies to a fever pitch, Russia goes right on provoking and poking and daring the west to do something. Or so the story goes. It is disappointing to see official Germany so easily pushed off its previous halfway-defiant platform, but not really surprising. It remains to be seen if it will actually use the completion of Nord Stream II as leverage to get what will mollify the Americans. I frankly doubt it, and suspect Mutti Merkel and Heiko are just making indignant noises while they scramble for a new position, but you never know. As I have often said also, if Europe was left dependent on American LNG shipped in by tankers, it would serve it right. Just as long as Russia is not coerced into shipping gas through Ukraine forever and a day. That's the absolute no-go point.


[Aug 27, 2020] Eva Barlett: Being a Russian propagandist, a Kremlin agent doesn't actually pay but speaking truth in the face of mountains of lies is a moral thing to do human lives are at stake

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

JULIUS SKOOLAFISH August 27, 2020 at 2:36 am

Just letting all you contributors know how much I appreciate the links and key points to the various hot topics in, particularly involving Belarus/President Lukashenko (and what's-er-name) and the antics of Navalny et al. I have followed the Skripal case and it is an absolute face palmer that the 'victims' remain in solitary confinement unable to tell their 'story' while the 'perpetrators' (allegedly Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov) still have not run out of toothpaste, cereal and toilet paper and continue to elude Britain's finest

Since I had a hand in triggering this thread I Just wanted to get back to the intrepid Eva K Bartlett for a moment.

At 40:16 of her talk in the video below Eva says (first part tongue in cheek)

**"Being a Russian propagandist, a Kremlin agent, a DPRK stooge doesn't actually pay but speaking truth in the face of mountains of lies is a moral thing to do – human lives are at stake."**

I shared this elsewhere in the context of the events in Victoria, Australia and posed: "You might ask "What has Eva K Bartlett got to do with Andrews, Morrison, Hurley et al?"

Elsewhere I saw a meme featuring Andrews with a Kim Jong Un haircut. I commented that such a meme should more appropriately feature Lenin or Trotsky – or in (Daniel) Andrews' case, lower ranked henchmen such as Kaganovich or Beria.

Consider for example the narrative they [Andrews, Morrison, Hurley] have been spewing in recent years with regard to Syria and the DPRK (etc)

It comes as no surprise to me then that these supporters of terrorism, advocators of genocide and protectors of child trafficking and paedophilia would inevitably turn on 'their own people'.

• Eva Bartlett speaks on North Korea & Syria (FULL)

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tR5hjJzyN1Y?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

[Aug 27, 2020] The Awan Brothers - Compromised at least 80 congregational computers and got paid 5 million to do it. We may never know the extent of the breach

Aug 27, 2020 | www.reddit.com

Plot thickens in probe of House IT contractors

The Awan Brothers

3 Awan brothers are named by Webb : Imran, Jamal and Abid. (A 4th brother and wife of one of the Awan's are also believed to be involved).

Originally installed in congressional positions by Greg Meeks who is widely regarded as the most corrupt member of congress.

I will preface this discussion by stating you will find some variation in the numbers cited. I believe that is because I quoted from stories as the case was developing. The Daily Caller was the primary source for most of the news on the net. I tried to be as accurate as possible with the facts quoting the sources I found. I am posting this because I want answers, it is not a definitive work. I do, however, believe the breach is every bit as consequential as the hillary email server and the CIA Wikileak.

Why isn't the MSM interested in the Awan Brothers: the three IT specialists fired for rooting through House Democrats' sensitive files?

Who are the Awan IT Staff that hacked House Intelligence Computers? And Why Won't the Media cover this Evidence-based Story?

I know a bunch of shills will tear me up screaming, "ya got no proof," but indulge me in a conspiracy theory. I think the greatest disservice the MSM had managed to perpetuate is the fallacy that other than the obvious connection of all these people there is otherwise no connection between these events.

Let's assume for the moment that the items described here are patterns of political belief and criminal activity. They aren't individual acts, but on going criminal conspiracies. Let's not look at this as an isolated event. While I'm detailing the actions of the Awan brothers. I believe, but can not prove, those action may have been perpetuated in concert with other individuals at work in the under belly of the government. It's almost as if disparate groups come in contact occasionally when their objectives overlap. As I stated, I have no proof of this, but it stands to reason the flood of cyber attacks and leaks may have overlapped through the individuals linked in the different events. For example, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was an integral player in the DNC Hacks and also introduced the Awan brothers to Congress. Is there a connection? Maybe, maybe not. It is not that far fetched, this has happened before, see the Silverman group . Silverman associated with the CPUSA and knew Jarrett's father, Dr. James Bowman and through three degrees of separation used by the NSA is directly connected to Valerie Jerrett . If it is good enough for the IC to open an inquiry why can't we indulge in some similar speculation.

• The First anomalous fact is the Media. Why have they largely ignored the issue. Before you cyber trolls jump on me, I would like you to consider two facts. Congress deals with very sensitive and classified material all the time. The Awan brothers could never have had a secret clearance for any other group than Congress. There is no news story there?

• The Second error is the "smoking gun." The evidence is always covered up with a coincidence, a cover story if you will. While I believe the politicos in D.C. are pampered rubes, they do have a good support staff, and some have been trained to support clandestine operations. The rest have been hammered with political optics for the entirety of their career in D.C.. They are all trained to control optics and the dissemination of the truth.

• The Third fallacy is the "bad guy." Why does everyone think an on going criminal conspiracy can be distilled down to a single criminal committing a crime rather than a pattern of criminal behavior with one or more groups profiting off the criminal activities. It is best to think of their actions like organized crime and should be prosecuted like a RICO case. An on going criminal enterprise by an organized group or groups of conspirators.

The Media

Why hasn't the media made this the top news story to at least go along with the Russian hack. Let's face it, the media doesn't care about the damage to the country, they only care about their partisan agenda. If they didn't they would cover stories damaging to the DNC.

With a $600,000,000 CIA contract you would think the Washington Post could afford an investigative journalist or two. Perhaps CNN will take up an interest as this rabbit hole runs deep and wide. Don't hold your breath.

Snowflakes and "journalists" can call Trump a fascist, but there is nothing connecting an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump without specific allegations backed up with evidence, but the media avoids providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised congress. The answer is simple, the Awan Brothers are Muslim and the "victims"/dupes are Dems. Dupes who in fact abused their position of responsibility to end up being compromised by their own "trusted" staff. Several of the Congressmen involved in the breach have gone so far as to blame the allegations on Islamophobia .

Meeks said he was hesitant to believe the accusations against Alvi, Imran Awan and the three other staffers, saying their background as Muslim Americans, some with ties to Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges.

This story damages the narrative that Muslims are benevolent members of the government and Dems care about the country. It really shows the depth of the progressive aims to " fundamentally transforming the United States of America .

This is where the conspiracy theory comes in. Give me a little latitude to connect the dots, and let's see where this trail goes...

An Alleged Muslim Spy Ring - Is This Why Rex Tillerson Cleaned House?

The mainstream media seemed far more interested in obfuscating the details regarding the Tillerson terminations than they were in covering what could be one of the most dangerous intelligence leaks in years, of which there has been but a peep out of any major news outlet. Captain Joseph R. John (Navy-Ret.) has stated that he believes the Muslim Brotherhood " fifth column" has "infiltrated U.S. Government ," and if he is correct, the Awan brothers could very well be a part of this infiltration.

The media is 90% Democrat and I would argue that in recent years the mainline Dems have gone hard left, almost Marxist. They have an almost suicidal pact with Islamists. Where does this scandal connect with Middle Eastern Islamists?

One might well look at the set of circumstances laid out above and see in it a scandal that would make Watergate look like a petty break-in. One might then scratch his or her head and wonder -- why on earth would the New York Times or the Washington Post, which incidentally just hired John Podesta (speaking of horrendous cybersecurity!) as a columnist, have virtually no interest in the Awans at all?

Do Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos, one might ask, really believe they can't sell papers with such a story to tell?

The Smoking Gun

EXCLUSIVE: House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee Members Compromised By Rogue IT Staff

Fox News is told the employees made "unauthorized access" to the House computer system.

Further, there were instances where House information was discovered in an external "cloud" server. The contractors in question reportedly were sending and storing House-related information in that off-site server.

"That violates House rules and it puts the House at risk," a source familiar with the investigation said.

It is unclear whether the access issues exposed the House's networks to potential hackers or spying efforts by unfriendly nations or terrorist groups, at a time when Washington is on high alert for such cyber-activity.

Actually the last statement has been refuted. It has been alleged that Imran Awan had achieved a privilege escalation through Social Engineering . Essentially Imran through the political clout of the Congressional leaders he worked for managed to convinced the Capitol Hill IT staff to escalate the Awans to super user privileges to work on the "Congressional Machines" in violation of accepted practices on the network. One device in particular was the Wasserman iPad compromised in the DNC Leak. It has been also alleged they may have had Podesta's password. Since the Dems approved the privilege escalation it is now forensically difficult to determine if the Russians leaked the emails or the "enormously trustworthy and drunken" Awan brothers sold access to the DNC servers.

House Hacking Suspects Could Read Every Email Dozens Of Congressmen Sent And Received

Imran Awan bullied central IT to bend the rules for him so there wouldn't be a paper trail about the unusually high permissions he was requesting. And their actions were not logged, so members have no way of knowing what information they may have taken, the central IT employee said.

After obtaining access to the Capitol server system, the Awan brothers could control all aspects of a congressman system. They sold and configured the hardware setting permissions and remote access to maintain the devices remotely. Essentially the keys to the kingdom. Through congressional requests they managed to completely compromise the network. They could read email, transfer files, install applications (i.e. key loggers). The latter reports that the systems and network were completely compromised. Beyond that, Imran had bypassed IT key loggers and reporting systems by gaining remote access directly to congressional computers.

House Hacking Suspects Could Read Every Email Dozens Of Congressmen Sent And Received

The central IT staffer said any suggestion that the brothers' access didn't span the full gamut of congressional intrigue was silly because they were the ones giving out permissions.

The problem is that once they bypassed internal security there was no logging of their actions . House authorities set their sights on the possibility that a remote server had been used to transfer files off of Congressional members computers. The investigation revealed that Imran had been stealing money, equipment, and over charging for services . In total for almost 10 years and almost 80 Democrat members of Congress were compromised.

This is where things go hinkey. Rather than turning the case over to the FBI the case is turned over to U.S.C. Police. They are investigating the theft, not the data breach.

Let's state that again...

The USCP are investigation the theft of Equipment not the Loss Of Congressional Data.

Congressional IT Staff Under Investigation In Alleged Procurement Scam

"At the request of Members of Congress, the United States Capitol Police are investigating the actions of House IT support staff," Malecki said in a statement. "No Members are being investigated. No arrests have been made. It should be noted that, administratively, House staff were asked to update their security settings as a best practice. We have no further comment on the ongoing investigation at this time."

The Bad Guy Two of the brothers, Imran and Jamal, have been linked to an emerging security breach

The Awan brothers managed to get access to the Dems committee computers by just asking for the passwords. In addition the Awan brothers sold the congress outrageously priced equipment and broke into members of Congress' offices to steal equipment and or data.

House staffers under criminal investigation for alleged equipment theft

Five House employees are under criminal investigation amid allegations that they stole equipment from more than 20 member offices and accessed House IT systems without lawmakers' knowledge.

More than 20 members were victimized by the alleged procurement scam and chiefs of staff for the lawmakers were briefed on the matter Thursday.

The former staffer said "Jamal was always there," but Imran would only work "odd hours."

And who is investigating this fiasco?

Where is the FBI and why have they left it to the DC police? Is it a "limited hangout" they hope to bury by the promoting the administration's ties to Boris and Natasha?

D.C. Metro police have been brought into the investigation rather than the F.B.I at the request of the Congressional members involved with the Awan Brothers.

A source in the briefing said the Sergeant-at-Arms confirmed the U.S. Capitol Police is conducting an active criminal investigation but said no arrests have been made. The source said the FBI is not involved in the investigation.

"At the request of members of Congress, the United States Capitol Police are investigating the actions of House IT support staff. No members are being investigated. No arrests have been made.

Why aren't the FBI involved? I can only speculate, but it would mean that a FBI forensic team would have to comb through all of those congressional computers to determine the extent of the security compromise and data lost. The Dems just didn't seem up for the inconvenience of allowing the FBI investigation to go forward.

The Awan Brothers had the keys to the kingdom. Physical security is paramount to cyber security. If a hacker has Physical access to a machine they own it. It is the simplest hack to conduct. The Anwar Bros had Debbie Wasserman Schultz's machine, along with Schultz, at least 80 other Dems also hired the Awan Brothers to provide IT support at significantly higher rates than normal IT support.

Jamal, who public records suggest is only 22 years old and first began working in the House when he was 20, was paid nearly $160,000 a year, or three times the average House IT staff salary, according to InsideGov, which tracks congressional salaries. Abid was paid $161,000 and Imran $165,000.

Democrats evidently paid the Awan brothers over $4 MILLION dollars .

Despite the fact that these individuals, reportedly heavily in debt, would have failed security clearances they were able to receive top salary from Dems including members of the intelligence panel and members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation's most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

Where's The Evidence? Hillary's Henchmen and the Awan Brothers Hack vs. MSM and Pelosi's Russia, Russia, Russia Meme

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who was shamed for the Democratic National Committee conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, recommended the Awan Brothers for their positions and Representative Jackie Speier asked for their TOP SECRET CLEARANCE .

Whatever Happened with the Awan Brothers?

frontpagemag | Last year, eight members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a demand that their staffers be granted access to top secret classified information.

The signatories to the letter were Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell and Patrick Murphy. All the signatories were Democrats. Some had a history of attempting to undermine national security.

Beyond the debt, the brothers seemed to have, they had convictions for felony traffic offenses including DUI . Any one of these issues are enough to prevent or revoke a security clearance for normal folks. I guess things just work differently on Capitol Hill. The American military or college grads are denied clearances due similar issues in their record, but not these Pakistani brothers. Any one of these offenses would have caused me to fail my FBI background check at work, but congress can admit anybody. Do you see a problem here? Valerie Jarrett and Huma Abedin are perfect examples of the double standard in the government / Congress. Staffers of any background history can get clearances, but Dems seem to be able to prevent Trump's staff from getting clearance. What is going on here?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/07/congress-it-probe-suspects-had-massive-debts-years-of-suspicious-activity/

Multiple small businesses and individuals went unpaid as a result of the 2012 bankruptcy. Abid also had an unpaid line of credit of $10,000 with the congressional credit union at the time of bankruptcy.

Abid's record includes numerous driving- and alcohol-related legal problems, including driving with a suspended or revoked license, court records show. He was found guilty of drunk driving a month before he started at the House, and was arrested for public intoxication a month after his first day.

with possibly opposing goals. A felon normally commits the felony tens of times, maybe hundreds of times before they get caught. How many times does a Coke head commit a felony buying coke before they get caught? If they ever get caught, how many years do they get away with the crimes before they draw the attention of the authorities. The FBI, Congress, whatever never find the full scope of criminal activity. They may just get enough evidence to convict of a crime, but they never convict for all the crimes committed.

What is really becoming obvious is the Democrats have irresponsibly opened our congressional security oversight to Middle Eastern Factions. These 5 are just one group that were exposed. Hillary had Huma, Obama had Vallery. A sharia practicing terrorist that believes in female circumcision leading a woman's March to equality in the 21st century. There are so many examples that one has to be purposefully obtuse to ignore the contradictions.

While the nay sayers claim you can not connect the dots it is obvious that the dots were there for all to see and could have been connected. I would say that the deviation from standard security practices was intentional, but Podesta's password was password123 or some such nonsense. Who knows, our leaders may really be that incompetent. They haven't even made it to the minimum expectations to be employed in corporate America.

I really don't know what to make of two very different groups with nothing but vaguely similar beliefs in Marxist ideals working together. Many of the thoughts I have on the subject are almost too extreme to believe, but the evidence is almost unavoidable. None of it makes sense unless someone is lying about their objectives.

A Continuing DCNF Investigative Group Series

House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs Committee Members Compromised By Rogue IT Staff

Brothers Had Massive Debts, Years Of Suspicious Activity

Secretly Took $100K In Iraqi Money

Owed Money To Hezbollah-Connected Fugitive

Received $4 Million From Dem Reps

Allegedly Kept Stepmom In 'Captivity' To Access Offshore Cash

Also Had Access To DNC Emails

Could Read Every Email Dozens Of Congressmen Sent And Received

Capitol Police ill-equipped to investigate data theft

House Democrats fire two IT staffers amid criminal investigation By HEATHER CAYGLE 03/01/17 01:21 PM EST

Two House Democrats this week fired technology staffers linked to an ongoing criminal investigation , more than a month after the couple in question was barred from House computer networks.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) confirmed to Politico that Hina Alvi's last day as an IT support staffer in his office was Tuesday. Her husband, Imran Awan, was working for Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) as of Tuesday evening, but a spokeswoman for Fudge said midday Wednesday that Awan was no longer an employee.

Employee of Corruption Magnet Debbie Wasserman Schultz Under Criminal Investigation The Democratic Party is no stranger to criminal investigations

CORRECTION February 2, 2017, at 9:13 p.m.

This post has been updated and corrected with new information from US Capitol Police, which said no arrests have been made but there is an active investigation ongoing into IT staff who were involved in an alleged procurement scam. A lawmaker briefed on the situation had told BuzzFeed News that arrests were made.

The Awan Brothers - Compromised at least 80 congressional computers and got paid 5 million to do it. We may never know the extent of the breach PART 2

Starts to tell what really happened and how big the problem is...

r/CoincidenceTheorist

[Aug 27, 2020] What Wasserman Schultz is hiding?

Aug 27, 2020 | theblacksphere.net

I believe Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was getting "schtupped" by at least one of the Awan brothers.

Consider that even under heavy scrutiny, Debbie Wasserman Schultz fought like a mama grizzly to keep these men on the job within the government. Why would she do this for a regular IT guy on the payroll.

As The Daily Caller continues,

Awan was banned Feb. 2, 2017, from the congressional computer network because he is a suspect in a cybersecurity investigation, but he still had access to House facilities because Wasserman Schultz continued to employ him.

Outside of a couple of Congressional Black Caucus holdouts, every other Congressman fired Awan when they found out he was under investigation. The CBC fired the later. Then the day after the crap really hit the fan, Wasserman Schultz finally fired Awan.

... Why was the laptop found in the Rayburn building, when Wasserman Schultz's office and every other Congressman for whom Awan worked office in the Longworth building?

Remember when Wasserman Schultz used a televised May 18, 2017 congressional hearing on the Capitol Police budget to threaten "consequences" if Chief Matthew Verderosa did not give her the laptop.

"If a member loses equipment," it should be given back, she said.

...

She tried the "executive immunity" argument that "If I'm not under investigation, then you can't take away my SIDE PIECE!".

A couple month's later, Wasserman Schultz tried a different approach. Now she claimed to protect the rights of Awan and the taxpayers.

"This was not my laptop ," she said

If these political criminals were in the real world, this case would be over. But they work in the world of politics where things are murky. Who knows what Wasserman Schultz has on somebody else, who knows something about two other people. Thus, America gets the run-around.

Politicians fight to protect each other. Because they know if America knew how dirty most of the were, we'd disband government entirely.

As for Wasserman Schultz, hopefully the return of the mack, Awan sheds light on her dealings with him. Moreover, let's hope this investigation uncovers what most Americans suspect of the Democrats. We know in our hearts they are corrupt beyond belief. So let's prove it. Again.

[Aug 27, 2020] Federal Court Orders Snap Hearing on Awan Brothers, Congressional Democrat IT Scandal After DOJ Files Document Under Seal

Aug 27, 2020 | www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court yesterday ordered a snap hearing after the Justice Department submitted information under seal on Friday following the court's demand for an explanation of why no records have been produced in the ongoing legal battle for documents about the Congressional Democrat IT (information technology) scandal involving the Awan brothers. The hearing is set for tomorrow, January 15, at 10 am.

In November 2018, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI over two FOIA requests for records related to the Awan brothers ( Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-02563)).

In August 2019, the Justice Department told the court that it would begin producing records by November 5, 2019. After producing no records, on November 13, 2019, the agency told Judicial Watch that it was having "technical difficulties," and in a recent email claimed that "difficulties with the production remain."

In a joint status report filed on December 5, 2019, Judicial Watch reported to the court that the DOJ claimed in a phone call that it was now unable to produce any records to either of the FOIA requests "because the agency was waiting for some unspecified action by Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan in some other matter so as to avoid having to produce records in this case." In that same report the DOJ told the court that Judge Chutkan is "presiding over a related sealed criminal matter" that prohibits the government from releasing the requested FOIA information.

In a hearing last month, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta expressed frustration and ordered the Justice Department to explain its failure to produce records by January 10 and to provide Judicial Watch some details about the delay. Instead, the Justice Department made its filing under seal and has yet to provide Judicial Watch with any details about its failure to produce records as promised to the court.

"The cover-up of the Awan Brothers Democratic IT scandal shows the FBI and DOJ's penchant for dishonesty isn't just limited to FISA abuse," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The DOJ's handling of the Awan Brothers case has long been an issue of concern and now we are expected believe some secret investigation prevents the public from knowing the full truth about this scandal. We are skeptical."

Imran Awan and his family were banned from the House computer network in February 2017 after the House's top law enforcement officer wrote that Imran was "an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems," and that a server containing evidence had gone "missing." The inspector general said server logs showed "unauthorized access" and procurement records were falsified.

Imran Awan was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's (D-FL) top information technology aide. Most lawmakers fired Awan in February, but Wasserman Schultz kept him on until he was arrested in July 2017 , trying to board a flight for Pakistan.

In July 2018, Imran Awan was given a plea deal, and pled guilty to federal bank fraud but prosecutors found no evidence that Awan "violated federal law with respect to the House computer systems."

The Awan brothers reportedly "were not given background checks before being given access to highly sensitive government information and no explanations have been given as to why." Additionally, "If they would have run this background check it would have found out not only multiple criminal convictions, but $1 million bankruptcy, a dozen lawsuits it would have found a whole host of major red flags and the Democrats didn't do any of those checks."

The status hearing is before Judge Amit P. Mehta:

Date: Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Time: 10:00 a.m. ET

Location: Courtroom 10

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

333 Constitution Ave NW

Washington, DC 20001

###

[Aug 27, 2020] Awan Brothers Helped Schultz Threaten Election Fraud Lawyers

Jul 30, 2017 | newspunch.com
July 30, 2017 Sean Adl-Tabatabai News

https://newspunch.com/awan-brothers-wasserman-schultz-threats/

The Awan Brothers aided former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz in making threatening voice modulated phone calls to attorneys suing the DNC for election fraud.

Lt. Colonel Tony Schaffer told Fox News that Schultz ordered the Awan Brothers to scare off the lawyers due to the threat they pose in exposing widespread election fraud committed by the Democratic Party in 2016.

Disobedientmedia.com reports: If substantiated, the claims may have significance for the DNC fraud lawsuit proceedings, and add to the growing controversy surrounding the recent arrest of Imran Awan on bank fraud charges.

Jared Beck, and attorney litigating the DNC Fraud Lawsuit noted on Twitter :

[Aug 27, 2020] Pelosi should discuss with Debbie Wasserman Schultz her duty to protect consitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic

Writers at The Onion have a much easier task writing their brand of satire with the political class of the US tossing out bon mots such as those.
Aug 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
uncle tungsten , Aug 25 2020 21:48 utc | 88

karlof1 #85

"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States".

Amazing that Pelosi is suddenly aware of her duty.

Thank you karlof1 - LMFAO - coffee all over the keyboard.

Perhaps Pelosi should take her own advice and discuss this belief of hers with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. After all Schultz promoted the Awan family spy and blackmail ring to other members of the Democrat caucus in Congress.

Another swamp pond yet to drain, take note Barr, there is still a lot of work ahead ha ha ha.

[Aug 27, 2020] Navalny's 'Poisoning' false flag. Accompinized by b's excellent analyses of the novichokked navalny

The way Merkel and other politicians immediately jumped on the poisoning thesis is reminiscent of May's reaction in the Skripal case. It is difficult not to become suspicious. Looks like they like to reuse the same propaganda memes over and over. Russian bounties to the Taliban become Iranian bounties to the Taliban, Novichok becomes cholinesterase inhibitor, rinse and repeat.
Aug 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
CitizenX , Aug 25 2020 17:52 utc | 45

Russia did it. Evil Putin ordered it. Horrible China sponsored it. Iran backed it. Hezbollah played a hand as well.

Thank Glorious God for the Indispensable Nation of American Exceptionalism. Rescuing the world from evil dictators and conspiring theorists plots. Evil doers who hate OUR way of life stand no chance against the Glorious Christians and their Honorable Zionist gatekeepers.

Thanks and Glory to American Gods that Juan Guaido is now the President of Venezuela. Soon the Zionist will offer their Chosen Ones to replace Evil Dictators.

Thanks and praise to MOA for shining Gods Light and dancing on Western narratives giving them validity against the Evil doers of Poison and injustice.

Trump and Pence are "Men of the Bible" seeking out injustice and filling the world with Christian values of Bro Love and world Peace. May all you Christians take a knee and pray for these Mens souls and the Soul of America for leading the way to righteousness. Oh yeah- and pray for whatever the fuck his name is Nirvany Nalvinny poisoned guy.


Nathna Mulcahy , Aug 25 2020 18:39 utc | 58

As the collective west, including Germany, proceed to fabricate another "highly likely" Putin play...

William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 18:49 utc | 62

CHRIS ZELL @60 True.

If the Russians are really trying to assassinate, why do it in so theatrical a manner? Just shoot him twice in the back of the head and call it suicide like the Americans do.

[Aug 27, 2020] It is possible that Germans are playing games similar to those they played with Yushchenko

Aug 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Aug 25 2020 21:05 utc | 82

I don't understand why people commenting here still insist on playing CSI Miami. The Russian doctors have already publicly stated their own lab results showed absolutely no signs of Cholinesterase Inhibitors. As in evidence of zero CI - not zero evidence of CI:

Russian Doctors Deny Navalny Had Traces, Symptoms of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Poisoning

"Upon his admission to the [Omsk] hospital, Alexey Navalny was tested on a wide range of narcotics, synthetic substances, psychodiletics and medicinal substances, including cholinesterase inhibitors -- all tests came back negative ," Sabayev said in a press statement, as quoted by the Omsk Ministry of Health.

No cholinesterase inhibitors were used, according to the Russian lab results. It's not that they didn't test Navalny for the substances - they did and they came out negative.

Sabayev even called the Germans' bluff:

"Additionally, Navalny lacked symptoms specific of the poisoning with cholinesterase inhibitors substances . As we said earlier, we are ready to share Alexey Navalny's samples with our German colleagues for examination ," the health official [Sabayev] added.

MoA's own German source state the lab tests in Germany were carried out by "independent laboratories". They most likely are in BND's control, in one way or the other. Many Western European nations have constitutional clauses that allow their respective governments (usually, at the discretion of the executive) to intervene directly on the private sector in specific occasions, normally under "national security" reasons. The executive of the British government, for example, has a legal device that allows it to outright censor (without the need for legislative approval) any specific information from all the British media outlets. I'm sure modern Germany also has many constitutional clauses that allow its government and intelligence agencies to intervene anywhere, anytime in the German economy instantly and covertly, under the umbrella of national security.

As I predicted, the Russians aren't that stupid. They stored some blood samples from Navalny, and they know, for sure, that he wasn't poisoned with CIs. That's why Peskov was so direct, so sudden and so confident when he declared the Kremlin was in no hurry - because they saw no reason - to initiate an investigation on Navalny's sudden health problems. And he also called the German bluff ("If the substance is established and if it is established that this is poisoning, then, of course, this will be a cause for investigation", i.e. there won't be an investigation because there's no poison).

[Aug 27, 2020] The flight was paid by businessman Boris Zimin. Boris Zimin is the son of Dmitry Zimin the founder of VimpelCom, who is connected to Freedman Alpha Group Consortuim

Aug 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Gary , Aug 25 2020 16:35 utc | 32

From southfront:
The air travel between Russia and Germany is mostly suspended due to coronavirus limitations. The flight to Germany was organized by the Berlin-based Cinema for Peace Foundation. The flight was paid by businessman Boris Zimin. Boris Zimin is the son of Dmitry Zimin – the founder of VimpelCom (Beeline telecommunications brand).

PJSC VimpelCom is the third-largest wireless and second-largest telecom operator in Russia. It is wholly owned by VEON Ltd. through which it is linked to Mikhail Fridman, Russian Western-linked business magnate. Fridman's Alfa Group Consortium is among the main shareholders of VEON Ltd.

These persons and entities represent the Russian influence group linked to the global finance. The very same group has links and support work of think tanks affiliated with the Higher School of Economics, the center of the Alma Mater of the liberal economic block of the Russian government. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobanin and Chairwoman of the Bank of Russia Elvira Nabiullina also could be considered a part of the global finance in Russia.

In Russian media, this network of Western-linked persons, organizations, influence groups and top officials is often described as the 'liberal tower' of the Kremlin. Thus, despite the image of the opposition figure, Navalny receives support from the highest levels of the Russian governance and business systems.


Nathna Mulcahy , Aug 25 2020 18:39 utc | 58

As the collective west, including Germany, proceed to fabricate another "highly likely" Putin play...

CHRIS ZELL , Aug 25 2020 18:43 utc | 60
I find fault with this poison idea. Whether Skripals or this guy, why can't Russians competently kill somebody? It can't be that difficult.

Also, did his aide give him the tea? How was the poisoning supposedly engineered?

William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 20:46 utc | 80

jared @80

Whenever Navalny does end up dying the Russian government will be blamed anyway, so if they wanted him dead then why not just blow him up with some missiles like the US did with General Soleimani? Why not just arrest him, claim he resisted arrest, then shoot him like happens with so many people in the US?

This talk about him being targeted by the Russian government using obscure toxins that don't work is beyond silly.

Digital Spartacus , Aug 25 2020 21:04 utc | 81

Due to Navalny's dealings in Tomsk, this smells more of a bid to leave the country. Orchestrations set in place by Germany suggests an asset that has run his course, but they can't leave him in country to deal with any complications of him being taken by someone else. This doesn't feel like state acting....or at least not the Russian state. Gruff is right, this isn't targeting by the Russians. Navalny hasn't been relevant in Russian circles since at least 2012-13 if he was even then.

karlof1 , Aug 25 2020 21:27 utc | 84

William Gruff @81--

This talk about him being targeted by the Russian government using obscure toxins that don't work is beyond silly.

But that's the West's MO when it comes to trying to frame the USSR/Warsaw Pact Member/Russia over the decades--an old Big Lie Narrative that will be used until the Outlaw US Empire finally drowns. From yesterday :


"'The Russians were there and they are there now 24/7 trying to interfere in our election, but they're not the only ones', Pelosi said."

But then Pelosi added:

"We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring of the Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States".

Amazing that Pelosi is suddenly aware of her duty.

[Aug 27, 2020] The Back And Forth About Navalny's 'Poisoning'

Notable quotes:
"... Navalny fell ill on August 20 during a flight from Tomsk in Siberia to Moscow. The plane made an emergency landing in Omsk where he was transferred to a hospital. Navalny fell into a coma. The doctors diagnosed a sharp drop in his blood sugar. Navalny has diabetes and his symptoms as described were consistent with a diabetic shock. We therefore (somewhat prematurely) concluded that Navalny was not poisoned . ..."
"... The wording of the Charité statement seems to imply that the laboratory results point to the potential effects of a cholinesterase inhibitors, not to a specific substance itself. This is consistent with a statement by the clinic in Omsk which insists that no cholinesterase inhibitors, i.e a 'poison', were found: ..."
"... We can be quite sure that a trained toxicologist would recognize a Cholinergic crisis . There is however a documented case from India in which an organophosphate poisoning was falsely interpreted as diabetic ketoacidosis (hat tip Bernd Neuner ): ..."
"... If Navalny was poisoned - which is not established - the next question must be how Navalny came into contact with a cholinesterase inhibitor. Was the contact caused by himself or by someone else? Was it intentionally or unintentionally? ..."
"... Navalny's spokeswomen has insisted that the only substance Navalny ingested that morning was a tea from an airport bar. A CCTV video from the airport shows that the tea was brought from the bar by a person that then sits down with Navalny. They presumably traveled together. How would the airport barkeeper, if he supposedly poisoned Navalny, knew for whom the tea was? ..."
"... next page " the poison theory constructors are creating a colorful james bond style movie script. It captures the imagination. If the exciting, easily visualised, movie script is solidly imprinted in the imagination, then dull, tedious, evidence based reality doesn't get a look-in. ..."
"... Besides, this doesn't explain the almost immediate poisoning accusation by Merkel and then, the next day (today), by top EU ideologue Josep Borrell. The German State (at least the BND) must be involved - the fact that the Charité is owned by the State itself only strengthens this hypothesis. ..."
"... Someone on the web (might even be here) mentioned that cholinesterase inhibitors can be used against Cocaine dependence. Is this true or not? I do not have any other information and I am not a Medecin/doctor or user. But these days I am naturally cynical about any "official" statements, whoever makes them. ..."
"... The way Merkel and other politicians immediately jumped on the poisoning thesis is reminiscent of May's reaction in the Skripal case. It is difficult not to become suspicious. ..."
"... Due to Navalny's dealings in Tomsk, this smells more of a bid to leave the country. Orchestrations set in place by Germany suggests an asset that has run his course, but they can't leave him in country to deal with any complications of him being taken by someone else. ..."
Aug 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

The case of the alleged 'poisoning' of the Russian rabble rouser Alexey Navalny is becoming more curious.

Navalny fell ill on August 20 during a flight from Tomsk in Siberia to Moscow. The plane made an emergency landing in Omsk where he was transferred to a hospital. Navalny fell into a coma. The doctors diagnosed a sharp drop in his blood sugar. Navalny has diabetes and his symptoms as described were consistent with a diabetic shock. We therefore (somewhat prematurely) concluded that Navalny was not poisoned .

After a day and a half in the Omsk hospital the patient stabilized. On request of his family he was flown to Berlin and admitted to the Charité hospital. The Charité is a very large (14,000 employees) state run university clinic that is leading in many medical fields. Its laboratories found effects consistent with the ingestion of, or contact with, a cholinesterase inhibitor:

Following his admission, Mr. Navalny underwent extensive examination by a team of Charité physicians. Clinical findings indicate poisoning with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors. The specific substance involved remains unknown, and a further series of comprehensive testing has been initiated. The effect of the poison – namely, the inhibition of cholinesterase in the body – was confirmed by multiple tests in independent laboratories.

As a result of this diagnosis, the patient is now being treated with the antidote atropine.

Cholinesterase is needed in the human nerve system to break down acetylcholine which is a signaling substance between synapses. Inhibitors of cholinesterase are used in the therapy of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, anxiety disorder and other illnesses. Cholinesterase inhibitors can be found in certain plant extracts or synthesized. There are two types of cholinesterase inhibitors, carbamates and organophosphates. Both types are also widely used as pesticides. During World War II organophosphates were developed as chemical weapons (tabun, sarin, soman) but not widely used.

The wording of the Charité statement seems to imply that the laboratory results point to the potential effects of a cholinesterase inhibitors, not to a specific substance itself. This is consistent with a statement by the clinic in Omsk which insists that no cholinesterase inhibitors, i.e a 'poison', were found:

"When Alexey Navalny was admitted to the in-patient clinic, he was examined for a wide range of narcotics, synthetic substances, psychedelic drugs and medical substances, including cholinesterase inhibitors. The result was negative," said Sabayev, chief of the acute poisoning unit at the Omsk emergency care hospital where Navalny was treated before being airlifted to Germany.

"Besides, he did not have a clinical picture, specific for poisoning with substances from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors," Sabayev, who is also the top toxicologist in the Omsk Region and the Siberian Federal District, added.

We can be quite sure that a trained toxicologist would recognize a Cholinergic crisis . There is however a documented case from India in which an organophosphate poisoning was falsely interpreted as diabetic ketoacidosis (hat tip Bernd Neuner ):

We present a 15-year-old girl who was initially treated for "diabetic ketoacidosis" with further worsening of her general condition. This delayed recovery, coupled with focused investigations, finally led us to a diagnosis and the appropriate management of an intentional overdose with organophosphorous (OP) pesticide, presenting as diabetic ketoacidosis.

But according to Kremlin spokesman Dimitry Peskov the Russian doctors made the right diagnosis and applied the correct therapy (machine translation):

The statement by German doctors on the diagnosis of FBK founder Alexei Navalny is nothing new for Russian specialists, Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the Russian President, told reporters.

"We have not yet learned anything new from this statement. We specifically contacted our doctors and asked how, from a professional point of view, we can relate to what was written. The fact is that the fact of this lowered cholinesterase was established in the first hours by our doctors in a hospital in Omsk. And the atropine, which the Germans are talking about and which is now being given to the patient, began to be administered during the first hour of the patient's stay in intensive care, " said Peskov.

The presidential spokesman stressed that the level of cholinesterase may decrease for a variety of reasons, including from taking a number of medications. At the same time, German doctors did not identify a toxic substance in Navalny's analyzes.

"Therefore, it is very important here to find out what caused the decrease in cholinesterase levels. And neither our doctors, nor the Germans have yet been able to establish the cause . At least, this follows from the statement of our German doctors' colleagues. There is no substance, unfortunately, it cannot be established, analyzes do not show it," Peskov explained.

He stressed that the analytical data of Russian and German doctors are the same, but the conclusions are different.

"We do not understand why our German colleagues are in such a hurry, using the word "poisoning". You know, this version was among the first that our doctors considered, but I repeat once again: the substance has not yet been established. Maybe the Germans have some data," said Peskov, noting that Russian doctors are ready to provide samples of the first tests.

If Navalny was poisoned - which is not established - the next question must be how Navalny came into contact with a cholinesterase inhibitor. Was the contact caused by himself or by someone else? Was it intentionally or unintentionally?

Navalny's spokeswomen has insisted that the only substance Navalny ingested that morning was a tea from an airport bar. A CCTV video from the airport shows that the tea was brought from the bar by a person that then sits down with Navalny. They presumably traveled together. How would the airport barkeeper, if he supposedly poisoned Navalny, knew for whom the tea was?

As 'western' media continue with their "Putin poisoned Navalny" nonsense it is important to again point out that other people have more reason to harm Navalny than the Kremlin does:

During the last years Navalny has made some enemies by uncovering corruption cases. His latest one was about the local governor of Tomsk. It was also the reason why he had flown there. Should Navaly become the victim of a crime the suspects should be sought there.

Posted by b on August 25, 2020 at 11:57 UTC | Permalink


mijj , Aug 25 2020 12:19 utc | 1

next page " the poison theory constructors are creating a colorful james bond style movie script. It captures the imagination. If the exciting, easily visualised, movie script is solidly imprinted in the imagination, then dull, tedious, evidence based reality doesn't get a look-in.
vk , Aug 25 2020 12:39 utc | 2
The India girl case is an interesting case if you're a doctor, but it is too over the top to claim they are common. The important thing to consider here is that the Russian doctor who treated him (and saved his life) discarded that possibility.

It is only the doctor that can diagnose his/her patient. Hunting for exotic cases around the world is not diagnosis.

Besides, this doesn't explain the almost immediate poisoning accusation by Merkel and then, the next day (today), by top EU ideologue Josep Borrell. The German State (at least the BND) must be involved - the fact that the Charité is owned by the State itself only strengthens this hypothesis.

vk , Aug 25 2020 12:47 utc | 3
Here's food for thought:

German economy contracts at record pace, recovery hinges on consumers

The numbers consolidate last month's preview. It's bad, and Germany is officially in an economic depression (2009-2020).

Uniting this data with my previous speculation on the "Prussian" and the "double-header" hypotheses, I'm inclined to think the Belarus-Navalny operations are a gambit by the EU to expand further to the East (Russia) and, ultimately, to dispute with China over the control of Eurasia in the 21st/22nd Centuries.

gadzooks , Aug 25 2020 12:57 utc | 5
I am a great fan of MOA, a refugee from ZH which is now an almost unreadable and tainted by its anti-China drumbeat.

However, with all due respect I find that our host tends to come to conclusions a bit too quickly... Navalny could well have been poisoned, but by whom? Guaido and her female clone Tikhanovskaya better watch out - their handlers in the CIA may see them more useful as martyrs than as "legitimate opposition".

As for other topics, I also find b to have way, way too quickly dismissed the Beirut blast as anything other than AM.
As in, too quickly because the ramifications were too terrible to contemplate, as in the ascendence of unspeakable evil on the part of the shitty little state. As to whether the blast was nuclear or conventional, that is a minor point.

vk , Aug 25 2020 13:03 utc | 7
Kremlin sees no grounds to launch criminal probe into Navalny's condition
"If the substance is established and if it is established that this is poisoning, then, of course, this will be a cause for investigation," he [Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov] said.
Stonebird , Aug 25 2020 13:10 utc | 8
Someone on the web (might even be here) mentioned that cholinesterase inhibitors can be used against Cocaine dependence. Is this true or not? I do not have any other information and I am not a Medecin/doctor or user. But these days I am naturally cynical about any "official" statements, whoever makes them.

This (anti-cocaine use) might equally be "disinformation", but with its' widespread use in "elite" circles, it is not inconcievable. Navalny being in the toilets rather than having an immediate reaction to the tea at the airport, could be an indication that something happened in there.

Robert , Aug 25 2020 13:21 utc | 10
The Russians caused the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in a plot to meddle with the U.S. elections by causing disruptions in Texas which may vote Democrat in November. Considering this it is plausible to think Putin poisoned Nav' in an attempt to take over the world.
mpn , Aug 25 2020 13:52 utc | 12
From 3/3 on twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/elenaevdokimov7/status/1298208566281527296

3/3 Though a doctor from another region of Russia, who did not treat Navalny, wrote that in his practice, cholinesterase inhibitors Proserin &Ubretid are allegedly widely used to prevent disorders developing in patients placed on mechanical ventilation.

Paco , Aug 25 2020 13:59 utc | 13
Posted by: vk | Aug 25 2020 12:39 utc | 2

Josep Borrell as the top ideologue of the EU is overestimating a gray functionary belonging to the Felipe González group, a group that somehow preceded the false center left of Blair in the UK or Clinton in the USA.

From that same group of politicians that first campaigned against Spain joining NATO back in the '80s with the slogan "De entrada no", something like to start with NO, well one of those socialists later became NATO's secretary general and lead the organization during its sinister days of the Yugoslavia bombings, handsomely rewarded monetarily later became Mister Pesc, a strange definition for the sort of foreign minister of the EU, the place than Borrell has been rewarded with nowadays, which means he has rendered the required services to the empire. Those guys true ideology is personal advancement and nothing else, so it kind of sounds funny to think he is the top ideologue of the EU, but then again, he could be, which is a true mesure of what the EU is worth politically, a pitiful colony.

William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 14:14 utc | 15
Stonebird @8: Cholinesterase inhibitors for cocaine addiction

Note that this is an off-label use of cholinesterase inhibitors, so an American doctor would not likely prescribe it. Someone who has a supply of cocaine sufficient enough to become an addict, on the other hand, probably would not have difficulty obtaining a cholinesterase inhibitor like Galantamine, though. Navalny's CIA/State Department handlers who keep him on coke could probably get him anything he asked for, though if I were in his shoes I wouldn't put anything from them up my nose.

somebody , Aug 25 2020 14:49 utc | 20
Posted by: vk | Aug 25 2020 12:47 utc | 3

Unlikely. Europe hardly survived WW2. Russia plus China are a lot of people to make angry.

It's more likely some projects continuing because someone has forgotten to stop them or because they still have got money left. You would have to carry Europe to fight and even then they would not fight.

As is, Europe's south has been bought up by Chinese investment. They invest strategically not for short term returns.

Noone will climb a tree before knowing the results of US elections.

BM , Aug 25 2020 15:00 utc | 21
There is however a documented case from India in which an organophosphate poisoning was falsely interpreted as diabetic ketoacidosis

So what? Doctors make false diagnoses all the time. It is called medical error. A significant proportion of deaths in hospitals worldwide are due to medical error. India? Now, if somebody is going to suggest that medical error never happens in India I am going to say either they are a liar or an idiot. Medical errors also happen in German hospitals, by the way, including Charité - plenty of them! Including both with and without intent.

This whole Navalny "poisoning" fantasy stinks to high heaven. It differs very little in essential essence from the Skripal fantasy so far, and I am quite sure it is headed on the same path.

Orage , Aug 25 2020 15:16 utc | 22
But have we missed a point here? Is this not just trying to round the anti-Russia circle started by the Skripal poisoning? Will not everyone now assume that Navalny was poisoned with Novichok and that this proves beyond doubt that this is the preferred way for getting rid of Kremlin enemies? You don't really have to prove anything more, it is now all out there, like Russia gate, the dog whistle has been blown.
Orage , Aug 25 2020 15:19 utc | 23
Somebody 16
The findings of low cholineesterase was the same in Omsk and Berlin but the conclusions are different. There is no problem here.
MarkU , Aug 25 2020 15:21 utc | 24
@ BM (21)

Re: "This whole Navalny "poisoning" fantasy stinks to high heaven. It differs very little in essential essence from the Skripal fantasy so far, and I am quite sure it is headed on the same path."

I agree completely. The whole script is so old and tired one would have to have spent the last few decades living under a rock not to see through it, throw enough shit and hope some of it sticks. It is probably just another ploy to put pressure on the German government to cancel Nordstream 2.

John Gilberts , Aug 25 2020 15:36 utc | 25
An accompaniment to b's excellent analyses of the novichokked navalny:

Cartalucci: 'Poisoned' Kremlin Critic Flown to Germany as German-Russian Nord Stream 2 Nears Completion

https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2020/08/poisoned-kremlin-critic-flown-to.html

Peter AU1 , Aug 25 2020 15:59 utc | 28
Circe 19

In his previous Navalny article, b referenced this in the update.
https://www.intellinews.com/doctors-deny-navalny-poisoned-but-refuse-to-let-him-leave-190208/
"Navalny said himself that he suffered from diabetes in 2019, giving some credence to this explanation."

This is the source a few other articles on the net also quote from, but where did it come from. I spent some time searching for other earlier references to Navalny having diabetes but could not find any.

c1ue , Aug 25 2020 16:20 utc | 31
@vk #3
Why do you believe that the EU and/or Germany wish to expand eastward when their economy is in deep recession and they already have 45 million Ukrainians for cheap labor?

I would note that even East Germany is lagging West Germany in terms of economic progress since reunification, which itself was incredibly expensive. Ukraine isn't a great example either of neither economic progress nor contributing integration into the EU.

Gary , Aug 25 2020 16:35 utc | 32
From southfront:
The air travel between Russia and Germany is mostly suspended due to coronavirus limitations. The flight to Germany was organized by the Berlin-based Cinema for Peace Foundation. The flight was paid by businessman Boris Zimin. Boris Zimin is the son of Dmitry Zimin – the founder of VimpelCom (Beeline telecommunications brand).

PJSC VimpelCom is the third-largest wireless and second-largest telecom operator in Russia. It is wholly owned by VEON Ltd. through which it is linked to Mikhail Fridman, Russian Western-linked business magnate. Fridman's Alfa Group Consortium is among the main shareholders of VEON Ltd.

These persons and entities represent the Russian influence group linked to the global finance. The very same group has links and support work of think tanks affiliated with the Higher School of Economics, the center of the Alma Mater of the liberal economic block of the Russian government. Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobanin and Chairwoman of the Bank of Russia Elvira Nabiullina also could be considered a part of the global finance in Russia.

In Russian media, this network of Western-linked persons, organizations, influence groups and top officials is often described as the 'liberal tower' of the Kremlin. Thus, despite the image of the opposition figure, Navalny receives support from the highest levels of the Russian governance and business systems.

William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 16:37 utc | 33
c1ue @31

Capitalists are desperate for markets, not cheap labor.

vk , Aug 25 2020 16:45 utc | 34
@ Posted by: c1ue | Aug 25 2020 16:20 utc | 31

1) the plan was never to make the DDR prosperous. On the contrary: too much people living prosperously is damaging to capitalist expansion;

2) that's the pattern of recent EU expansion, with the latest great batch of new members coming from ex-Yugoslavia and the Iron Curtain (why not, for example, insisting on the accession of Norway and Switzerland, which are much richer and culturally alike countries?);

3) besides the huge pool of cheap and relatively well-educated labor power (which can be imported to Germany proper, thus rising unemployment rates, thus eroding the power of the mighty German unions), there's the pot of gold of the old communist infrastructure (water, electricity, communications, education, healthcare), which is already centralized and thus would result in monopolistic rent for the German capitalists who will inevitably buy them in a privatization process (as happened with Slovakia);

4) Belarus is the natural springboard to invade Russia, thus increasing Germany's leverage within NATO.

Stonebird , Aug 25 2020 16:58 utc | 35
William Gruff | Aug 25 2020 14:14 utc | 15

Thanks for the reply. - Even if Navalny was suffering from a "manque" of his favourite substance, the Germans and others would not mention it. He would not have had (much ?) trace in his blood either.

pnyx , Aug 25 2020 17:25 utc | 38
Esteemed B, I am still waiting for a source reference for Navalnys diabetes. It is still important to get the information confirmed. His environment says that he did not consume anything except the tea. That would be a very risky behavior for a diabetic in itself.
Whether a diabetic shock can be ruled out due to the cholinesterase problem, which can probably be considered certain after it has been confirmed by two hospitals, I cannot judge. You seem to assume that.

The way Merkel and other politicians immediately jumped on the poisoning thesis is reminiscent of May's reaction in the Skripal case. It is difficult not to become suspicious.

Virgile , Aug 25 2020 17:25 utc | 39
I am sure there are more effective ways to assassinate a diabetic man. Who ever did it is an amateur.
karlof1 , Aug 25 2020 17:26 utc | 40
I dwell on the words Navalny spoke in Tomsk to his crew, about him becoming a martyr and it not helping Putin, then his trauma on the following day. Yes, the observation about the tea at the airport is of great importance. The time between its ingestion and boarding the plane is similarly important IF he was administered a toxic agent via that tea. And if he's diabetic or even pre-diabetic, there's a suite of meds he'd need to take daily if not requiring insulin, and those meds must be ingested with food--I know.

I imagine all security camera footage of his time at Tomsk airport has been scrutinized, the result being the Kremlin's ruling no investigation's warranted. That decision's good enough for me.

Peter AU1 , Aug 25 2020 17:32 utc | 41
karlof1

navalny's words the day before about being a hero if Putin killed him is I think key. Russia seems to produce a few Rasputin types - like the clown that nailed his balls to the pavement.
Seen some photos of Navalny when he was younger and his eyes looked normal. Those wide open staring eyes in selfies and so forth in recent years give more than a hint of madness.

Clueless Joe , Aug 25 2020 17:37 utc | 42
I agree with Karlof1. If Navalny is diabetic, he seems a bit careless to me to just drink a tea all morning. He should eat something according to his diet and probably take some meds as well (if the disease isn't at a very early stage).
Beibdnn , Aug 25 2020 17:38 utc | 43
@ Gadzooks 5

Nuclear or conventional ' a minor point '.

That has to be one of the most absurd, ill considered and ridiculous comments I've ever read.

IF the explosion had been caused by a nuclear weapon, the world would very possibly be in a Niclear winter right now.

Not to mention there wouldn't be much of Lebanon and surrounding area left...

Paco , Aug 25 2020 17:50 utc | 44
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 25 2020 17:32 utc | 41

To compare Pavlensky to Rasputin is not proportional. The monk was the victim of the British services and has been thoroughly discredited and demonized, by the same guys that killed him. Check out the movie about Rasputin's life with no other than Gerard Depardieu. Rasputin had the Tsarina's ear and he was against Russia going to war, the first world war, and that was the main motive to eliminate him.
Pavlensky on the other hand is a freak useful to the empire propaganda on a condom basis, use and throw away, just like the Pussy Riots, always referred to as the punk group, a group that never issued a first album, save for a couple of clips on youtube after leaving Russia. Freaks of that caliber are a dime a dozen everywhere, but since they are useful to discredit Russia, well then they are endowed with media attention, and even Hillary receiving one of the Riots member, Tolokonnikova, the one that being pregnant engaged in a public orgy, another one of the group hits was introducing a frozen chicken into a members vagina. Pavlensky was hailed as a hero for burning the FSB building entrance door, the feared Lyubianka. He tried the same trick with the gates of the Bank of France, and he was sent to a psychiatric ward, with no media noise at all. If that would have occurred back in Moscow we would be still hearing and reading about psychiatric torture back to the good old days of the Soviet Union.

CitizenX , Aug 25 2020 17:52 utc | 45
Russia did it. Evil Putin ordered it. Horrible China sponsored it. Iran backed it. Hezbollah played a hand as well.

Thank Glorious God for the Indispensable Nation of American Exceptionalism. Rescuing the world from evil dictators and conspiring theorists plots. Evil doers who hate OUR way of life stand no chance against the Glorious Christians and their Honorable Zionist gatekeepers.

Thanks and Glory to American Gods that Juan Guaido is now the President of Venezuela. Soon the Zionist will offer their Chosen Ones to replace Evil Dictators.

Thanks and praise to MOA for shining Gods Light and dancing on Western narratives giving them validity against the Evil doers of Poison and injustice.

Trump and Pence are "Men of the Bible" seeking out injustice and filling the world with Christian values of Bro Love and world Peace. May all you Christians take a knee and pray for these Mens souls and the Soul of America for leading the way to righteousness. Oh yeah- and pray for whatever the fuck his name is Nirvany Nalvinny poisoned guy.

pretzelattack , Aug 25 2020 18:19 utc | 49
they like to reuse the same propaganda memes over and over. Russian bounties to the Taliban become Iranian bounties to the Taliban, Novichok becomes cholinesterase inhibitor, rinse and repeat.
Nathna Mulcahy , Aug 25 2020 18:39 utc | 58
As the collective west, including Germany, proceed to fabricate another "highly likely" Putin play, may I ask what they have been doing while the collective west has buried Julian Assange alive? Hypocricy is a much too weak word for it.
CHRIS ZELL , Aug 25 2020 18:43 utc | 60
I find fault with this poison idea. Whether Skripals or this guy, why can't Russians competently kill somebody? It can't be that difficult.

Also, did his aide give him the tea? How was the poisoning supposedly engineered?

vk , Aug 25 2020 18:49 utc | 61
@ Posted by: Circe | Aug 25 2020 18:36 utc | 57

Navalny's still alive.

--//--

@ Posted by: Clueless Joe | Aug 25 2020 17:37 utc | 42

There's an extreme treatment for diabetics type 2, where you live in a near state of starvation for months. In some mild cases, it is stated to cure diabetes.

Navalny could be going through this treatment, hence just a cup of tea (there are many teas famous for cutting the appetite) in the morning.

William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 18:49 utc | 62
CHRIS ZELL @60 True.

If the Russians are really trying to assassinate, why do it in so theatrical a manner? Just shoot him twice in the back of the head and call it suicide like the Americans do.

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 25 2020 18:52 utc | 63
August 24, 2020 Expert reaction to statement from Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin hospital that Alexei Navalny may have been poisoned with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitor

I've seen this site before - they post statements from various medical people on matters of public medical interest, such as the pandemic. Useful for people who want some background on the chemicals involved.

Posted by: Circe | Aug 25 2020 16:14 utc | 29

Yup. Just ran across that piece while searching for anything on Navalny having diabetes. Found nothing so far beyond that. b's source appears to be the only one mentioning any diabetes in Navalny's medical history. Apparently his personal doctor has denied this, saying that the "diabetes" issue appears to have more a "description" of his medical condition rather than an actual diagnosis.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 25 2020 17:26 utc | 40 And if he's diabetic or even pre-diabetic, there's a suite of meds he'd need to take daily if not requiring insulin, and those meds must be ingested with food--I know.

Yes, Metformin is the preferred drug. I started on twice a day, then once I lost 45 pounds, the doctor dropped me to one a day. In fact, now I could stop taking it, but I continue to do so because it has alleged anti-aging properties. The only real negative is that it leeches vitamin B-12 from the body - but I take tons of B-12 anyway, so doesn't concern me. Metformin usually needs to be taken with food because otherwise it tends to give you "the runs".

I found an article that says the following:

Russian news agency Interfax later quoted officials in Omsk as saying tests had identified the presence of an industrial chemical in his body.

Russia's Ministry of Internal Affairs told the agency that since the substance they claim was present is commonly used to increase plasticity in products, "it is possible that it could appear in surface washings through the contact of Alexei Navalny with similar objects, for example, through a plastic cup".

Studies have previously shown that the chemical officials were referring to - 2-ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate - does not have a strong toxic effect on humans.

So it appears from the articles so far that initially the police detected that specific chemical, but medical experts ruled it out as a cause, merely a by-product of having drunk from a plastic cup.

This article discusses the term "metabolic disease", clarifying that it doesn't necessarily mean diabetes.

Bottom line: There is no evidence Navalny had diabetes, although he might well have had either Type 2 or Type 1 diabetes but never diagnosed. However, if he was in a diabetic coma, that should have been detected almost immediately, even by first responders in the ambulance. Beyond that, it appears that whatever chemical was the cause of his condition, it's likely undetectable now.

So another "nothing-burger" which will be seized on to drum up hysteria against Russia. And I've spent *way* too much time on this irrelevant crap.

Peter AU1 , Aug 25 2020 19:05 utc | 64
Richard Steven Hack

At your age, you should take an interest in dissecting and studying insects. Re coma from undiagnosed diabetes. From what I can find, that would be due to high blood sugar, whereas a diagnosed patient taking meds can be hit with low blood sugar if carbohydrates and insulin are not matched.

karlof1 , Aug 25 2020 19:13 utc | 65
We need a timeline showing when tea drunk; when airplane boarded; when Navalny went to loo on plane. Video showing his demeanor as he boarded would be great. It's been said his stomach was empty except for the tea, so anything in that tea presumably would have acted quickly, prior to his boarding. Or there was nothing in the tea and Navalny injured himself -- or was injured by someone during the walk in the jet-way from the terminal to the plane. Security Video?
Peter AU1 , Aug 25 2020 19:37 utc | 68
karlof1

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8654453/Pictured-Vladimir-Putins-arch-foe-Alexei-Navalny-minutes-collapsing-suspected-poisoning.html
"The opposition leader posed with the female supporter moments before taking his seat on a flight from the Siberian city of Tomsk to Moscow on Thursday."

"Mr Navalny drank a cup of tea at a cafe inside Tomsk airport, which his supporters suspect had been poisoned because it was all he ate or drank that morning."

"The saleswoman, who did not want to be identified, said one of Mr Navalny's entourage bought the tea at the counter and took it to him at the table."

Lurk , Aug 25 2020 20:18 utc | 76
The long delay between administration of the poison and the onset of effects AND the apparent nonlethatity are clear evidence of novichok. Case closed.
William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 20:25 utc | 77
Lurk @77

Precisely four hours between contact with novichok and onset of symptoms, regardless of victim age, weight, health, and quantity of novichok contacted. It is a truly amazing chemical weapon, though not very practical for battlefield use.

cj , Aug 25 2020 20:29 utc | 78
Hi B,

testing for circulating cholinesterase activity is very simple-- a chromogenic assay with acetyl thiocholine and DTNB. So its the first thing you would do in a case like this. In the case of a nerve agent there should be no circulating activity. The Russians must have known this.

So the question is now -- is there anything stuck to the active site serine of the enzyme-- an adduct. This one for Porton Down -- they will find it probably by immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry and they ought to get the mass and some structural data on the toxin. Clinically, he should have had a bradycardia and excess secretions and pupils constricted. Doesn't sound like that. The question is can we trust the West to be truthful here. After various OPCW fiascos I doubt it.
CJ

William Gruff , Aug 25 2020 20:46 utc | 80
jared @80

Whenever Navalny does end up dying the Russian government will be blamed anyway, so if they wanted him dead then why not just blow him up with some missiles like the US did with General Soleimani? Why not just arrest him, claim he resisted arrest, then shoot him like happens with so many people in the US?

This talk about him being targeted by the Russian government using obscure toxins that don't work is beyond silly.

Digital Spartacus , Aug 25 2020 21:04 utc | 81
Due to Navalny's dealings in Tomsk, this smells more of a bid to leave the country. Orchestrations set in place by Germany suggests an asset that has run his course, but they can't leave him in country to deal with any complications of him being taken by someone else. This doesn't feel like state acting....or at least not the Russian state. Gruff is right, this isn't targeting by the Russians. Navalny hasn't been relevant in Russian circles since at least 2012-13 if he was even then.
vk , Aug 25 2020 21:05 utc | 82
I don't understand why people commenting here still insist on playing CSI Miami. The Russian doctors have already publicly stated their own lab results showed absolutely no signs of Cholinesterase Inhibitors. As in evidence of zero CI - not zero evidence of CI:

Russian Doctors Deny Navalny Had Traces, Symptoms of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Poisoning

"Upon his admission to the [Omsk] hospital, Alexey Navalny was tested on a wide range of narcotics, synthetic substances, psychodiletics and medicinal substances, including cholinesterase inhibitors -- all tests came back negative ," Sabayev said in a press statement, as quoted by the Omsk Ministry of Health.

No cholinesterase inhibitors were used, according to the Russian lab results. It's not that they didn't test Navalny for the substances - they did and they came out negative.

Sabayev even called the Germans' bluff:

"Additionally, Navalny lacked symptoms specific of the poisoning with cholinesterase inhibitors substances . As we said earlier, we are ready to share Alexey Navalny's samples with our German colleagues for examination ," the health official [Sabayev] added.

MoA's own German source state the lab tests in Germany were carried out by "independent laboratories". They most likely are in BND's control, in one way or the other. Many Western European nations have constitutional clauses that allow their respective governments (usually, at the discretion of the executive) to intervene directly on the private sector in specific occasions, normally under "national security" reasons. The executive of the British government, for example, has a legal device that allows it to outright censor (without the need for legislative approval) any specific information from all the British media outlets. I'm sure modern Germany also has many constitutional clauses that allow its government and intelligence agencies to intervene anywhere, anytime in the German economy instantly and covertly, under the umbrella of national security.

As I predicted, the Russians aren't that stupid. They stored some blood samples from Navalny, and they know, for sure, that he wasn't poisoned with CIs. That's why Peskov was so direct, so sudden and so confident when he declared the Kremlin was in no hurry - because they saw no reason - to initiate an investigation on Navalny's sudden health problems. And he also called the German bluff ("If the substance is established and if it is established that this is poisoning, then, of course, this will be a cause for investigation", i.e. there won't be an investigation because there's no poison).

farm ecologist , Aug 25 2020 22:13 utc | 89
It is known that activation of acetylcholine receptors (specifically M3 muscarinic receptors) in the pancreas promotes insulin release into the bloodstream, which consequently would tend to decrease blood glucose.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11588141/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413106001598?via%3Dihub

It's therefore possible that hypoglycemia could be triggered by increased acetylcholine levels (drug-induced or otherwise). This would be less likely to occur in diabetics, as such individuals would be deficient in either the ability to produce (type 1 diabetes) or respond (type 2 diabetes) to insulin.

Jen , Aug 25 2020 23:07 utc | 92
From Ekonomika Segodnya:
Anastasiya Brotskaya (24 August 2020): "Charite suspected of unprofessionalism because of conclusions on Navalny"

Dmitri Petrovsky, a doctor of medical sciences, a surgeon and deputy of the municipality of Yaroslavl, questioned the competence of German doctors who said that blogger Alexei Navalny had been poisoned.

Doctors [treating] Navalny [at] the German clinic "Charité" reported on Monday, August 24, about the presence in the body of the blogger substance, part of the group of inhibitors cholinesterase. According to them, this indicates the poisoning of the head of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (recognized as a foreign agent).

Dmitri Petrovsky, M.D., surgeon and deputy of the municipality of Yaroslavl, commented on the statement of German medics.

"What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. And if the doctor finds them in the analysis of the person after a stay in the operating room and concludes that he was poisoned, then the conclusion is: either it is a political order, or an illiterate doctor," the expert said.

According to public figure Ernest Makarenko, the hospitalization of Navalny in ["Charité"] is nothing but a political matter. Omsk doctors coped perfectly with the blogger's treatment, but to make Navalny a "victim", he had to be defiantly taken to the West, the expert added.

Readers will need to use Google Translate.

In other words, if Navalny had not been found to have cholinesterase inhibitors in his body after being treated in an ICU with intubation, then the doctors at the Omsk hospital who initially treated him hadn't been doing their job properly.

Jen , Aug 25 2020 23:21 utc | 94
Aha - found MPN's comment @ 12, clicked on the link to Elena Evdokimova's tweets and then clicked on a link she provides and here is another article (from Zhurnalistskaya Pravda)
on Dmitri Petrovsky's comments about Navalny's treatment in Germany.

"Dmitry Petrovsky: Charite Clinic shows amateurism in conclusions on Navalny"

What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. If they weren't there, it would be strange, I'd be surprised.

Tonight, doctors of the German clinic "Charite" found in the blood of blogger Alexei Navalny substance, which, in their opinion, could provoke his illness, and hastened to announce the poisoning. However, in Russian practice, this substance is widely used to prevent disorders that developing in patients on ventilator.

German doctors found in Navalny substance - cholinesterase inhibitor.

"The effect of the toxin, i.e. the inhibition of cholinesterase in the body, has been proven several times in independent laboratories. According to the diagnosis, the patient is treated with an antidote to atropine. The outcome of the disease remains unsafe and the subsequent effects, especially in the nervous system, cannot be ruled out at this time," the statement obtained by Izvestia reads.

Deputy of the municipality of Yaroslavl, M.D., surgeon Dmitry Petrovsky commented on this "find" of German colleagues.

"Cholinesterase inhibitors are widely used medicines in medicine. Basically, they are used in the postoperative management of patients, when transferring to independent breathing. That's what Navalny had. He was first on ventilator and when trying to translate it, could use the drug Proserin. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor that is officially administered to all patients when transferred to independent breathing. It must be used. I think it was used. But I also understand that, most likely, he had to shine as Proserin's German colleagues. Perhaps used not Proserin in its pure form, but another drug, more rare - Ubretide, which is also an absolutely official drug, which is used in intensive care, in postoperative practice to prevent bladder atony, to prevent bowel atony and, accordingly, widely used. But, I admit, it can be used little in Germany, and it was not in the toxicology kit, so they could be surprised, and because of this all the cheese-bor.

What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. If they weren't there, it would be strange, I'd be surprised.

When a person breathes with the help of the ventilator, various disorders develop, including respiratory, cardiovascular, with the intestines, with the bladder. Various drugs are used to prevent these disorders, including cholinesterase inhibitors. And if the doctor finds them in the analysis of the person after a stay in the operating room and concludes that he was poisoned, then the conclusion is: either it is a political order, or an illiterate doctor."

Perhaps next time Navalny is in Russia and has a seizure or a collapse requiring IC treatment and intubation, hospital staff should just arrange to send him to the closest international airport and phone Charité to collect him as he is.

Thanks MPN for the link to Evdokimova's tweets.

karlof1 , Aug 25 2020 23:52 utc | 96
Jen @93 & 95--

Thanks for providing those! IMO, sometime after the Skripal kidnapping a memo was sent to all Russian medical personnel about the handling of known dissidents -- to use kid gloves and a fine tooth comb whilst saving all fluids taken for testing and using an impeccable evidence chain, for that's what's related by the doctor. I'd like to think such attention to detail is usual practice in Russia.

Thom Prentice , Aug 25 2020 23:55 utc | 97
He has diabetes. He ate nothing but tea. Ergo diabetic shock. Qed.
james , Aug 26 2020 0:59 utc | 98
i recommend a new ''military grade chemical agent" Novichok in honour of Alexey Navalny... maybe alexeychok is better... it has a nice malevolent russian ring to it!

[Aug 27, 2020] Another highly likely

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 8:09 pm

FFS!!! DW columnist full of shite:

Opinion: Germany unlikely to pressure Russia on reported poisoning

Doctors in Berlin have revealed that Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny may have been poisoned. Even if this were proven beyond doubt, the German government has no way to retaliate against Moscow, says Jens Thurau.

https://p.dw.com/p/3hV7H

MAY HAVE BEEN poisoned!

A change from the recently trumpeted MSM headlines that the Germans had found poison in Navalny's system.

But then:

Siberian doctors said Navalny, who has become known as one of President Vladimir Putin's fiercest critics, had suffered from a metabolic disorder. Soon thereafter, the gravely ill man was flown to Berlin for medical treatment, even though Russian authorities had argued he was too unwell to travel. Was his relocation deliberately delayed so that traces of his suspected poisoning would be harder to detect in his body? If so, the plan did not work. Shortly after Navalny's arrival in the German capital, Berlin doctors announced there was a high likelihood he had been poisoned.

Jesus H Christ!!!

Hopefully, the medical professionals in Berlin will help Navalny make it through this. [Because those Russian retards certainly couldn't have done this? -- ME] But it is highly unlikely Germany will adopt a tougher stance on Russia or impose meaningful sanctions -- just as it highly improbable Russia will help shine any light on the Navalny case. This is a cynical assessment, granted. But these are the times we are living in.

Highly improbable, you wanker?

Shine a light on the Navalny case?

You mean, find out who poisoned the so full of shit lying imposter?

If he was poisoned, that is.

Sequence of events in the "Navalny Case":

Navalny goes to the toilet.

Comes out.

Starts screaming and howling.

Loses consciousness.

Entourage starts shouting "Poisoned!"

Aeroplane emergency landing, Navalny rushed to hospital.

Coma induced by medics.

No poison in body found.

Navalny still under INDUCED coma flown to Berlin.

May possibly/ likely/ highly likely be that he was poisoned say German medics.

Still under INDUCED coma.

And some poor bastard in the Berlin "Charité" clinic sill continues to wipe that bastard's arse and empty his piss bottle.

MARK CHAPMAN August 26, 2020 at 3:46 am

Still shaping the narrative – now when Germany does not take any concrete action, it will not be because Navalny was not poisoned and the whole thing an engineered crisis, but because Germany is hesitant to do anything. Like the previous situation discussed, in which Europe orders Russia to do something it knows Russia is going to do anyway, so that it appears Russia is responding to European orders. Shaping the narrative. And either way, in this instance, it results in bad feeling between Germany and Russia, which was the objective. It does highlight, though, that there remains a significant liberal presence in Germany which is sympathetic to America and its 'values', and it would be foolish to discount this in further planning. And the media outlets are mostly dominated by those liberals.

ET AL August 26, 2020 at 7:41 am

The timing is terrible though. It'll be September in less than a week and all the other domestic problems automatically become amplified (kids back to school/masks etc.). That'll knock Saint Navalny off the front pages and his team will have to compete for space while running on fumes.

MARK CHAPMAN August 26, 2020 at 3:01 pm

Even the National post, which is rabidly conservative and borderline Republican, has backed away a little from the "He was POISONED!!" shocker, today featuring 'The Kremlin's' story, although the tone was still catty and it made a point of mentioning this and that speaker was a 'Putin ally'.


[Aug 27, 2020] "Charit " suspected of unprofessionalism because of conclusions about Navalny

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 11:23 am

"Шарите" заподозрили в непрофессионализме из-за выводов по Навальному
Анастасия Броцкая, 24 августа 2020

"Charité" suspected of unprofessionalism because of conclusions about Navalny
Anastasia Brotskaya, 24 August 2020

Doctor of Medical Sciences, surgeon and deputy of the municipality of the city of Yaroslavl Dmitry Petrovsky, in an interview with Journalistic Pravda, commented on the statement of German doctors.

"The fact that they found cholinesterase inhibitors in Navalny after his being in intensive care is normal. They should be in a person who has been in intensive care and on mechanical ventilation. The conclusion was that he had been poisoned -- then the conclusion is this: either it is a political order, or an illiterate doctor," the expert noted.

https://yandex.ru/turbo/s/rueconomics.ru/461281-sharite-zapodozrili-v-neprofessionalizme-iz-za-vyvodov-po-navalnomu?promo=navbar&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

JEN August 25, 2020 at 3:33 pm

Here's the Journalist Pravda interview with Dmitry Petrovsky with the help of Google Translate:

"Cholinesterase inhibitors are widely used medicines in medicine. Basically, they are used in the postoperative management of patients, when transferring to independent breathing. That's what Navalny had. He was first on ventilator and when trying to translate it, could use the drug Proserin. It is a cholinesterase inhibitor that is officially administered to all patients when transferred to independent breathing. It must be used. I think it was used. But I also understand that, most likely, he had to shine as Proserin's German colleagues. Perhaps used not Proserin in its pure form, but another drug, more rare – Ubretide, which is also an absolutely official drug, which is used in intensive care, in postoperative practice to prevent bladder atony, to prevent bowel atony and, accordingly, widely used. But, I admit, it can be used little in Germany, and it was not in the toxicology kit, so they could be surprised, and because of this all the cheese-bor.

What they found in Navalny cholinesterase inhibitors after being in intensive care is normal. They should be in the man who was in intensive care and was on ventilator. If they weren't there, it would be strange, I'd be surprised.

When a person breathes with the help of the ventilator, various disorders develop, including respiratory, cardiovascular, with the intestines, with the bladder. Various drugs are used to prevent these disorders, including cholinesterase inhibitors. And if the doctor finds them in the analysis of the person after a stay in the operating room and concludes that he was poisoned, then the conclusion is: either it is a political order, or an illiterate doctor."

I had to look up "atony" and Google tells me it's a condition in which a muscle loses its strength or goes slack.

I guess next time when Navalny is back in Russia (if he ever does go back) and suffers a seizure or falls into a diabetic coma and needs intensive care and intubation, the attending medical staff should instead send him to the closest international airport and call Charité to collect him as he is. He can have the minimum care to keep him his heart beating and his brain oxygenated but no more.

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 3:59 pm

Bravo! Jen for Prime Minister of the Russian Federation – get that weak sister Medvedev out of there! I am all in favour of aggressive and hard-nosed Russian responses to western idiocy, and having made fools of German doctors, Russia might even now make an advance notice that in the event of Navalny's return to Russia – and considering the west plainly considers Russian medical care to be a potential death sentence for Navalny – he will be refused medical care and maybe it might be a good idea to establish a German air-ambulance 'hot line' now for the future. Stress that this policy is brought about wholly because of the accusatory nature of the German media.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 6:45 pm

What's the betting that the cheat and swindler and foreign agent Navalny claims asylum in Germany after he has been brought out of the state of induced coma that he is at present in?

After all, his life is always under threat in Russia., isn't it?

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 7:02 pm

Good. Russia's loss is the Germans' hard bargain, what? They're welcome to the useless tit. He will gravitate to wherever he can earn a comfortable living on who he is and not what he does, as he has always done, living it up while he has no regular source of income and is always free to go on vacation. But he can't run for office in Russia while living in Germany. So we will be spared his endless presidential campaigns.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 7:23 pm

As I've commented several times already, Navalny is well past his sell-by date and his protégée Sobol now seems more and more to be moving into position as front person for the "Fund for the Struggle against Corruption".

Navalny's other sidekick, Volkov, has already for a good while now had a home address in Luxembourg; Lyosha might soon have a Berlin one.

In Berlin, having been at death's door, he will most certainly be feted by all the German liberals and well rewarded with lucrative media contracts, as is Nemtsov's daughter, who slags off on Deutsche Welle to her heart's content and with monotonous regularity all things Russian.

Nemtsova's life would certainly not be under threat if she were to live in Russia, but she has clearly seized the main chance, making money in Germany whilst ensuring that her dear dead papa not be forgotten.

Better than standing in shifts on a bridge in Moscow.


[Aug 27, 2020] I would expect more pushing of yet another "false flag poisoning" story by all NATO countries MSM.

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 9:57 am

As I have probably suggested before, Russia has to get used to the idea that the western alliance is its implacable enemy, and its core – the United States – will accept no other solution than Russia's demise in violence or its complete submission to American disposal.

I approve of Russia continuing to refer to 'our western colleagues' or 'partners', because it suggests mockery to me so long as nobody in Russia believes it. But the American and American-dominated media has escalated the campaign against Russia to the point that it is the root of everything which is wrong with the world.

When you would think any reasonable country would lie quiet for awhile, having aroused the ire of its enemies to a fever pitch, Russia goes right on provoking and poking and daring the west to do something.

Or so the story goes. It is disappointing to see official Germany so easily pushed off its previous halfway-defiant platform, but not really surprising. It remains to be seen if it will actually use the completion of Nord Stream II as leverage to get what will mollify the Americans.

I frankly doubt it, and suspect Mutti Merkel and Heiko are just making indignant noises while they scramble for a new position, but you never know.

As I have often said also, if Europe was left dependent on American LNG shipped in by tankers, it would serve it right. Just as long as Russia is not coerced into shipping gas through Ukraine forever and a day. That's the absolute no-go point.

LIKBEZ August 26, 2020 at 7:06 pm

As I have probably suggested before, Russia has to get used to the idea that the western alliance is its implacable enemy, and its core – the United States – will accept no other solution than Russia's demise in violence or its complete submission to American disposal.

This is first of all about preservation and expansion of the US-centered global neoliberal empire, not so much about Russia. They react identically to any threat to the "neoliberal world order" and "full spectrum dominance" from any country. False poisonings, creating and organizing internal opposition out of neoliberal fifth column (which is influential in any xUSSR country and consists first of all os some stratas of professionals (IT professionals, part of academic community getting foreign grants and trips, journalists fifth column, etc ) as well as of compradors working in foreign firms, NGO, or getting foreign grants (aka "grantoeds") ) attempts to stage color revolutions, all the arsenal of subversion is used.

I think this might turn into a play of German intelligence (with some support and even encouragement of political leadership) , which was a formidable opponent for Soviets during WWII. So the same story repeats now on a new level. The idea is probably to convert this into Scripals II scandal to keep Russophobia hysteria going strong. .

BTW Merkel government was instrumental in pushing Yushchenko poisoning story, which is some ways was a dressed rehearsal of Scripal's poisoning story (in neither case victims died and in both cases circumstances of poisoning were really mysterious ). And The Mirror reminded us about this link in 2018:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/former-ukrainian-president-viktor-yushchenko-12291277

Moreover, Merkel was instrumental in organizing color revolution of 2014 in Ukraine (aka Euromaidan). Klitschko and his party were her puppets. With direct and indirect financial and organizational support. He was called "Merkel's Boxer Boy In Ukraine." It was against her attempt to hijack this color revolution Nuland's famous remarks "F*ck the EU" were directed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/angela-merkel-victoria-nuland-eu-unacceptable

After that Klitschko political star faded and he never got into the Provisional Government. Yatsenyuk was put in charge.

She is a staunch neoliberal and thus a lapdog of the USA with, nevertheless, her own dreams of economic "Drang nach Osten". Ambitions which actually fully materialized in Ukraine and Bulgaria.

So I would expect more pushing of yet another "false flag poisoning" story by all NATO countries MSM.

[Aug 27, 2020] Germany is a United States satrap and acts as behoves an occupied by the USA state.

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 2:06 am

Kommersant:

Российские врачи отвергли немецкую версию отравления Навального в первый же день

Russian doctors have rejected the German version of Navalny's poisoning on the first day
24 August 2020

Head of the department of anaesthesiology and resuscitation number 1 of the N.I. Pirogov Centre, Boris Teplykh, has said that he had not heard "anything new" from the statement of German doctors. According to him, on the very first day, Russian doctors were working on the version about the intoxication of opposition leader Alexei Navalny with cholinesterase inhibitors. But the substance was not found.

"They are talking about clinical data, and not about the substance itself, which neither we nor, apparently, they have found at the moment. On the very first day of the patient's admission, we worked on this version, but did not find confirmation", Mr. Teplykh told RIA Novosti.

According to him, the atropine assigned to Alexei Navalny was given to him from the first minutes after his hospitalization in Omsk.

"Subsequently, the need for its re-introduction was discussed In addition, the presence of such a chemical reaction in the body is possible both as a result of the use of other medications, and in the natural course of the sickness", said Mr. Teplykh.

The chief toxicologist of the Omsk region and the Siberian Federal District, Alexander Sabaev, also said that cholinesterase inhibitors were not detected during the examination of Mr. Navalny in Omsk.

"Upon his admission to the hospital, Alexei Navalny underwent investigations on a wide range of narcotic, synthetic substances, psychodeletics and medicinal substances, including cholinesterase inhibitors: the result was negative", said Mr. Sabaev. "In addition, he did not have a clinical picture specific to poisoning by substances of the group of cholinesterase inhibitors".

Recall that after the hospitalization of Alexei Navalny in the Omsk hospital, a consultation was held, in which there took part specialists from the N. I. Pirogov National Medical and Chemical Centre and the N. N. Burdenko Centre for Neurosurgery.

Clinical studies in the Berlin clinic "Charité" showed intoxication of Alexei Navalny's body with a substance from the group of cholinesterase inhibitors. The exact substance has not yet been identified. It is also not clear how exactly it got into the body. Mr. Navalny's condition is assessed as "serious", but there is no acute threat to his life.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Heiko Maas have called on the Russian authorities to investigate the poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny. They have also demanded that those responsible be punished.

https://yandex.ru/turbo/s/kommersant.ru/doc/4466600?promo=navbar&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

At least "Kommersant" says they Russian doctors "have rejected"the "Charité" doctors' statement and not "denied" that the charlatan had been poisoned

The whole thing is a set-up done by Team-Navalny, that foreign agent hamming it up for all it was worth with his screaming and howling on board the aircraft. I somehow don't think that a man poisoned with a "nerve agent" some while before take off would suddenly start howling in agony after having visited the aircraft toilet.

Germany is a United States satrap and acts as behoves an occupied by the USA state.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 6:36 am

The "Skripal Case" Is Being Replaced by the "Navalny Case"
Сталкер Zone
25 August

https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-skripal-case-is-being-replaced-by-the-navalny-case/

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 10:13 am

Yes, that's just what Putin would do – wait until Navalny was all but used-up as an opposition figure, and then poison him with something that would not offer any threat to his life. Just sort of a cryptic, "Next time, Lyosha " warning. Right? If he didn't die of old age first.

What a ridiculous farce. But, once again Navalny is talked about and talked about from sunup to sundown, cosseted as if he were a national treasure. He'll probably have to go on a very long and expensive vacation after this, with his statuesque wife and his lovely children (except perhaps for the one busy with her American studies) to recover.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 2:34 am

Sputnik:

Kremlin: German Clinic's Diagnosis of Navalny's Condition Doesn't Show He Was Definitely Poisoned
25 August, 08:51

https://sputniknews.com/world/202008251080270956-kremlin-german-clinics-diagnosis-of-navalnys-condition-doesnt-show-he-was-definitely-poisoned/

"We cannot treat the accusations you mentioned seriously. These accusations have absolutely nothing to do with truth and are more like empty noise", Peskov told reporters.

"We do not understand why our German colleagues are in such a hurry to use the word 'poisoning' and so on. This version was among the first to be considered by our doctors, but, I repeat, the exact substance has not been determined", Peskov said.

I can understand why, Mr. Peskov.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 3:15 am

I'll tell you where the "poison" was administered: in the aircraft toilet -- by the foreign agent Navalny unto himself.

ET AL August 25, 2020 at 4:10 am

A sliver of truth:

Euractiv avec AFP: EU calls for 'independent, transparent' probe into Navalny case

Cholinesterase is an enzyme needed for the central nervous system to function properly. Its inhibitors are used to make medicines and insecticides, but also nerve agents such as sarin
####

Or an escape route if necessary?

A 'full investigation' is required for Russia to prove that it is not guilty of 'possibly' having done 'something' and the final arbiters of such a truth will be western politicans and institutions. Have cake, will eat. You would expect u-Rope to be more careful considering the US is trying by hook or by crook to kill NSII and destroy EU relations with Russia, but there are plenty of broad-spectrum russophobes in the EU who don't care. Consequences are for others.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 6:30 am

Link?

ET AL August 25, 2020 at 10:37 am

Sorry! Here it is:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-calls-for-independent-transparent-probe-into-navalny-case/

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 10:30 am

What will be really funny will be if they are successful. I can imagine the looks on their faces upon being told Nord Stream II is canceled and the Ukrainian transit contract will not be renewed. It's not as if Russia could not sell the gas elsewhere. But gas prices in Europe would transcend the fantastic. And America would get the opportunity to prove it just wants to be Europe's commercial good friend, and would NEVER use energy imports to meddle in national affairs like elections.

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 10:26 am

Why not? That's what the formerly-handsome Viktor Yushchenko did, coming out of it looking like a pine-cone, but a martyr forever to a Russian attempt to kill him. I tell you what – the Russians are going to have to give up poison as a weapon of assassination, because they suck at it – they can't kill anyone! Put a little investment into a commercially-available long gun in a common caliber, and shoot enemies of the state from a nearby rooftop. That won't work repeatedly, because after the first time the cops will blanket every rooftop and high point for miles around, but you'll have a dead dissident to show for it.

In case anyone is in doubt, that is sarcasm and not an actual assassination plan. But I cannot refrain from pointing out it has been used with great success in the United States by individuals who most people, to put it kindly, would not consider extra-smart. This whole poison thing seems too complicated and relies too much on chance, and the results are plainly unsatisfactory. Time to get back to fundamentals, what?

Of course, if it is all just a big scam, it will be kind of hard for Washington to actually shoot Navalny and kill him and pin it on Russia. Although the British did a reasonable job of it by simply picking two Russians visiting the UK and painting them as professional FSB 'wet men'.

JAMES LAKE August 25, 2020 at 4:59 am

Is Peskov really that dumb?

As soon as this incident happened – and the Navalny people started screaming poison – that this would be used to attack Russia was obvious.

Peskov should not even be responding – leave it to a medical spokesperson

The fact he is responding puts the issue in the Kremlin with the President.

And he sounds defensive – giving a long statement that your enemies don't care about.

Just refer them to the doctors and leave it at that

ET AL August 25, 2020 at 5:14 am

I disagree. He is a spokesman. His comments were short and to the point. Now that they have been made there is no need to respond to anything else unless something actually new turns up and certainly not including the next range of unsubstantiated rumors. In short, Peskov said 'Put up or shut up.' Diplomatically.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 9:43 am

Whatever, a former Kremlin top doc held no punches as regards this latest Navalny performance:

. . . the former chief physician of the Kremlin Hospital of the Russian President's Property Management Department, Alexander Myasnikov, did not remain silent. When he heard the diagnosis from German doctors that Navalny had been poisoned, he said:

" I shall speak cynically: if they had wanted to kill him, they would have killed him! "

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/cottagekitchen/doktor-miasnikov-ne-stal-ceremonitsia-i-otkryto-vyskazalsia-po-diagnozu-navalnogo-postavlennomu-v-germanii-5f44f81a21c76717924f1308?from=feed&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com&rid=4238870310.525.1598376560058.87929&integration=izenkit_yandex_browser&place=export&interview_id=-2249263351852416155&secdata=CN%2BOuavCLiABMAJQHw%3D%3D

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 10:36 am

Maybe, but he should know that an invitation to comment is an invitation to engage, and that past history indicates every official Russian statement will be dismissed as lies. Same for the Chinese, now, really. Their denials of having started the coronavirus 'pandemic' are regarded humorously as pathetic dissembling, and actually tacit admissions of guilt. Only the west always tells the truth – all others always lie. A landscape which would not be at all unfamiliar to Winston Smith.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 6:28 am

Not dumb, just being diplomatic.

One occasional visitor to this blog would consider Peskov's reaction a sign of Russian weakness.

My statement that I could understand why Peskov's "colleagues" were in such a hurry to use the word "poisoning" was entirely cynical.

MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 7:05 am

Navalny's spokeswoman's response to Peskov statement:

In response, Mr Navalny's spokeswoman, Kira Yarmysh, tweeted: "It was obvious that the crime would not be properly investigated and the culprit found. However, we all know perfectly well who he is."

Source: BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53903314

Proof by assertion yet again.


MOSCOWEXILE August 25, 2020 at 9:28 am

On the other hand, Peskov could have taken a page out of the former British Minister of Defence, "Stupid Boy" Gavin Williamson, and said:

Frankly, Germany should go away, and it should shut up".

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 10:33 am

I absolutely agree. Just let those looking for a comment get a busy signal. The Russian state has no comment, or cannot be reached. The latter is preferable.

[Aug 27, 2020] US Senator demonizes Russia 'as supporting thugs' and 'undermining democracy' in bid to lure India closer to US and its Quad alliance

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL August 26, 2020 at 1:32 am

Vis earlier posts about the US pressuring India to limit ties with Russia:

Asia Times: US aiming to break Russia's hold on India
https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/us-aiming-to-break-russias-hold-on-india/

US Senator demonizes Russia 'as supporting thugs' and 'undermining democracy' in bid to lure India closer to US and its Quad alliance

The Nikkei Asian Review, well known for its anti-China reportage, featured an article 0n the weekend titled "India should ignore Putin's offer to broker accord with China."

The author is none other than Marco Rubio, the high-flying Republican senator from Florida and the acting chairman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, co-chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and a ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. ..
####

Rubio, Rubio, you're the big boob-io!

Is Modhi too polite to tell the US to f/o and the US takes this as encouragement to keep making 'suggestions'? I wonder at which point the penny will drop and Washington will stop this stupid behavior?

MARK CHAPMAN August 26, 2020 at 2:54 pm

Rubio is high, I'll give him that; I don't know about high-flying. It has become political gold in America to say something insulting about Russia or its leader, or both, and much of the drooling electorate responds positively. America being the nation of the shortsighted and the instant-gratification fans, it is hard to see down the road to here such behavior might cost it, and for right now it sure is fun.

Washington obviously thinks it is irreplaceable as a trade partner, because it keeps dangling the "If you want to do business with us, you'll do as we say" ultimatum, which it evidently believes is persuasive. It remains to be seen if other countries are going to abase themselves for money. They might; it is a powerful incentive. But the USA is defining 'loyalty' in a whole new context, suspiciously like the collecting of 'vassals' as described by Putin. Saying you will do as you are told by Washington now implies that you will stay bought, no matter how wiggy American policies become.

I think most traditional US allies will stay on the fence for as long as they can, hoping for some idea of the direction the USA intends to take. But its debt is dragging it down and down, and its squalling that it must do every deal so that it is to America's advantage makes it less and less a desirable commercial partner.


[Aug 27, 2020] Everything that happens which the west finds irritating or uncomfortable to explain is the work of Russian hackers or bots. Simple.

Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL August 25, 2020 at 10:52 am

Euractiv mit Neuters: Russian-backed organisations amplifying QAnon conspiracy theories, researchers say
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/eu-calls-for-independent-transparent-probe-into-navalny-case/

Russian government-supported organisations are playing a small but increasing role amplifying conspiracy theories promoted by QAnon, raising concerns of interference in the November US election.
####

Yes, yet again new data/analytics shitpad Graphika (where Ben 'Russia is Evil' Nimmo an expert at the Atlantic Council* shakes his butt) is being used as a source.

I haven't bothered to look at the timing of the cycles when the western propaganda efforts decide to bring on stream a new bs site to peddle their rubbish, but I suppose that now Bell-End Cat is more widely known to be NATO affiliated/whatever, an opening for another 'honest' data/fact driven organization that the PPNN can quote laundered fake intel is required. One thing in common is that they are all new but have some old hands on deck.

* https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/ben-nimmo/

https://graphika.com/posts/graphika-welcomes-industry-expert-ben-nimmo-to-the-team/

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ben_Nimmo

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/498911-rt-accused-qanon-msm-conspiracy/

counts among its ranks such luminaries as Ben Nimmo, perhaps best known for baselessly accusing British and Finnish citizens of being Russian bots. Nimmo, who remains a senior non-resident fellow at pro-war NATO-backed think tank Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and has also worked with the UK government's secretive Integrity Initiative, was hired by Graphika last year as its Head of Investigations, suggesting the company values a vivid imagination over factual accuracy

MARK CHAPMAN August 25, 2020 at 3:21 pm

Yawn. Everything that happens which the west finds irritating or uncomfortable to explain is the work of Russian hackers or bots. Simples.

[Aug 27, 2020] 2020 elections will be China against Russia

Aug 27, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Commenting on the spotlight that U.S. intelligence officials have placed on both countries' interference efforts (along with Iran's), Pelosi and Schiff declared that the analysis "provided a false sense of equivalence to the actions of foreign adversaries by listing three countries of unequal operational intent, actions, and capabilities together."

In particular, they charged, the actions of Kremlin-linked actors seeking to undermine Vice President Biden, and seeking to help President Trump" were glossed over.

Pelosi stated subsequently, "The Chinese, they said, prefer (presumptive Democratic nominee Joe) Biden -- we don't know that, but that's what they're saying, but they're not really getting involved in the presidential election."

... ... ...

Also alleging that Chinese agents are increasingly active on major social media platforms -- a study from research institute Freedom House, which reported that :

"[C]hinese state-affiliated trolls are apparently operating on [Twitter] in large numbers. In the hours and days after Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted in support of Hong Kong protesters in October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported, nearly 170,000 tweets were directed at Morey by users who seemed to be based in China as part of a coordinated intimidation campaign. Meanwhile, there have been multiple suspected efforts by pro-Beijing trolls to manipulate the ranking of content on popular sources of information outside China, including Google's search engine Reddit,and YouTube."

Last year, a major Hoover Institution report issued especially disturbing findings about Beijing's efforts to influence the views (and therefore the votes) of Chinese Americans, including exploiting the potential hostage status of their relatives in China. According to the Hoover researchers:

"Among the Chinese American community, China has long sought to influence -- even silence -- voices critical of the PRC or supportive of Taiwan by dispatching personnel to the United States to pressure these individuals and while also pressuring their relatives in China. Beijing also views Chinese Americans as members of a worldwide Chinese diaspora that presumes them to retain not only an interest in the welfare of China but also a loosely defined cultural, and even political, allegiance to the so-called Motherland."

In addition: "In the American media, China has all but eliminated the plethora of independent Chinese-language media outlets that once served Chinese American communities. It has co-opted existing Chinese language outlets and established its own new outlets."

Operations aimed at Chinese Americans are anything but trivial politically. As of 2018, they represented nearly 2.6 million eligible U.S. voters, and they belonged to an Asian-American super-category that reflects the fastest growing racial and ethnic population of eligible voters in the country.

Most live in heavily Democratic states, like California, New York, and Massachusetts, but significant concentrations are also found in the battleground states where many of the 2016 presidential election margins were razor thin, and many of which look up for grabs this year, like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

More broadly, according to the Hoover study:

"In American federal and state politics, China seeks to identify and cultivate rising politicians. Like many other countries, Chinese entities employ prominent lobbying and public relations firms and cooperate with influential civil society groups. These activities complement China's long-standing support of visits to China by members of Congress and their staffs. In some rare instances Beijing has used private citizens and companies to exploit loopholes in US regulations that prohibit direct foreign contributions to elections."

But even more thoroughly overlooked than these narrower forms of Chinese political interference is a broader, much more dangerous type of Chinese meddling that leaves Moscow's efforts in the dust. For example, U.S.-owned multinational companies, which have long profited at the expense of the domestic economy by offshoring production and jobs to China, have just as long carried Beijing's water in American politics through their massive contributions to U.S. political campaigns. The same goes for Wall Street, which hasn't sent many U.S. operations overseas, but which has long hungered for permission to do more business in the Chinese market.

These same big businesses continually and surreptitiously inject their views into American political debates by heavily financing leading think tanks -- which garb their special interest agendas in the raiment of objective scholarship.

Hollywood and the rest of the U.S. entertainment industry has become so determined to brown nose China in search of profits that it's made nearly routine rewriting and censoring material deemed offensive to China.

... ... ...

Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom .

[Aug 25, 2020] An Open Letter to Strobe Talbott About RussiaGate by Tom Couser

RussiaGate is about MIC, Intelligence agencies and Dem leadership need to have an enemy to milt taxpayers and retain power and military budget. Nothing personal, strictly business.
Aug 25, 2020 | www.antiwar.com

Tom Couser Posted on August 20, 2020

I met Strobe Talbott in 1968 when he and I were graduate students at Magdalen College, Oxford. I liked him and respected him, and after we lost touch as friends, I followed his career at Time , the State Department, and the Brookings Institution with admiration. In recent years, however, I've become disillusioned with the foreign policy he advocated with regard to Russia and was disturbed to learn of his involvement in the genesis of the Russiagate narrative.

August 3, 2020

Dear Strobe,

It has been a long time – a very long time – since we've been in touch, but I assume you remember me from 1968, when we met at Magdalen College, Oxford. Having just graduated from Yale, you were there on a Rhodes Scholarship; I was on a Reynold Scholarship granted by my alma mater, Dartmouth. Despite your three-barreled WASP name (Nelson Strobridge Talbott) and your distinguished pedigree (son of a Yale football captain, Hotchkiss alum, etc.) you were unpretentious, and we made friends quickly.

Despite assurances from my draft board that I would not be drafted that year, I got an induction notice on Nixon's inauguration day. You were the first person I consulted. Safe from the draft, like most Rhodes Scholars, you listened sympathetically. We were together in our opposition to the War if not in our vulnerability to the draft.

You and I played the occasional game of squash. And when my Dartmouth fraternity brother and Rhodes Scholar John Isaacson injured your eye with his racket, I visited you in the Radcliffe Infirmary during your convalescence. I was reading Tristram Shandy as part of my program, and one day I read some bits to you. You seemed to share my amusement; I can still see you smiling in your hospital bed with a big patch on one eye. When your father came from Ohio to visit you, he invited me, along with your Yale classmate Rob Johnson out to dinner at the Bear.

You had majored in Russian at Yale and were writing a thesis on some topic in Russian literature, Mayakovsky, perhaps? At any rate, you seemed committed to Russian studies. (Little did I know.) When I chose to take a student tour behind the Iron Curtain during the spring vac, you gave me some reading suggestions and advised me to dress warmly. Having packed for England's relatively mild climate, I lacked a warm enough coat; you generously loaned me your insulated car coat, which served me well in Russia's raw spring cold.

You likely debriefed me after my travels; I must have passed on to you my sense of the Soviet Union as a very drab place with a demoralized, often drunk, population, and a general sense of repression. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy my trip – just that I was struck by the stark differences at the time between the West and the East. How lucky I was to have been born in the "free world."

The tour returned from Moscow and St. Petersburg via Ukraine and Czechoslovakia. In Prague, just after the brutal suppression of Prague Spring, we were acutely aware of how hated the Russians were. This just reinforced my distaste for what Ronald Reagan later termed the Evil empire – perhaps the only thing he said I ever agreed with. So, like you, I was staunchly anti-Communist at the time.

The next year, you got a gig polishing the text of Nikita Krushchev's memoirs, which had been smuggled out of Russia. The publisher put you up in an "undisclosed location," which you let on was the Commodore Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts; we met for coffee in Harvard Square with friends of yours, possibly including Brooke Shearer whom you later married, and one of her brothers, Cody or Derek. It may have been then that I drove you to the school where I was teaching on a deferment, Kimball Union Academy in central New Hampshire; you stayed overnight before returning to civilization.

Your second year, you moved into a house with Bill Clinton and two other Rhodes Scholars.

During the next few years – the early 70s – you and I exchanged occasional letters. After that, the rest is history: your illustrious career – as a journalist at Time , then as a Russia hand and Deputy Secretary of State Department in the Clinton administration, and then as president of the Brookings Institution – was easy to follow in the media.

Eventually our paths diverged, I lost touch with you, with one exception.

In the mid-1990s, while you were serving at State, a close friend asked me to ask you to do her a favor. I hate asking for favors, even for myself, and resent those who use connections to advance themselves. But all my friend needed was for a senior State official to sign off on a job application of some sort. I phoned your office from mine. I got a frosty reception from your administrative assistant, who was justifiably protective of your time, but she put me through. You recognized my voice, sounded glad to be in touch, and granted the favor. It never came to anything, but I remember how pleased I was even to have such a brief task-oriented phone encounter with you after a lapse of two decades.

In any case, over the next several decades I followed your career with interest and was pleased with your success.

As I was by that of another member of the Oxford cohort, Bob Reich, another fraternity brother of mine. We were not close, and I saw him less often in Oxford than I saw you. But you and he both wound up in the Clinton administration – the Oxford troika, I like to call you. You and Bob were doing what Rhodes Scholars were supposed to do: go into professions, network, and perform public service. The Rhodes to success. Never a whiff of scandal about either of you. You, Strobe, were very much what we Dartmouth men referred to as a straight arrow.

So why am I writing you now, after all these years? And why a public letter?

In part, because I have become progressively more critical of the foreign policy that you have advocated. Early on you were advocating disarmament. Good. And closer relations with the Soviet Union. Also good. Indeed, you were regarded as something of a Russophile (never a compliment). But while you initially resisted the expansion of NATO, you eventually went along with it. Like George Kennan, I consider that decision to be a serious mistake (and a breach of a promise not to expand NATO "one inch" to the east after Germany was reunited).

When the Cold War ended, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. NATO did not; instead, it expanded eastward to include former Warsaw Pact members and SSRs until today it borders Russia. Russia resistance to this is inevitably denounced in the West as "Russian aggression." Hence the tension in Ukraine today. You're not personally responsible for all of this of course. But you are deeply implicated in what seems to me a gratuitously provocative, indeed imperialistic, foreign policy.

Two old friends could amicably agree disagree on that, as I disagree with virtually all my liberal friends.

But your loyalty to the Clintons has apparently extended to involvement in generating the Russiagate narrative, which has exacerbated tensions between Russia and the USA and spread paranoia in the Democratic establishment and mainstream media. I am always disturbed by the hypocrisy of Americans who complain about foreign meddling in our elections, when the USA is the undisputed champ in that event. Indeed, we go beyond meddling (Yeltsin's reelection in 1996) to actual coups, not to mention regime-change wars.

My concern about this has come to a head with the recent revelation of your complicity in the dissemination of the Steele dossier, whose subsource, Igor Danchenko, was a Russian national employed by Brookings.

I don't know which is worse: that you and your colleagues at Brookings believed the dossier's unfounded claims, or that you didn't but found it politically useful in the attempt to subvert the Trump campaign and delegitimize his election. I suspect the latter. But doesn't this implicate you in the creation of a powerful Russophobic narrative in contemporary American politics that has demonized Putin and needlessly ramped up tension between two nuclear powers?

A lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill twice and Hillary once, I am no fan of Trump or of Putin. But Russiagate has served as a distraction from Hillary's responsibility for her catastrophic defeat and from the real weaknesses of the neoliberal Democratic Party, with its welfare "reform," crime bill, and abandonment of its traditional working-class base.

Moreover, in and of itself, the Russiagate story represents what Matt Taibbi has called this generation's WMD media scandal. The narrative, challenged from the beginning by a few intrepid independent journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Aaron Maté, and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, is now being further undermined by the declassification of documents by the Senate. If, as I have recently read, you were active in disseminating the Steele dossier, you have contributed to the mainstream media's gas-lighting of the American public – liberals, at least (like most of my friends). Ironically, then, you have given credence to Trump's often, but not always, false charge: "Fake News." Once described as a Russophile, you now seem complicit in the creation of a nation-wide paranoid and hysterical Russophobia and neo-McCarthyism.

Say it ain't so, Strobe!

So long, old friend,

Tom Couser

[Aug 23, 2020] Catapulting Russian-Meddling Propaganda by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going on. ..."
"... The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any answer? ..."
"... Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there are no referees to call the fouls. ..."
"... Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there. ..."
"... is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning, as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message. ..."
"... The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks. ..."
"... The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith. The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling to all concerned is to say the obvious. ..."
"... None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public" the Times itself reported , and the paper had to correct a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned. ..."
"... On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele, labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to push Russiagate. ..."
"... the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee 's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive ..."
"... And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans. ..."
"... That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed. ..."
"... "Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ." ..."
Aug 23, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Catapulting Russian-Meddling Propaganda


by Tyler Durden Sat, 08/22/2020 - 23:20 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

The New York Times is leading the full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump...

The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going on.

The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any answer? The corporate media have a lock on what Americans are permitted or not permitted to hear. Checking the truth, once routine in journalism, is a thing of the past.

Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there are no referees to call the fouls.

The recent release of a 1,000-page, sans bombshells and already out-of-date report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has provided the occasion to "catapult the propaganda," as President George W. Bush once put it.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VxnegxNEDAc

As the the Times 's Mark Mazzetti put it in his article Wednesday:

"Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, Republican-majority senators hoped it would refocus attention on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated."

Mazzetti is telling his readers, soto voce : regarding that interference four years ago, and the "continued-unabated" part, you just have to trust us and our intelligence community sources who would never lie to you. And if, nevertheless, you persist in asking for actual evidence, you are clearly in Putin's pocket.

Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there.

Iron Pills

Recall how disappointed the LSM and the rest of the Establishment were with Mueller's anemic findings in spring 2019. His report claimed that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" via a social media campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and by "hacking" Democratic emails. But the evidence behind those charges could not bear close scrutiny.

You would hardly know it from the LSM, but the accusation against the IRA was thrown out of court when the U.S. government admitted it could not prove that the IRA was working for the Russian government. Mueller's ipse dixit did not suffice, as we explained a year ago in "Sic Transit Gloria Mueller."

The Best Defense

is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning, as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message.

Durham

One chief worry, of course, derives from the uncertainty as to whether John Durham, the US Attorney investigating those FBI and other officials who launched the Trump-Russia investigation will let some heavy shoes drop before the election. Barr has said he expects "developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer."

FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith already has decided to plead guilty to the felony of falsifying evidence used to support a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveillance to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. It is abundantly clear that Clinesmith was just a small cog in the deep-state machine in action against candidate and then President Trump. And those running the machine are well known. The president has named names, and Barr has made no bones about his disdain for what he calls spying on the president.

The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks.

The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith. The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling to all concerned is to say the obvious.

So, the stakes are high -- for the Democrats, as well -- and, not least, the LSM. In these circumstances it would seem imperative not just to circle the wagons but to mount the best offense/defense possible, despite the fact that virtually all the ammunition (as in the Senate report) is familiar and stale ("enhanced" or not).

Black eyes might well be in store for the very top former law enforcement and intelligence officials, the Democrats, and the LSM -- and in the key pre-election period. So, the calculation: launch "Mueller Report (Enhanced)" and catapult the truth now with propaganda, before it is too late.

No Evidence of Hacking

The "hacking of the DNC" charge suffered a fatal blow three months ago when it became known that Shawn Henry, president of the DNC-hired cyber-security firm CrowdStrike, admitted under oath that his firm had no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or anyone else.

(YouTube)

Henry gave his testimony on Dec. 5, 2017, but House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff was able to keep it hidden until May 7, 2020.

Here's a brief taste of how Henry's testimony went: Asked by Schiff for "the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data", Henry replied, "We just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

You did not know that? You may be forgiven -- up until now -- if your information diet is limited to the LSM and you believe The New York Times still publishes "all the news that's fit to print." I am taking bets on how much longer the NYT will be able to keep Henry's testimony hidden; Schiff's record of 29 months will be hard to beat.

Putting Lipstick on the Pig of Russian 'Tampering'

Worse still for the LSM and other Russiagate diehards, Mueller's findings last year enabled Trump to shout "No Collusion" with Russia. What seems clear at this point is that a key objective of the current catapulting of the truth is to apply lipstick to Mueller's findings.

After all, he was supposed to find treacherous plotting between the Trump campaign and the Russians and failed miserably. Most LSM-suffused Americans remain blissfully unaware of this, and the likes of Pulitzer Prize winner Mazzetti have been commissioned to keep it that way.

In Wednesday's article , for example, Mazzetti puts it somewhat plaintively:

"Like the special counsel the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government -- a fact that the Republicans seized on to argue that there was 'no collusion'."

How could they!

Mazzetti is playing with words. "Collusion," however one defines it, is not a crime; conspiracy is.

'Breathtaking' Contacts: Mueller (Enhanced)

Mark Mazzetti (YouTube)

Mazzetti emphasizes that the Senate report "showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin," and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the intelligence committee's vice chairman, said the committee report details "a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections."

None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public" the Times itself reported , and the paper had to correct a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned.

Recent revelations regarding the false data given the FISA court by an FBI lawyer to "justify" eavesdropping on Trump associate Carter Page show the Senate report to be not up to date and misguided in endorsing the FBI's decision to investigate Page. The committee may wish to revisit that endorsement -- at least.

On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele, labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to push Russiagate.

Also missed by the intelligence committee was a document released by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that revealed that Steele's "Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos."

Smearing WikiLeaks

The Intelligence Committee report also repeats thoroughly debunked myths about WikiLeaks and, like Mueller, the committee made no effort to interview Julian Assange before launching its smears. Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who partnered with WikiLeaks in the publication of the Podesta emails, described the report's treatment of WikiLeaks in this Twitter thread :

2. the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee 's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive

3. Clearly, to describe #WikiLeaks and its publishing activities the #SenateIntelligenceCommittee's Report completely rely on #US intelligence community+ #MikePompeo's characterisation of #WikiLeaks. There is not even any pretense of an independent approach

4. there are also unsubstantiated claims like:
– "[WikiLeaks'] disclosures have jeopardized the safety of individual Americans and foreign allies" (p.200)
– "WikiLeaks has passed information to U.S. adversaries" (p.201)

5. it's completely false that "#WikiLeaks does not seem to weigh whether its disclosures add any public interest value" (p.200) and any longtime media partner like me could provide you dozens of examples on how wrong this characterisation [is].

Titillating

Mazzetti did add some spice to the version of his article that dominated the two top right columns of Wednesday's Times with the blaring headline: "Senate Panel Ties Russian Officials to Trump's Aides: G.O.P.-Led Committee Echoes Mueller's Findings on Election Tampering."

Those who make it to the end of Mazzetti's piece will learn that the Senate committee report "did not establish" that the Russian government obtained any compromising material on Mr. Trump or that they tried to use such materials [that they didn't have] as leverage against him." However, Mazzetti adds,

"According to the report, Mr. Trump met a former Miss Moscow at a party during one trip in 1996. After the party, a Trump associate told others he had seen Mr. Trump with the woman on multiple occasions and that they 'might have had a brief romantic relationship.'

"The report also raised the possibility that, during that trip, Mr. Trump spent the night with two young women who joined him the next morning at a business meeting with the mayor of Moscow."

This is journalism?

Another Pulitzer in Store?

The Times appends a note reminding us that Mazzetti was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump's advisers and their connections to Russia.

And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans.

That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed.

In exposing that chicanery, prize-winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter commented :

"The descent of The New York Times into this unprecedented level of propagandizing for the narrative of Russia's threat to U.S. democracy is dramatic evidence of a broader problem of abuses by corporate media Greater awareness of the dishonesty at the heart of the Times' coverage of that issue is a key to leveraging media reform and political change."

Nothingburgers With Russian Dressing: the Backstory

The late Robert Parry.

"It's too much; it's just too much, too much", a sedated, semi-conscious Robert Parry kept telling me from his hospital bed in late January 2018 a couple of days before he died. Bob was founder of Consortium News .

It was already clear what Bob meant; he had taken care to see to that. On Dec. 31, 2017 the reason for saying that came in what he titled "An Apology & Explanation" for "spotty production in recent days." A stroke on Christmas Eve had left Bob with impaired vision, but he was able to summon enough strength to write an Apologia -- his vision for honest journalism and his dismay at what had happened to his profession before he died on Jan. 27, 2018. The dichotomy was "just too much".

Parry rued the role that journalism was playing in the "unrelenting ugliness that has become Official Washington. Facts and logic no longer mattered. It was a case of using whatever you had to diminish and destroy your opponent this loss of objective standards reached deeply into the most prestigious halls of American media."

What bothered Bob most was the needless, dishonest tweaking of the Russian bear. "The U.S. media's approach to Russia," he wrote, "is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. Does any sentient human being read The New York Times ' or The Washington Post 's coverage of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts? Western journalists now apparently see it as their patriotic duty to hide facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia."

Parry, who was no conservative, continued:

"Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ."

Bob noted that the 'hand-picked' authors "evinced no evidence and even admitted that they weren't asserting any of this as fact."

It was just too much.

Robert Parry's Last Article

Peter Strzok during congressional hearing in July 2018. (Wikimedia Commons)

Bob posted his last substantive article on Dec. 13, 2017, the day after text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were made public. (Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether miss the importance of the text-exchanges.)

Bob Parry rarely felt any need for a "sanity check." Dec. 12, 2017 was an exception. He called me about the Strzok-Page texts; we agreed they were explosive. FBI Agent Peter Strzok was on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff investigating alleged Russian interference, until Mueller removed him.

Strzok reportedly was a "hand-picked" FBI agent taking part in the Jan 2017 evidence-impoverished, rump, misnomered "intelligence community" assessment that blamed Russia for hacking and other election meddling. And he had helped lead the investigation into Hillary Clinton's misuse of her computer servers. Page was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's right-hand lawyer.

His Dec. 13, 2017 piece would be his fourth related article in less than two weeks; it turned out to be his last substantive article. All three of the earlier ones are worth a re-read as examples of fearless, unbiased, perceptive journalism. Here are the links .

Bob began his article on the Strzok-Page bombshell:

"The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency.?

"As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American 'deep state' exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump."

Not a fragment of Bob's or other Consortium News analysis made any impact on what Bob used to call the Establishment media. As a matter of fact, eight months later during a talk in Seattle that I titled "Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?", only three out of a very progressive audience of some 150 had ever heard of Strzok and Page.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ngIKjpucQh8

And so it goes.

Lest I am accused of being "in Putin's pocket," let me add the explanatory note that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity included in our most explosive Memorandum for President Trump, on "Russian hacking."

Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.

We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly politicized times.

somecallmetimmah , 1 hour ago

Only brain-washed losers read the new york times. Garbage propaganda for garbage people.

AtATrESICI , 43 minutes ago

"developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer." What summer? The summer of 2099.

Mouldy , 1 hour ago

So in a nutshell.. They just called half the USA too stupid to make an informed decision for themselves.

ominous , 1 hour ago

the disagreement is over which half is the stupid half

homeskillet , 25 minutes ago

The MIC's bogey man. What a crock of **** this whole country has become. Pravda puts out more truth than our MSM. I trust Putin more than the Dem leaders at this point.

Demeter55 , 1 hour ago

The Globalist/New World Order/Deep State/Elitists (or whatever other arrogant subsection of the psychopaths among us you wish to consider) have one great failing which will defeat them utterly in the end:

They do not know when to cut their losses.

As a result of that irrational stubbornness, born of a "Manifest Destiny" assumption of an eternal lock on the situation, they will go too far.

Even if they systematically try to destroy us, they will not have the ability unless we are complicit in our own destruction. While there are many who have "taken the knee" to these tyrants in training, there are more who have no intention of doing so.

Most nations are not so buffaloed as to fall for this propaganda, but the United States especially was created with the notion that all men are created equal, and this is ingrained in the national character. We don't buy it.

And our numbers are growing daily, as people wake up and realize they have to take a side for themselves, their families, their communities.

The global covid-panic was a masterful attack, but it will fail. Indeed, it has failed already. The building counter-attack will take out those who chose to declare war on humanity. There really is no alternative for us, the humans. Live Free or Die, as they say in New Hampshire.

And despite the full support of the MSM and the DNC, the Would-Be Masters of the Universe will not succeed.

sborovay07 , 1 hour ago

Sad Assange wasn't granted immunity to testify and was silenced just prior to the release of the Mueller report. Little has been heard since except his health is horrific. Now, all the Deep State figures on both sides are just throwing as much mud against Trump as possible to hide the truth. If Durnham does not indict the Deep State figures who participated in the Obama led coup, all is for not. Only the foot soldiers marching in lock step will be charged.

wn , 1 hour ago

To sum it up.

Conclusion of the Democrats.

Americans need Russian brains to decide their leader in order to move forward.

nokilli , 25 minutes ago

Once the MO for "Russian hacking" is published to the international intelligence community, any (((party))) can pose as a "Russian hacker."

This is the way computers work. Sybil is eponymous.

KuriousKat , 35 minutes ago

Mazzeti looks like the typical Gopher boy for the CIA Station Chiefs around the world..they retire or become contributors to NewsWeek Wapo or NYT. ..not Any major network w/o one...Doing **** like this is mandatory..not elective.

[Aug 23, 2020] Western celebs politicians are falling over themselves to condemn racism, yet, Russophobia Sinophobia remain acceptable -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... "Moscow-Jewish mafia" ..."
"... "Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate." ..."
"... "chose not to" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Aug 23, 2020 | www.rt.com

Western celebs & politicians are falling over themselves to condemn racism, yet, Russophobia & Sinophobia remain acceptable Tomasz Pierscionek Tomasz Pierscionek is a medical doctor and social commentator on medicine, science, and technology. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact and is editor of the London Progressive Journal. 23 Aug, 2020 06:51 Get short URL Counter protesters wave signs during a far-right rally on August 15, 2020 near the downtown of Stone Mountain, Georgia © Getty Images / Lynsey Weatherspoon 162 Follow RT on RT Censorship is democracy, fake news is truth, submission is freedom. Western propaganda requires acceptance of contradictory dogmas alongside an impressive array of mental gymnastics to reconcile logical fallacies.

George Orwell's novel '1984' depicts life within Oceania, a totalitarian society strictly controlled by an omnipresent Party whose three simple yet contradictory slogans are: war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Citizens of Oceania were forced to accept that two plus two may equal five if the Party deemed it so.

Akin to the Snake game found on old Nokia mobile phones, woke movements become increasingly illogical and harder to control before eventually tying themselves in knots or crashing into the walls of logic, sowing the seeds of their own destruction. Modern feminist movements are having the wind taken out of their sails by other woke factions who argue that children should be taught boys can have periods , so as not to distress transgender students, or that terms like mother and father should be replaced with parent 1 and parent 2. Even the main UK doctors' union sent an internal memo advising its staff to use the term 'pregnant people' rather than 'expectant mothers' to avoid causing offense.

One could argue that campaigns designed to remove the concept of male and female is a threat to women and their historical struggles. By eliminating the 'existence' of women, it not only airbrushes out women's vast contribution to history but also removes the whole notion of feminism – if womanhood does not exist, then the whole idea of misogyny becomes irrelevant. Perhaps one day someone will decide that race is simply a construct and can be changed at will, thus making all debates about racism and oppression irrelevant. Thus future woke cultists might argue themselves into a corner in which racism and thus 'white privilege' does not exist.

READ MORE Russia wants neither 'rethink' nor 'reset' if it means restoring American supremacy & returning to Cold War diplomacy

In the West you are free to choose any gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are not supposed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Likewise, the much lauded concept of human rights and democracy – one of the key pillars on which Western 'cultural superiority' rests and from which it sneers at 'undemocratic' and 'uncivilised' countries – is used to justify the destruction, occupation and economic enslavement of other peoples.

Whether it is Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen or Palestine we see that non-white lives do not matter when there are no political points to score. Indeed, condemning the slaughter of Palestinians could be enough to get you labeled an anti-Semite by those who remain suspiciously silent when real anti-Semitism rears its ugly head.

For example, far right and neo-nazi militias in Ukraine, some of whom take their symbols and ideology from the 1930-1940s , have operated with relative impunity and perpetuated human rights abuses upon the people of the Donbass region. These groups were part of the Maidan movement, visited by Western politicians and praised by liberals, that violently overthrew elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Some of the leaders of this movement included far right elements who had no qualms being amidst white power logos and neo-nazi flags, or had in the past claimed that a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" controls Ukraine. Neither Western nor Israeli politicians seemed too interested in such developments, despite Israeli newspaper Haaretz reporting that weapons sent by Israel to Ukraine were ending up in the hands of far right militias, such as the Azov battalion. Paradoxically, copious effort and resources were allocated to make people believe that the UK Labour Party, led by left wing leader Jeremy Corbyn, had a serious problem with anti-Semitism.

As soon as a party leader like Jeremy Corbyn began to offer something outside the narrowly defined political bandwidth and stood up for the rights of Palestinians, he was demonized by politicians as well as their media allies and big business handlers. A study conducted by the London School of Economics and Political Science examined UK newspaper coverage of Corbyn in the months following his election as Labour Party leader and found evidence of media bias such that "Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate."

It is welcome that recent events in the US have highlighted racism faced by African Americans. Yet frequent murders of African Americans by a militarized police force did not suddenly appear when Trump came to power. Many Democratic Party politicians who nowadays make sure everyone knows they unquestioningly support the Black Lives Matter movement had few issues with the status quo before the killing of George Floyd, and will probably regain their apathy if Biden wins the election.

Furthermore, little is said about the role the Obama administration played only a few years ago in the destruction of Libya, formerly one of Africa's richest and most stable nations, and its relinquishment to warlords and Al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Some of these groups were quick to imprison and murder citizens from sub-Saharan Africa who had migrated to Libya in search of a better life. Slave markets selling sub-Saharan Africans now exist in the new post-Gaddafi Libya.

ALSO ON RT.COM Caitlin Johnstone: MSM smear merchants target critics of Establishment China narratives

The UK Conservative Party, traditionally not fans of refugees or migrants, were responsible for the Windrush scandal which saw Caribbean immigrants who had arrived in the UK decades earlier being threatened with deportation despite having lived, worked, and paid taxes in this country for many years. The same party is now thinking of allowing nearly three million Hong Kong citizens the opportunity to reside in the UK and later apply for citizenship . When it comes to sticking two fingers up to China, we hear no talk about how the NHS and welfare system cannot afford to absorb refugees and migrants.

These days many people, especially celebrities, politicians and media figures, are falling over themselves to condemn racism and make sure everyone is aware of their anti-racist credentials. The only remaining forms of racism deemed acceptable in the West include Russophobia and Sinophobia. The media devotes endless hours hyping up the threat from Russia and China and in doing so surreptitiously promotes animosity toward these nations and their peoples. The shadowy hand of the Russian government is deemed to be behind every calamity or undesired election result. We are frequently reminded that a vague and poorly defined threat from Russia and China looms large, though hard evidence is often sketchy, open to interpretation or questionable. At the same time NATO troops encroach upon Russia's borders, yet the latter is deemed the aggressor, whilst the US sails warships through contested seas near China's borders . Whereas the UK seeks to provoke Russia for no logical reason, the US is determined to pick a fight with China and claims it "chose not to" stop coronavirus from spreading beyond its borders.

The waning US empire and its allies within the disintegrating EU prefer to attack their rivals Russia and China to deflect their own populations' attention away from domestic problems with some good old-fashioned xenophobia. The UK, in particular, would do well to try and improve its relationships with Russia and China as it is on track to have a lonely time post Brexit.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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


[Aug 19, 2020] The Republican led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence repeats the lies about Guccifer 2.0

Highly recommended!
Looks like RussiaGate was a bipartisan affair. After all Parteigenosse Mueller was a Republican
Aug 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
play_arrow

amnesia , 5 minutes ago

Very telling that ZH editors don't consider this newsworthy: key findings of the Republican led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding Russia's 2016 election interference.

Manafort and Kilimnik talked almost daily during the campaign. They communicated through encrypted technologies set to automatically erase their correspondence; they spoke using code words and shared access to an email account. It's worth pausing on these facts: The chairman of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing confidential information with him.

It did not find evidence that the Ukrainian government meddled in the 2016 election, as Trump alleged. "The Committee's efforts focused on investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. However, during the course of the investigation, the Committee identified no reliable evidence that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. election."

"Taken as a whole, Manafort's high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly [Konstantin] Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat," the report said.

Kilimnik "almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election."

Roger Stone was in communications with both WikiLeaks and the Russian hacker Guccifer 2.0 during the election; according to the Mueller report, Guccifer 2.0 was a conduit set up by Russian military intelligence to anonymously funnel stolen information to WikiLeaks.

The Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation found "significant evidence to suggest that, in the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks was knowingly collaborating with Russian government officials," the report said.

The FBI gave "unjustified credence" to the so-called Steele dossier, an explosive collections of uncorroborated memos alleging collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government officials, the report said. The FBI did not take the "necessary steps to validate assumptions about Steele's credibility" before relying on the dossier to seek renewals of a surveillance warrant targeting the former Trump campaign aide, the report said.

Demeter55 , 47 minutes ago

It's the latest in 5 years of "Get Trump!", a sitcom featuring the Roadrunner (Trump) and the Wiley Coyote (Deep State/Never Trumpers / etc, etc.)

This classic scenario never fails to please those who realize that the roadrunner rules, and the coyote invariably ends up destroyed.

gene5722 , 2 hours ago

The lie msm won't let die.

[Aug 19, 2020] Final Senate Intelligence Report on Russiagate a 'Snoozer' - RPI's Daniel McAdams

Aug 19, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

rpi staff wednesday august 19, 2020
RPI Director Daniel McAdams was interviewed on RT about the release of the fifth and final volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the "Russiagate" claims that President Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected or at least had election help from Russian President Vladimir Putin. As McAdams points out in the interview, this is yet another "nothingburger" even as the die-hard Russiagaters poke and prod looking for any sign of life. McAdams makes the point that a Russian influence operation to "undermine America's faith in democracy" would be ultra high-risk and what would be the rewards? How would Russia benefit? Watch the interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bcaHTeIXWPA

[Aug 19, 2020] Washington's Supposed Gift to President Putin

Aug 19, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

< Older Washington's Supposed Gift to President Putin written by brian cloughley tuesday august 18, 2020
undefined

One of the comments made following Trump's decision to relocate some 12,000 troops from Germany was made by retired Admiral James ('Zorba') Stavridis, who in 2009-2013 was US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of Nato). He declared that the action, among other things, "hurts NATO solidarity and is a gift to Putin." This was a most serious pronouncement, which was echoed by Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a rich Republican and Mormon cleric, who said the redeployment was a "gift to Russia." These sentiments were well-reported and endorsed by US media outlets which continue to be relentlessly anti-Russia.

Stavridis is the man who wrote that the seven-month bombing and rocketing of Libya by the US-Nato military grouping in 2011 "has rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi."

On June 22 Human Rights Watch noted that "over the past years" in Libya their investigators have "documented systematic and gross human rights and humanitarian law violations by armed groups on all sides, including torture and ill-treatment, rape and other acts of sexual violence, arbitrary arrests and detention, forced displacement, unlawful killings and enforced disappearances ." Amnesty International's current Report also details the chaos in the shattered country where Nato conducted its "model intervention."

The Libya catastrophe illustrates the desperation of Nato in its continuing search for international situations in which it might be able to intervene, to try to provide some sort of justification for its existence. And the calibre of its leadership can be judged from the pronouncements of such as Stavridis, who was unsurprisingly considered a possibility for the post of Secretary of State by Donald Trump.

It is not explained how relocation of US troops from Germany could hurt Nato's "solidarity" but Defence Secretary Esper was more revealing about the situation as he sees it, when interviewed by balanced and objective Fox News on August 9. He declared "we basically are moving troops further east, closer to Russia's border to deter them. Most of the allies I've either spoken to, heard from or my staff has spoken to, see this as a good move. It will accomplish all of those objectives that have been laid out. And frankly, look, we still have 24,000 plus troops in Germany, so it will still be the largest recipient of US troops. The bottom line is the border has shifted as the alliance has grown." (It is intriguing that this important policy statement was not covered by US mainstream media and cannot be found on the Pentagon's Newsroom website -- the "one-stop shop for Defense Department news and information.")

No matter the spin from the Pentagon and what is now appearing in the US media, Trump's July 29 decision to move troops from Germany had no basis in strategy. It was not the result of a reappraisal of the regional or wider international situation. And it was not discussed with any of Washington's allies, causing Nato Secretary General Stoltenberg to say plaintively that it was "not yet decided how and when this decision will be implemented."

The BBC reported that "President Donald Trump said the move was a response to Germany failing to meet Nato targets on defence spending." Trump was quoted as telling reporters that "We don't want to be the suckers anymore. We're reducing the force because they're not paying their bills; it's very simple." It could not have been made clearer than that. The whole charade is the result of Trumpian petulance and has nothing to do with military strategy, no matter what is belatedly claimed by the Pentagon's Esper.

The German government was not consulted before Trump's contemptuous announcement, and defence minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer criticised Washington, saying "Nato is not a trade organisation, and security is not a commodity." But so far as Trump is concerned, security is indeed a commodity that can be traded as he sees fit, irrespective of relevance to national policy or anything other than his ego.

In trying to pick up the pieces following Trump's candid explanation of his orders to "reduce the force" in Germany, the Pentagon has conjured up a jumbled but confrontational plan intended to convince those who are interested (who do not include the German public), that it is all part of a grand scheme to extend the power of the US-Nato alliance. To this end, Esper announced he is "confident that the alliance will be all the better and stronger for it," because the redeployment involves reinforcement of the US military in Poland. He is moving 200 staff of the army's 5 corps to Krakow where, as reported by Military.com on August 5, "In a ceremony Army Chief of Staff General James McConville promoted John Kolasheski, the Army's V Corps commander, to the rank of lieutenant general and officially unfurled the headquarters' flag for the first time on Polish soil."

In addition to Washington's move of the advance HQ of V Corps to Krakow, there is a agreement that Poland will engage in what the Military Times reports as "a host of construction projects designed to support more US troops in that country" and Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Tom Campbell said that the Warsaw government "has agreed to fund infrastructure and logistical support to US forces," which should please the White House.

These initiatives are part of the US-Poland Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement completed on August 3, which Esper stated "will enhance deterrence against Russia, strengthen NATO, reassure our Allies, and our forward presence in Poland on NATO's eastern flank will improve our strategic and operational flexibility." Then on August 15 Secretary of State Pompeo visited Poland to formally ink the accord which was warmly welcomed by Polish President Duda who recently visited Trump in Washington.

Duda's declaration that "our soldiers are going to stand arm-in-arm" is consistent with the existing situation in Poland, where the Pentagon has other elements already deployed, including in Redzikowo, where a base is being built for Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence systems, and the Air Force's 52nd Fighter Wing detachments at Polish Air Force bases at Lask and Miroslawiec, where there is a unit operating MQ-9 attack drones.

Defence Secretary Esper has emphasised that "the border has shifted as the alliance has grown" -- and the border to which he refers is that of US-Nato as it moves more menacingly eastwards. That's the gift that Trump has given Russia.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

[Aug 19, 2020] Taibbi- The Press That Cried Wolf -

Aug 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post are now following the same script with the Trump panics. The pattern is consistent. Day one involves spectacular claims of corruption. By day two, placard-bearing protesters are hitting the streets (" You can't fire the truth !" a protester in Times Square proclaimed in the Sessions affair), celebrities are taping video appeals , and experts are quoted suggesting Trump is already guilty of crime: OPEN TREASON in Helsinki, " bribery " in Ukraine, or in this case, election interference (some are already speculating that Trump could get a year for the mail slowdown).

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1018994921796194304&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ftaibbi-press-cried-wolf&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

Almost always, by day three or four, key claims are walked back: maybe there was no direct " promise " to a foreign leader, or the CIA doesn't have " direct evidence " of Russian bounties, or viral photos of children in cages at the border were from 2014 , not 2017. By then it doesn't matter. A panic is a panic, and there are only two reportable angles in today's America, total guilt and total innocence. Even when the balance of the information would still look bad or very bad for Trump, news outlets commit to leaving out important background, so as not to complicate the audience response.

That's the situation with this story, where the postal slowdown is probably more serious than other Trump scandals, but people pushing it are also not anxious to remind readers of their own histories on the issue.

Take the New York Times, currently cranking out about a feature an hour about the U.S.P.S. Paul Krugman is now telling us "The Postal Service facilitates citizen inclusion. That's why Trump hates it." Apparently, until recently, all decent Americans had bottomless affection for the communal spirit of the Postal Service and supported it without hesitation. Yet in April, 2012, in the middle of the Obama presidency, the Times ran a very different house editorial .

The paper argued mounting losses necessitated swift action to reduce costs. The Times worried that "lawmakers in both houses" would "procrastinate as usual," and blasted the Senate for devising a bill that "timorously aims at part-time 'downsizing,' not closing, lightly used post offices." The paper added that decreased revenue thanks to email could mean losses of "more than $20 billion a year by 2016," and hoped that, so long as "courage trumps procrastination," the U.S.P.S. could be granted the "flexibility of a modern business."

If you look back, you'll find the overwhelming consensus in both the Bush and Obama years was that a fully-staffed post office was a money pit, and " flexibility " was needed to allow the service to budget-slash its way back to relevance in the Internet age.

For a significant period – between the mid-2000s and the Trump years – it was hard to find a big-name politician who would talk about the post office at all. An exception was Bernie Sanders, whose office labored to get major news media organizations interested ( I got some of those calls ) in an alternative narrative about the post office.

During the Bush years, the U.S.P.S. was put on the "high risk" list by the General Accounting Office, headed at the time by a future Pete Peterson foundation CEO named David Walker who would later come out in favor of privatizing the post office . The GAO recommended cuts and other measures to address the "rapidly deteriorating" financial situation of the U.S.P.S.

But when an analysis by the Office of Personnel Management was released in November, 2002, it turned out the U.S.P.S. had a "more positive picture" than was believed. The U.S.P.S. was massively over- paying into its retirement fund, headed for a $70 billion surplus. Then in 2003 the Postal Pension Funding Reform Act was passed, which among other things forced the U.S.P.S. to pay the pension obligations of employees who had prior military service.

A few years after that, in 2006, the " Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act " passed with overwhelming support in both houses, forcing a series of incredible changes, the biggest being a requirement that the U.S.P.S. fully fund 75 years worth of benefits for its employees. The provision cost $5.5 billion per year and was unique among government agencies. "No one prefunds at more than 30%," said Anthony Vegliante, the service's executive vice president, at the time.

The bill also prevented the post office from offering "nonpostal services" as a way to compete financially. This barred it from establishing a postal banking service, but also nixed creative ideas like Internet cafes, copy services, notaries, even allowing postal workers to offer to wrap Christmas presents. Coupled with the pre-funding benefit mandate and other pension changes, this paralyzed the post office financially, making it look ripe for reform.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

By 2012, those took the form of calls for the U.S.P.S. to eliminate 3,700 post offices (a first step toward eventually closing as many as 15,000) and 250 mail processing centers. Sanders, along with other Senators with large rural constituencies like Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill, managed to change the bill and save a lot of the mail processing centers. The Senate that year also cut the amount of required pre-funding for benefits and began refunding the U.S.P.S. for about $11 billion in overpayment for retirement costs.

A few years after that, in 2015, the Post Office Inspector General issued a blistering report about CBRE , the company that had served as sole real estate broker to the U.S.P.S. from 2011 on. The report found that CBRE had been selling and/or leasing post office properties at below-market prices, often to clients of CBRE – a company chaired by Richard Blum , the husband of California Senator Dianne Feinstein. This chronic problem had a financial impact on the Postal Service, and would have become a much bigger problem had the U.S.P.S. been forced earlier on to sell off a massive quantity of infrastructure through that broker, as originally hoped.

The thread running through all of these stories was that panic over the financial condition of the U.S.P.S. was often a significantly artificial narrative, caused by a bipartisan mix of stupidity, greed, and corruption. This high-functioning civil service organization, which provided tremendous value to the public through everything from subsidized news deliveries in the Pony Express years to the well-maintained public meeting places built in remote rural locations, has not had real backers in either party for most of the last thirty or forty years.

None of this means the Trump-DeJoy story isn't serious. It just means that Trump is not the first person to try to gut the U.S. Postal Service. Going back decades, it's been stuck with impossible funding mandates, used as a piggy bank by both parties in congress (which refused to let it stop making massive retirement overpayments for fear of the " adverse" impact on the federal budget), artificially prevented from expanding or innovating by lobbyists, and ripped off by connected contractors.

Combine that with the maddening sloppiness of these panic stories – one wild report after another of mailboxes ripped from the streets " right before our eyes " in a "plan to steal the election" turns out later to be another old photo or a shot of a routine maintenance operation – and it becomes increasingly difficult for nonpartisan news audiences to know what they're dealing with.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1295360446795583491&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Ftaibbi-press-cried-wolf&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

Is this unprecedented corruption, something a little worse than normal, or just the usual undisguised? If press outlets never dial back excesses, we may miss it when we're actually supposed to panic.


2banana , 3 hours ago

Conspiracy after Conspiracy...

You would think after a while, it would get old. And, it does.

Here is real life.

America had an in person voting process that worked and got results in a few hours.

Democrats want to change that to an untested fraud ridden system that may get results in a few weeks.

And that ain't a conspiracy - that is fact.

Hal n back , 2 hours ago

not only did it work, it emphasized the importance of getting out and voting.

As I walk into my voting place, I say hello to neighbors working there , flip out my drivers license and sign the proper form. If my signature does not look the same (which happens after a period of time) the folks behind the table ask me to sign again even if they know me because its protocol and it is important to get it right. And then I get my ballot and fill it in and I get to place it in the electronic machine inside a card so my neighbors do not know which way I am voting.

Which they already know since the neighborhood while aging, is vibrant and has constant debates on politics especially now as we gather on driveways socially distanced shooting the bull over the whole thing.

we will not know how many ballots will be filled in by somebody other than the right person.

why not just save money and give proxies to the Democrats.

slightlyskeptical , 2 hours ago

Electronic machines is the first step in bungled elections.

Four chan , 21 minutes ago

we all know the dems plan to fucckup the election using mail in

votes, what are these democrat gollum going to try next covid 20?

Unknown User , 2 hours ago

There is so much to steal and privatize in America, a Neoliberal paradise.

stacking12321 , 54 minutes ago


"America had an in person voting process that worked"

oh, it worked, did it?

is that why there's endless wars, a ballooning out of control deficit, a pay for play political system, unconstitutional laws passed constantly, a system of wealth extraction where the little wealth that people have is squeezed out of the, and given to the elites?

face the facts, the American political system is an abject failure, the very concept of government is an abject failure. A violent gang of thugs being enabled to take power over everyone should be recognized as a crime - all government is a crime against the people it claims to rule over.

Things will continue getting worse, not better, thanks to your "working" system of government.

government is not here to help, they are servants of your enemy, the elites.

Tenshin Headache , 3 hours ago

Easy rule of thumb: If you learned it from the fake news, it's fake news.

seryanhoj , 1 hour ago

The basic thing about government and media today is, truth and facts have nothing to do with their job.

Words are there to mould people's minds to their purpose so they don't make a nuisance of themselves by having diverse opinions Facts are never allowed to get in the way. What about when Bush 2 and Blair outright fabricated evidence of Baghdad .WMD...the dodgy dossier? Oh says they, I saw intelligence reports . Yes .intelligence reports they pressured them to write. Result. A million dead and Iraq in chaos.

And what happened to Bush 2. Re elected! At that point it was over.

[Aug 19, 2020] If you can't compete, cheat- Twitter's shadow-banning of RT other state-linked media proves the US narrative doesn't measure up -- RT Op-ed

Aug 19, 2020 | www.rt.com

Helen Buyniski Helen Buyniski

is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 19 Aug, 2020 16:39 Get short URL © Twitter / Screenshot 8 Follow RT on RT With less than three months before US elections, Twitter has all but memory-holed RT and other state-run media – even searching their handles draws a blank. For a supposedly free-market country, the US sure hates competition.

The official Twitter accounts for RT, Xinhua, and other media outlets owned by certain governments the US doesn't like are being pushed into the shadows, confirming that Twitter is getting serious about its role as one of the chief enforcers of US informational supremacy. But deploying the memory-hole against Washington's rivals is tacitly admitting that the same informational supremacy would be doomed without such heavy-handed censorship.

ALSO ON RT.COM Twitter labels RT & Sputnik but NOT BBC, NPR & VOA as it launches blitz on state media staff & govt officials

Not only will Twitter refuse to auto-complete searches for the official accounts of RT, Sputnik, Xinhua, Global Times, and a handful of other outlets owned by Russia and China – typing in their handles with the @ symbol yields no results for users who don't already follow these accounts. The platform has essentially made it impossible for the average Twitter user to accidentally stumble across their posts.

Turning off the " hide sensitive content " function in search settings allows state media accounts to surface under " people " – if their handle is searched exactly, with the @ symbol – tagged with the " state-affiliated media " warning Twitter has casually referred to as an " election label ." But posts from these outlets remain missing everywhere but in their own feeds. Running the accounts through Shadowban.eu confirms they're subject to a " search suggestion ban. "

While Twitter announced earlier this month that it would remove state-run media accounts from any 'recommended' screens, including the home screen, notifications, and search, the new policy's wording left room for interpretation. Even employees at some of these organizations thought – perhaps naively – that Twitter wouldn't go so far as to block searches for RT from turning up, well, RT.

[Aug 19, 2020] Forget 'Kremlin meddling', sowing discord distrust in US democracy is all homegrown and burgeoning by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... How fitting therefore that this time around the discord and distrust on display is patently US-style homegrown – without an iota of Russian input. Recent US intelligence claims of Russian interference seem more threadbare than usual. ..."
"... It is what it always has been: a crisis in legitimacy of American democracy owing to a fractured, self-alienated nation encumbered by endemic social problems. ..."
"... US-style internal discord has become even more magnified and glaring to the point where invoking "foreign malign influence" just looks absurd in its irrelevance. ..."
Aug 18, 2020 | www.rt.com
It's the most important election ever, according to Republicans and Democrats alike. With such vital billing it is all the more ominous that even before ballots are cast the very legitimacy of the presidential result is in doubt.

This week, a sprawling US Senate intelligence report again casts aspersions on the Trump election in 2016, alleging "extensive sabotage" by the Kremlin to get him elected. The report seems more a redux of previous unsubstantiated claims of Russian meddling, which Moscow has always categorically rejected as false.

Then there are looming doubts stemming from the mechanics of mail-in or absentee voting which is set to take an outsized role in the election amid social distancing over coronavirus public health fears. Like the concerns about the disease itself there is sharp partisan divide over the merits of mail-in voting. For some it is a necessary precaution, for others it is a ruse built upon an exaggerated health scare.

On top of that division you have the extreme partisan stakes being piled up.

Republican President Donald Trump says if "radical left" rival Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris win in November then the US will be plunged into Venezuela-like "socialist" disaster (as if Washington's regime-change machinations have had nothing to do with the latter).

For the Democrats, four more years of Trump will be akin to living under a dictatorship.

One could say it's all electioneering hyperbole. But still the divisive passions are running like a fever. There is a lot at stake for the participants in this election from the torrid way they have depicted the choice. The partisan discord could hardly be more acrimonious from the extremely polarized way each side views the other.

Throw into the political maelstrom accusations and counter-accusations of "cheating" over the election and then we have a cauldron of contention which ruptures the public trust in voting. The very legitimacy of US democracy is being split asunder.

Trump has set the pace for undermining the presidential election by saying it could be the most rigged ever in history. He has repeatedly claimed that mail-in voting is rife with fraud and has suggested that the Democrats are using the coronavirus pandemic and absentee voting as a cover for stealing the White House.

Several studies have shown that fraud from mail-in voting in the US is negligible. Many other countries seem to manage a system of absentee voting without much concern for voter misconduct. Nevertheless, Trump has succeeded in planting the notion among his supporters that mail-in voting is the death knell for democracy. He has already hinted that he may not accept the result in November if it goes against him. For millions of diehard Trump supporters that is tantamount to a call to arms in an echo of the anti-lockdown rebellion that the president advocated earlier this year.

For Democrats and anti-Trumpers, they see this president as deliberately sabotaging the US Postal Service from his appointment of a political donor as postmaster general in May. The subsequent cost-cutting and cutbacks in services under Louis DeJoy has put in doubt the adequate delivery of voting ballots in time for the election for many states. Trump has even brazenly admitted that he held back emergency funding for the postal service in order to curb mail-in voting.

So if Trump manages to pull off victory despite failing poll numbers, millions of voters will view his re-election as the product of his rhetorical maneuvers and maligning of mail-in voting. In the 2016 election, nearly a quarter of all ballots were cast by absentee voting. This time around, it is estimated that nearly half of 200 million registered voters in the US will use the mail-in system due to health concerns of going to polling stations in person at a time of pandemic risk.

There you have it. Whatever way this election turns out, there will be a gulf of divisiveness and doubt among US citizens about the legitimacy of the next administration. The bitter partisan wrangling that has gone on – seemingly interminably – for the past four years is set to continue with even more corrosive consequences for American democracy.

"Sowing discord and distrust" has been a stock phrase used in US media in regard to allegations that Russia has somehow been sponsoring malign influence among Americans. Those claims have always been overblown and unfounded, bordering on paranoia. Ironically, the anti-Russia allegations were a product of deep inherent discord among Americans over the controversial election of maverick Donald Trump.

How fitting therefore that this time around the discord and distrust on display is patently US-style homegrown – without an iota of Russian input. Recent US intelligence claims of Russian interference seem more threadbare than usual.

It is what it always has been: a crisis in legitimacy of American democracy owing to a fractured, self-alienated nation encumbered by endemic social problems.

US-style internal discord has become even more magnified and glaring to the point where invoking "foreign malign influence" just looks absurd in its irrelevance.

READ MORE

[Aug 19, 2020] The Anger Campaign Against China by Larry Romanoff

Aug 19, 2020 | www.unz.com

If 'liberal' dogs can't bark at Jews and Deep State, they bark at Russia.

The Origins of Mass Manipulation of the Public Mind

Many years ago, the American political commentator Walter Lippmann realised that political ideology could be completely fabricated, using the media to control both presentation and conceptualisation, not only to create deeply-ingrained false beliefs in a population, but also to entirely erase undesirable political ideas from the public mind. This was the beginning of not only the American hysteria for freedom, democracy and patriotism, but of all manufactured political opinion, a process that has been operative ever since. Lippmann created these theories of mass persuasion of the public, using totally fabricated "facts" deeply insinuated into the minds of a gullible public, but there is much more to this story. An Austrian Jew named Edward Louis Bernays who was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was one of Lippmann's most precocious students and it was he who put Lippmann's theories into practice. Bernays is widely known in America as the father of Public Relations, but he would be much more accurately described as the father of American war marketing as well as the father of mass manipulation of the public mind.

Bernays claimed "If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind" it will be possible "to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it". He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the 'engineering of consent', and to accomplish it he merged theories of crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle Sigmund Freud. [10] [11] Bernays regarded society as irrational and dangerous, with a "herd instinct", and that if the multi-party electoral system (which evidence indicates was created by a group of European elites as a population control mechanism) were to survive and continue to serve those elites, massive manipulation of the public mind was necessary. These elites, "invisible people", would have, through their influence on government and their control of the media, a monopoly on the power to shape thoughts, values, and responses of the citizenry. His conviction was that this group should flood the public with misinformation and emotionally-loaded propaganda to "engineer" the acquiescence of the masses and thereby rule over them. According to Bernays, this manufactured consent of the masses, creating conformity of opinion molded by the tool of false propaganda, would be vital for the survival of "democracy". Bernays wrote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. People are governed, their minds molded, their tastes formed, their ideas suggested, largely by men they have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner . In almost every act of our daily lives we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." [12]

In his main work titled 'Propaganda', [13] which he wrote in 1928, Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy because individuals were inherently dangerous (to the control and looting of the elites) but could be harnessed and channeled by these same elites for their economic benefit. He clearly believed that virtually total control of a population was possible, and perhaps easy to accomplish. He wrote further that:

"No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any wise idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders. Fortunately, the politician is able, by the instrument of propaganda, to mold and form the will of the people. So vast are the numbers of minds which can be regimented, and so tenacious are they when regimented, that [they produce] an irresistible pressure before which legislators, editors, and teachers are helpless. "

And it wasn't only the public masses that were 'inherently dangerous', but a nation's leaders fit this description as well, therefore also requiring manipulation and control. Bernays realised that if you can influence the leaders of a nation, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you can control the government and the country, and that is precisely where he set his sights. Bernays again:

"In some departments of our daily life, in which we imagine ourselves free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power. There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes. Nor, what is still more important, the extent to which our thoughts and habits are modified by authorities. The invisible government tends to be concentrated in the hands of the few because of the expense of manipulating the social machinery which controls the opinions and habits of the masses."

And in this case, the "few" are the wealthy industrial elites, their even wealthier banker friends, and their brethren who control the media, publishing and entertainment industries.

Until the First World War, these theories of creating an entirely false public opinion based on misinformation, then manipulating this for population control, were still only theories, but the astounding success of propaganda by Bernays and his group during the war laid bare the possibilities of perpetually controlling the public mind on all matters. The "shrewd" designers of Bernays' "invisible government" developed a standard technique for what was essentially propaganda and mind control, or at least opinion control, and infiltrated it throughout the US government, its departments and agencies, and its leaders and politicians. Coincident with this, they practiced infecting the leaders of every identifiable group – fraternal, religious, commercial, patriotic, social – and encouraging these men to likewise infect their supporters.

Many have noted the black and white mentality that pervades America. Much of the blame must be laid on Bernays' propaganda methods. Bernays himself asserted that propaganda could produce rapid and strong emotional responses in the public, but that the range of these responses was limited because the emotional loading inherent in his propaganda would create a kind of binary mentality, eventually forcing the population into a programmed black and white world – which is precisely what we see in the US today. This isn't difficult to understand. When Bernays flooded the public with fabricated tales of Germans shiskababbing babies, the range of potential responses was entirely emotional and would be limited to either abhorrence or perhaps a blocking of the information. In a sense, our emotional switch will be forced into either an 'on' or 'off' position , with no other reasonable choices.

The elite few, as Bernays called them, realised early on the potential for control of governments, and in every subsequent US administration the president and his White House staff, the politicians, the leaders of the military and intelligence agencies, all fell prey to this same disease of shrewd manipulation. Roosevelt's "intense desire for war" in 1939 [14] [15] [16] was the result of this same infection process and, once infected, he of course approved of the infection of the entire American population. Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

Bernays – Marketing War

In the discovery of propaganda as a tool of public mind control and in its use for war marketing, it is worthwhile to take a quick look at the historical background of Bernays' war effort. At the time, the European Zionists had made an agreement with England to bring the US into the war against Germany, on the side of England, a favor for which England would grant them the possession of Palestine as a location for a new homeland. [19] Palestine did not 'belong' to England, it was not England's to give, and England had no legal or moral right to make such an agreement, but it was made nevertheless.

US President Wilson was desperate to fulfill his obligations to his handlers by putting the US into the First World War as they wished, but the American population had no interest in the European war and public sentiment was entirely against participating. To facilitate the desired result, Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (The Creel Commission), [20] to propagandise the war by the mass brainwashing of America, but Creel was merely the 'front' of a group that consisted of specially hand-picked men from the media, advertising, the movie industry, and academia, as well as specialists in psychology. The two most important members were Walter Lippman, whom Wilson described as "the most brilliant man of his age", and Bernays who was the group's top mind-control expert, both Jews and both aware of the stakes in this game. Bernays planned to combine his uncle Freud's psychiatric insights with mass psychology blended with modern advertising techniques, and apply them to the task of mass mind control. It was Bernays' vast propaganda schemes and his influence in promoting the patently false idea that US entry to the war was primarily aimed at "bringing democracy to all of Europe", that proved so successful in altering public opinion about the war. Thanks to Edward Bernays, American war marketing was born and would never die.

Note to Readers: Some portion of the immediately following content which details the specifics of the propaganda of Lippman and Bernays for World War I is not my own work. It was extracted some years ago from a longer document for which I cannot now locate the original source. If a reader is able to identify this source, I would be grateful to receive that information so I can properly credit the author for his extensive research.

"Wilson's creation of the CPI was a turning point in world history, the first truly scientific attempt to form, manipulate and control the perceptions and beliefs of an entire population." With Wilson's authority, these men were given almost unlimited scope to work their magic, and in order to ensure the success of their program and guarantee the eventual possession of Palestine, these men and their committee carried out "a program of psychological warfare against the American people on a scale unprecedented in human history and with a degree of success that most propagandists could only dream about".

Having received permission and broad authority from the US President and the White House to "lead the public mind into war" [21] and, with their success threatened by widespread anti-war sentiment among the public, these men determined to engineer what Lippman called "the manufacture of consent" . The committee assumed the task to "examine the different ways that information flowed to the population and to flood these channels with pro-war material". Their effort was unparalleled in its scale and sophistication, since the Committee had the power not only to officially censor news and withhold information from the public, but to manufacture false news and distribute it nationally through all channels. In a very short time, Lippman and Bernays were well enough organised to begin flooding the US with anti-German propaganda consisting of hate literature, movies, songs, media articles and much more.

... ... ...

Everything we have read above about the marketing of war during preparation for the two World Wars, is from a template created by Lippman and Bernays exclusively to support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine and to promote the agenda of Zionism. That template has been in constant use by the US government (as the Bankers' Private Army) since the Second World War, 'engineering consent and ignorance' in the American and Western populations to mask almost seven decades of atrocities, demonising innocent countries and peoples in preparation for 60 or 70 politically-inspired color revolutions or 'wars of liberation' fought exclusively for the financial and political benefit of a handful of European bankers using the US military as a private army for this purpose, resulting in the deaths and miseries of hundreds of millions of innocent civilians.

... ... ...

We can easily think of George W. Bush's demonisation of Iraq, the sordid tales of mass slaughters, the gassing of hundreds of thousands and burial in mass graves, the nuclear weapons ready to launch within 15 minutes, the responsibility for 9-11, the babies tossed out of incubators, Saddam using wood shredders to eliminate political opponents and dissidents. We can think of the tales of Libyan Viagra, all proven to have been groundless fabrications – typical atrocity propaganda. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other wars and invasions followed this same template to get the public mind onside for an unjustified war launched only for political and commercial objectives.

Fast Forward to 2020

We are at the same place today, with the same people conducting the same "anger campaign" against China in preparation for World War III. John Pilger agrees with me , evidenced in his recent article "Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now." [43] And so does Gordon Duff . [44] The signs now are everywhere, and the campaign is successful. It is necessary to point out the need for an 'anger campaign' as opposed to a 'hate campaign'. We are not moved to action from hate, but from anger. I may thoroughly despise you, but that in itself will do nothing. It is only if I am moved to anger that I want to punch your lights out. And this, as Lippman and Bernays so clearly noted, requires emotionally-charged atrocity propaganda of the kind used so well against Germany and being so well used against China today. Since we need atrocity propaganda to start a war, there seems to be no shortage.

... ... ...

Then, Mr. Pompeo tells us, "The truth is that our policies . . . resurrected China's failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it." [55] Further, that (due to COVID-19) China "caused an enormous amount of pain, loss of life," and the "Chinese Communist Party will pay a price". [56] Of course, we all know that "China" stole the COVID-19 virus from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada, then released it onto the world – and Pompeo has proof [57] , and even "A Chinese virologist has proof" that "China" engaged in a massive cover-up while contaminating the world [58] and then "fleeing Hong Kong" because "I know how they treat whistle-blowers." [59] And of course, "China needs to be held accountable for Covid-19's destruction" [60] which is why everyone in the US wants to sue "China". "Australia" demands an international criminal investigation of China's role in COVID-19. [61] What a surprise.

And of course we have an almost unlimited number of serious provocations , from Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the South China Seas, to Chinese consulates, media reporters, students, researchers, visa restrictions, spying, Huawei, the trade war, all done in the hope of making the Chinese leaders panic and over-react, the easiest way to justify a new war.

The list could continue for several hundred pages. Never in my life have I seen such a continuous, unabating flood of hate propaganda against one nation, surely equivalent to what was done against Germany as described above to prepare for US entry into the First World War. And it's working, doing what it is intended to do. Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, India, Brazil, are buying into the war-mongering and turning against China. More will follow. The Global Times reported "Mutual trust between Australia and China at all-time low". [62]

"Boycott China" T-shirts and caps are flooding India, Huawei is being increasingly banned from Western nations, Chinese social media APPs like Tik-Tok are being banned, and Bryan Adams recently slammed all Chinese as "Bat-eating, wet-market-animal-selling, virus-making, greedy bastards". [63] [64] In a recent poll (taken because we need to measure the success of our handiwork in the same way Bernays and the Tavistock Institute did as noted earlier), half of all ethnic Chinese in Canada have been threatened and harassed over COVID-19.

About 45% of Chinese in Canada said they had been " threatened or intimidated in some way", fully 50% said they had recently been insulted in public, 30% said they had experienced . . . "some kind of physical altercation", and 60% said the abuse was so bad "they had to reorganise their daily routine to avoid it". One woman in her 60s said a man told her and her daughter "Every day I pray that you people die". [65]

... ... ...

Several years ago, CNN was sued by one of their news anchors for being ordered to lie in the newscasts. CNN won the case. They did not deny ordering the news anchor to lie. Their defense was based simply on the position that American news media have "no obligation to tell the truth". And RT recently reported that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans see a "medium or high" bias in all media coverage, [65] yet, as we can see, most of those same people, and a very large portion of the population of many nations still succumb to the same hate propaganda.

... ... ...

[Aug 19, 2020] The Committee Intelligence Committee relied on the same intelligence sources that fabricated the Russiagate scenario in the first place

Aug 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Rob , Aug 19 2020 19:19 utc | 53

Actually, after only a quick review of some of the news reports, it appears that the Senate Committee placed great importance on the "fact" that Russia was involved in the "hacking" of emails from the DNC. This suggests that the Committee relied on the same intelligence sources that fabricated the Russiagate scenario in the first place. I guess that the Republicans on the Committee have not kept up with revelations that there is no evidence of any such hacking. Hence, the Committee's conclusions are likely based on the same old disinformation and can be readily dismissed.

[Aug 18, 2020] Caitlin Johnstone- According to US Intelligence, if Trump wins Russia did it, If Biden wins it was China and Iran -- RT Op-ed

Aug 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

10 Aug, 2020

Mass media throughout the western world are uncritically passing along a press release from the US intelligence community, because that's what passes for journalism in a world where God is dead and everything is stupid.

[Aug 18, 2020] Rules for thee but not for me: Pompeo denounces proposed Russian law that would require labeling of propaganda content

Notable quotes:
"... "This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," ..."
"... "vital sources of independent news and information for the people of Russia" ..."
"... "more than 70 years." ..."
"... "be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" ..."
"... "provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad." ..."
"... "foreign agents" ..."
"... "feel like criminals, or believe that they are in danger when they watch or read our materials." ..."
"... "state-affiliated," ..."
Aug 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information work by outlets such as Voice of America.

"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.

Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70 years."

Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they "be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and "provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad."

The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.

The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents" in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to "intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they are in danger when they watch or read our materials."

Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network (CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned as an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.

US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian- and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double standard.


jangosimba 10 August, 2020

He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin

William Johnson 1 hour ago

Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to follow any order...

[Aug 18, 2020] Biden's election will show that the Western alliance is no more - Telegraph

Notable quotes:
"... IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely imaginary threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government expenditures for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons. ..."
"... Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really? ..."
"... The kind of symmetrical disinterest described in Timothy's article will encourage the end of Atlanticism ..."
Aug 17, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/16/bidens-election-will-show-western-alliance-no/

"There are, then, two ways in which a Biden presidency will remove the Europeans' veil of smug superiority. First, he will follow some Trump-era objectives, because that is what American interests demand, thus showing that Trump was no extremist on China . And second, where he does change approach, he will expose European indifference to the Western Alliance as driven, not by distaste for Trump's policies, but by Europe's own cynicism, short-termism and willingness to freeload off US military budgets.

In both respects, Biden's election will reveal Europe's dirty secret. It was never Donald Trump who stopped the Europeans being their better selves, taking responsibility for the security of their own citizens, and protecting long-term Western interests. It was always Europe itself." Nick Timothy in The Telegraph.

------------

I was struck earlier today by English Outsider's admonition (on SST) directed to ConfusedPonderer (archetype of the Teutons) in which EO said that it was vainglorious and vacuous to bitterly claim that the US "occupies" Germany as it did in 1945 while at the same time relying on US funding of Germany's defense through the USA's enormous military expenditures.

IMO NATO should have ended with the fall of the USSR. It now "confronts" a largely imaginary threat, concocted for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in US government expenditures for defense and supporting the imperial dreams of the neocons.

Does anyone really think Russia is going to invade the Baltics? Really?

The US faces a rapidly escalating political crisis. The losing party in November will undoubtedly go to the federal courts to claim that their opponents cheated in the process. These charges will eventually reach SCOTUS. In this environment US interest in European affairs will decline radically.

The kind of symmetrical disinterest described in Timothy's article will encourage the end of Atlanticism. pl

[Aug 17, 2020] Who's Afraid of QAnon- by Gregory Hood

Highly recommended!
Is not Q-anon a disinformation operation run by intelligence againces?
From comments: "Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich." and "After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again.""
Notable quotes:
"... This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy" for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible. ..."
"... What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. ..."
"... If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it . This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time. ..."
"... What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. ..."
"... After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint. ..."
"... I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism. ..."
"... Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory . ..."
"... Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us . "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us. ..."
"... The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them alone. ..."
"... Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. ..."
"... I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least effective president in history has got us covered." ..."
"... They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an unusually gullible audience. ' ..."
"... I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump) against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that elected him whether through incompetence or scheme. ..."
"... The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to end it. ..."
"... The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting for them to grow a pair and save the country. ..."
"... The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. ..."
"... I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would not have learned that info any other way. Period. ..."
"... Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism, "extremism is no vice" ..."
"... A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6) dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't. ..."
"... It has taken on a life of its own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. ..."
Aug 17, 2020 | www.unz.com

What is QAnon? This question is harder to answer than you might think. There are several books about QAnon, including QAnon and The Great Awakening by Michael Knight, QAnon: An Invitation to The Great Awakening by "WWG1WGA," and Revolution Q by "Neon Revolt." After reading these and other books and websites, I'd identify three main points.

The initial post that spawned "Q" could have been made by anyone. Further "drops" by "Q" or people in the movement could also be made by anyone. There is no way to verify any of their claims, except through vague references to key phrases that will supposedly be uttered in the days following the posts. For example, before President's rally in Tulsa, Eric Trump posted an American-flag QAnon meme with the #WWG1WGA (this is supposed to stand for "Where We Go One, We Go All") at the bottom to Instagram. Does this mean anything, or was Eric Trump simply passing along an image he liked?

QAnon is so popular it has spawned its own "watchdog" groups. NPR's Michael Martin interviewed Travis View, the co-host of the QAnon Anonymous podcast. Mr. Martin prepped the audience by calling QAnon "a group of people who adhere to some far-right conspiracies and believe a number of absurd things." Mr. View obliged by saying that according to QAnon, "The world is controlled by a Satanic cabal of pedophiles that they believe control everything like the media, politics and entertainment." He adds that QAnon also thinks President Trump knows all about this and will "defeat this global cabal once and for all and free all of us." "QAnon Anonymous" host Travis View added that it is a "domestic extremist movement" and said President Trump had "tweeted or retweeted QAnon accounts over 160 times." However, he also admitted "no one in the current administration has ever done anything to endorse QAnon."

Nevertheless, it seems that at least some of President Trump's advisors know about the movement and are playing to it. President Trump has directly retweeted memes from accounts linked to QAnon. Republican congressional candidate Angela Stanton-King tweeted , " THE STORM IS HERE ." Tess Owen, Vice's reporter on the "far right" beat, wrote , "Welp, the GOP Now Has 15 QAnon-Linked Candidates on the November Ballot."

NBC news says ,

"There is no evidence to these claims" about a "cabal of criminals run by politicians like Hillary Clinton and the Hollywood elite."

However, after Jeffrey Epstein's alleged "suicide" and news that powerful figures such as former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew were part of Epstein's strange network, it's hardly absurd to claim there could be sick stuff going on among the political and cultural elite.

Jimmy Saville was a well-known British media personality, knighted, and honored by many institutions including the Vatican and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. After his death, it emerged that he had sexually abused children ; some suggested hundreds of them. Most honors were rescinded posthumously.

A jury recently convicted Harvey Weinstein, once the most powerful producer in Hollywood, of sexual crimes. Several actresses including Allison Mack were alleged to be part of a bizarre sexual cult called NXIVM, and she pleaded guilty to racketeering . During the 2016 election, Wikileaks released email tying John Podesta's brother to "artist" Marina Abramovic and her bizarre, occult performance piece "Spirit Cooking."

If a crazy man approached you in the street raving about these plots, you'd run, but these things happened. Non-whites sexually abused thousands of young women in Rotherham, England. Police and local government officials did nothing because they didn't want to be called racists. This is a sick world, and evildoers often get away with evil. It's not absurd to think powerful men and women are no better than middling Labour politicians who looked the other way instead of stopping rape and sex slavery.

Is there a "Deep State" opposing President Trump? In 2019, the New York Times ran an editorial called " The 'Deep State' Exists to Battle People Like Trump. " In 2018, an anonymous official wrote, " I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration ." Recent evidence suggests that the FBI bullied General Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security advisor, and made him confess he had lied to agents after they threatened his son. The Department of Justice recently concluded that the interview of General Flynn was not "conducted with a legitimate investigative basis."

This doesn't mean there's a Satanic cabal running the government. It does mean some bureaucrats opposed or even sabotaged President Trump's agenda. They investigated his subordinates or leaked information to the press. If we substitute "the permanent bureaucracy" for the more ominous sounding term "Deep State," this "conspiracy theory" becomes plausible. Incidentally, General Flynn recently posted a video that uses QAnon slogans.

What is truly implausible about QAnon is the idea that President Trump knows about everything and will destroy this vast conspiracy. The proof for such assertions lies in gestures, vague statements, or even the background of where he is speaking. For example, in QAnon and the Great Awakening, the author says that President Trump's phrases "this is the calm before the storm" and "tippy top," his supposed circular motions with his hands, and occasional pointing towards supposed Q supporters are proof that he is on to it. "Q offers hundreds of data points that demonstrate Q is indeed linked to the Trump Administration," the book says.

If you desperately want to believe something, you'll find evidence for it . This is confirmation bias at best, schizophrenia at worst. If President Trump truly is about to reveal a vast Satanic conspiracy, he's taking his time.

What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. All we have to do is wait. "Nothing can stop what is coming," says one popular slogan. If this were true, President Trump and his followers have already won, and there's no reason to do anything but scour the internet for clues about what's coming next.

After almost four years of Trump's presidency, QAnon is an attempt to explain the President's failure to "Make America Great Again." It's true that he's hobbled by powerful elites. However, President Trump's biggest personnel problems, from John Bolton to Anthony Scaramucci, were people he appointed himself. No one forced him to make Reince Priebus his chief of staff, expel Steve Bannon, or pick a fight with Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Indeed, according to QAnon, Attorney General Sessions was the one who was supposed to rout the evildoers .

QAnon assures Trump supporters that he has everything well in hand and that justice is coming. It's far more terrifying to realize that he doesn't. He is politically isolated, surrounded by foes, and losing the presidential campaign to a confused and combative man who occasionally forgets what office he's running for or where he is . President Trump's not mustering his legions. Instead, his own defense secretary publicly opposed his plans to use soldiers to suppress riots. The brass overruled his wishes to leave bases named after Confederate heroes alone. Unless President Trump has a Praetorian Guard we don't know about (perhaps the Space Force?), there's nothing he can use against domestic opponents.

The real question is why reporters fear QAnon. Some of its supporters have allegedly committed crimes. One alleged QAnon believer killed a Gambino mob boss. In February, another blocked a bridge with an armored vehicle. Two others had family troubles, which may or may not be related to their QAnon beliefs. If these people did those things, they are criminals, but this is hardly a wave of violence. All together, this would be a peaceful weekend in Chicago .

QAnon isn't dangerous. Conspiracy theories are as old as the Anti-Masonic Party , maybe older. Some unstable people may latch on to them, but they are not notably violent. If anything, if they really believe a Satanic cabal runs the world, they are showing remarkable restraint.

I suspect the real reason journalists don't like QAnon is because at its core, it tells people the media are lying. It encourages independent investigation and citizen journalism. This occasionally leads to absurdities, such as building a worldview around 4chan posts. However, it's healthy to distrust elites. Sometimes, journalists lie , stretch the truth , or hide it entirely . Sometimes, they demand citizens be silenced . Ordinary Americans looking for truth are a threat. I believe mainstream journalists truly regard themselves as a Fourth Estate, an independent political power . They think they have the right to determine what Americans should and should not be allowed to hear or say. Their efforts to censor and suppress QAnon only fuel the movement.

Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory . Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that racist whites hold them down. This implicitly justifies protests, shakedowns, and even anti-white violence. When George Floyd died, Americans weren't allowed to see the bodycam videos . Instead, many journalists told a fable about a white policeman murdering an innocent black man. This was the spark, but journalists had soaked the country in gasoline years before with endless sensationalist coverage of race and "racism." Now, riots are destroying cities, ruining businesses, probably spreading disease, and creating a huge crime wave . I blame journalists for inciting this violence. It's not QAnon spreading a violent conspiracy theory, but journalists at CNN , the New York Times , the Washington Post, and others who manufactured a fake crisis .

Liberals are right to think QAnon is dangerous, but not in the way they think. QAnon is dangerous to whites. It tells them that everything is under control, that an evil conspiracy will be exposed, and that we just need to trust President Trump. We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us . "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America. It's up to us.

Liberals should be thankful for a conspiracy theory that urges complacency. Our message is more urgent: Our people, country, and civilization are at stake. You don't need to pore through websites to see what's happening; just walk down any city street. Time is running out. You have a duty to resist . Don't look for a savior. Instead, join us, and be worthy of our ancestors .


utu , says: August 15, 2020 at 1:26 am GMT

You got it right.

"What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency . "

"We can't be under any illusions that President Trump will save us. "The Storm" is not coming, the cavalry won't ride over the hill, and there isn't a secret military force ready to scoop up our foes and liberate America."

The Qanon phenomenon exploits the most fundamental psychological need which is hope, that hope dies last. The hope in order not to die will accept and forgive anything including the greatest nonsense. The hopeful ones can be strung along for ever because hope wants to last as it is the last to die. You just have to keep giving them a dose and keep stringing them alone.

There is is a blogger Benjamin Fulford that precedes Qanon and uses exactly the same technique and very similar narratives of hidden forces of Good and Evil fighting for the dominance and the forces of Good always being very close to the final victory to give you enough hope to keep you interested till the next installment.. There is a mixture of Free Masons, Rockefellers, Rothschild, Zionists, Trump, Pope Sabbatean mafia, Khazarian mafia and Asian Secret Societies. The latter are on the side of Good in Fulford's universe. Fulford, I think, is located somewhere in Asia, most likely Japan. Fulford missed his calling of being a script writer of the never ending TV series and dramas like TWD and so on. But I suspect he makes some money from his series about the world in battle between forces of Good and Evil and the victory being just around the corner.

From August 10, 2020. Benjamin Fulford installment:

https://benjaminfulford.net

"The Khazarian mafia is preparing the public for some form of alien disclosure or invasion scenario as they struggle to stay in power, Pentagon and other sources claim. The most likely scenario for this autumn is the cancellation of the U.S. Presidential election followed by a UFO distraction, the sources say. U.S. President Donald Trump himself is saying the election needs to be called off even as he continues to promote a "Space force.""

Or from August 3 installment:

"The P3 Freemasons are saying the Covid-19 campaign is only going to intensify until an agreement is reached to set up a "World Republic." Certainly, the P3 lodge involvement is easier to spot in Japan and Korea where all positive test results are being traced to either Christian (P3) sects or Khazarian Mafia hedge funds."

"The other big theme being pushed by the Zionists is an escalating conflict between the U.S. and China. The U.S. State Department propaganda machine is pushing a doctored document known as "The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian," which claims to contain secret Chinese plans to invade the U.S., kill women and children and use biological warfare."

"Of course, the opposite is true, since everybody who read the Project for a New American Century knows the Zionist regime has been touting race-specific or ethnic-specific biological warfare as a "useful political tool." "

Or from July 27:

"The rest of the world, especially the main creditors Japan and China, are willing to write off the debt but they want a change in management first. In other words, they want the Americans to free themselves from the Babylonian debt slavery of the Khazarian mafia.

That process has started with arrests and extra-judicial killings of top Khazarian, Satan-worshipping elites. The Bush family is gone, the Rockefellers lost the presidency when Hillary Rockefeller was defeated, and many politicians and so-called celebrities have vanished.

However, the situation is still like a lizard shaking off its tail in order to escape. The real control of the United States is still in the hands of "

ENJOY!

Fidelios Automata , says: August 15, 2020 at 3:21 am GMT

Sadly, the author is pretty much on-the-money. If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything. As for the media, I'd disagree that they sometimes lie; they lie pretty much ALL the time.

Exile , says: August 15, 2020 at 4:58 am GMT

What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency.

So does Trump and the GOP in general. The GOP, MAGA and NeverTrump alike, exists only to sap our will, acclimate us to defeat and put us to sleep with the comforting illusion that some authority or institution is fighting for us.

Until the American Right realizes this, it will never gain back one inch of ground. And no one worth marching with or behind will join their ranks or rise from them.

Franz , says: August 15, 2020 at 5:24 am GMT

Very excellent article.

I came late to the QAnon crap and saw it was the same soup as Black Lives Matter. Why, in fact, wouldn't the same crooks behind the one not foment the other? One says "blacks gonna make you kneel and take away all your stuff" while the other says, "don't worry, the least effective president in history has got us covered."

There's no war in heaven. They're all in show biz and Americans just happen to be an unusually gullible audience.
'

The Alarmist , says: August 15, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT

What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a prize! QAnon is a psyop.

Realist , says: August 15, 2020 at 2:36 pm GMT
@Fidelios Automata

If Trump is for real, that is, if he believes what he says, he has been completely incompetent at accomplishing anything.

That is the dilemma. I believe Trump is just another minion of the Deep State and is acting in accordance with their wishes. He is helping play out a charade a good cop (Trump) against a bad cop (Deep State). At any rate, he is not fulfilling his promises to those that elected him whether through incompetence or scheme.

SocraticGadfly , says: August 15, 2020 at 9:04 pm GMT

Uhhh, Donald Trump as well as Slickster Billy Bob was part of the Epstein network. This piece jumps the shark and the rails right there at the start and goes further into PR turd-polishing land after that.

Franz , says: August 16, 2020 at 9:18 am GMT
@Wyatt ockquote>

The logic of Hood's article is hard to beat either way. Trump/QAnon are just there for show, dangling hope in front of people that there's some person or entity that cares about them. It's the same as the infamous Pentagon Papers fifty years ago: Even after Americans knew the fix was in, the Vietnam War didn't stop until the plutocrats were good and ready to end it.

The truth sets nobody free. Power is a vehicle to find truth and do something about it. Truth without power just equals more frustration. And the world's full to bursting with frustration already.

Digital Samizdat , says: August 16, 2020 at 10:34 am GMT

What is especially dangerous about QAnon is not that it promotes dangerous extremism, but that it urges complacency. Its core message is that Donald Trump knows all about the secret conspiracy running the world and has the power to crush it; after all, he's President. All we have to do is wait.

Yup. The first sign of trouble was back when they adopted that ridiculous slogan, 'Trust the plan.' Sorry: this is politics. And in politics, I trust no one. The Q ought to be putting pressure on Trump (and the Republican Party generally), not sitting around waiting for them to grow a pair and save the country.

Anonymous [134] Disclaimer , says: August 17, 2020 at 3:52 am GMT

The school system is promoting liberal indoctrination, and a whole bunch of kids are dropping out. Why? Because they like weed and don't like math. I see QAnon the same way. Sure, the media can't be trusted. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

These guys are mostly mentally unstable white knights and while I'm not much concerned that they will actually harm Justin Beiber by baselessly accusing him of rape, their behavior contributes to the culture of white knighting and social media witch hunts I mean citizen journalism which only strengthens the feminist movement.

Icy Blast , says: August 17, 2020 at 4:27 am GMT

"You have a duty to resist." The QAnon people, intellectual and moral descendants of the Scofield Reference Bible, don't want to hear this. They just want to eat and watch TV. After all, Ben Franklin and George Washington will save us just in time!

Yukon Jack , says: August 17, 2020 at 4:57 am GMT

QAnon is just another Zionist-pro Israeli psyop. Q never talks about the Israel conspiracy or how AIPAC controls America. Trump is always, about ready, to bring the hammer down on the deep state, but never does as he appoints Neocon after Neocon, the latest is Elliott Abrams, as bad or worse than John Bolton.

Remember back when Hillary was in chains, or Obama went to Gitmo and got executed? QAnon is false hope being served up to Trump's conservative base who want the criminal government exposed and prosecuted. But that never happens under Trump.

According to many researchers, including me, Beirut got nuked, and that story is already gone, swept under the Jewmedia rug, written off as a fertilizer accident. Where's Q on that one? No where to be found because Q is Jew protecting Israel at every turn.

You all listen to Q at your own peril. And oh yeah, have you noticed the world going to hell? Where's Trump's secret plan you all? It's fake, Q Anon led you all into a blind alley, it pacified you as your nation was stolen right in front of your eyes. Q is a pied piper for adults who think like children. Q Anon was the latest hopium injected into the body politic, Trump is the swamp, he is working for Israel, he is selling you out, he is the snake who betrays you. But the q followers can't see that or even hear it because they need hope, and the opposition is worse than Trump.

The Real World , says: August 17, 2020 at 5:31 am GMT
@Oldtradesman t-text">

I'm not prepared to defend the Qanon thing but, clearly, it is more than a pysop. It has revealed enormous amounts of sordid detail about what really goes on this country/ world and who many of the crooks are. The vast majority of the readers would not have learned that info any other way. Period.

Now that a fair amount is exposed, it's up to Trump and Barr to indict and convict a slew of high level people. If they don't then they are worthless and can go fvck themselves for jerking the public around and not sealing the deal.

The Real World , says: August 17, 2020 at 5:38 am GMT
@Digital Samizdat

The Christians in the Repub Party are so easy to play. They are taught to 'follow the leader' from Day 1 of their lives and Trump has provided himself as their golden savior to worship and trust. God sent him to us, you know. (lol)

That segment of the Repub Party doesn't have a pair to grow. So, it won't happen. Marxism is in our future, it's only a matter of time.

Anon [102] Disclaimer , says: August 17, 2020 at 5:40 am GMT

In the final 15 seconds of this Flynn Video the General and his family acknowledge they are part of the Qanon IIA

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pDq7nud2-C4?feature=oembed

Q is Trumps softcore equivalent of Bidens Shadownet contract operations

utu , says: August 17, 2020 at 6:04 am GMT
@Anon

The hope that there are "good guys" dies last.

Amon , says: August 17, 2020 at 7:51 am GMT
@Fidelios Automata

Trump may gave been for real, but I also think he's just a well dressed actor who is doing what his handlers demand of him these days.

If Q-Anon is feared for something, it's that it urges people to look, listen and think for themselves instead of just doing what they are told.

Z-man , says: August 17, 2020 at 8:58 am GMT

Very good. A close friend of mine who I didn't consider too interested in these matters mentioned QAnon to me while I was telling him how Trump is being sabotaged by some of his own people. I was surprised he knew, probably more than me.

PS. I would wear a Q tee shirt except that I'm old school and 'Q' connotes queer. So maybe an Anon one might do. (Big grin)

Tom , says: August 17, 2020 at 9:08 am GMT

Great article. It covers the good and the bad and the hopelessly implausible very well. In times of a pandemic of lying generated by the USA Media Leviathan, the vulture capitalism of Wall Street, the exponentiating hate-Whitey rhetoric, the economy-killing Covid Scamdemic,the dwindling Euro-demographic numbers, along with a vurulent virus called Cultural Marxism, "extremism is no vice"

dimples , says: August 17, 2020 at 9:40 am GMT

After laughing themselves silly over the gullible idiots who ran with their 911 'no-planes' psychological operation, the CIA bugmen cooked up a new one. They're laughing themselves silly all over again.

Stephen Paul Foster , says: Website August 17, 2020 at 11:28 am GMT

"Journalists promote a conspiracy far more dangerous and deadly than QAnon. That is the "white privilege" conspiracy theory. Many journalists and academics tell non-whites that racist whites hold them down."

This is the "systemic racism" conspiracy that's taken hold of Woke-America. http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2020/08/systematic-racism-defining-deviancy-down.html

Kirt , says: August 17, 2020 at 11:51 am GMT

A very insightful analysis and I think I now understand Q Anon. This seems to be an evolution from the people who early on were claiming that Trump was playing 4 (or 5 or 6) dimensional chess. I never supported him and don't now. He couldn't play one dimensional checkers if he wanted to and he probably doesn't.

jxy , says: August 17, 2020 at 12:43 pm GMT
@Wyatt

...it has awakened something of a frustration in a lot of people.

It has taken on a life of its own, constantly adapting to changes in situation. I kind of follow it as an unintentional experiment in human psychology. It's also interesting that it has absorbed a great deal of Christian mythology without actually being a Christian religion. In the end though it is people trying to feel they have some control (and indeed, considering the fear in the media) that might be true.

[For fun, dig up and read Asimov's "I Spell My Name with an S" from 1958.]

threestars , says: August 17, 2020 at 1:12 pm GMT
@art guerrilla

There is no indication that anyone forced Trump into making any of the bad decisions mentioned. Your first point is asking Hood to weave some fanciful alternative to what is outright obvious. No serious author does that. If he were to have used "most likely" before giving his sensible opinion, would that have satisfied you? The Easter Bunny holding a gun to Trump's head and telling him to disavow Session is also a possibility, you know, but not a likely one.

Frankly, I think you are the one who's intellectually deficient.

G J T , says: August 17, 2020 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Anon

People who actually have good instincts but just cannot bring themselves to face the harsh reality in front of them.

The deplatforming of QAnon crap is not due to "Q" itself, but where "Q" supporters might find themselves next, once this psyop has run its course. They wanna kill it now to keep the delusion itself alive, lest all these "Q" true believer stumble into some anti-semitism and other truths that actually challenge the status quo.

Being a true believer in "Q" is literally no different than being a true believer in the Democrat-Republican kosher sandwich.

G J T , says: August 17, 2020 at 1:22 pm GMT
@Amon

Correct. And when we're talking about the "Deep state," organized pedophilia, human trafficking, etc, many of these "Q" people will inevitably find their way to the Rabbi behind the curtain. It is the natural destination if one does not self-censor or cling to their priors. There is no other destination, in fact.

[Aug 16, 2020] CIA Behind Guccifer Russiagate A Plausible Scenario

Highly recommended!
Aug 16, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

If Zerohedge comment reflect general population sentiments this is clear sign of the crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal élite.

Via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

William Binney is the former technical director of the U.S. National Security Agency who worked at the agency for 30 years. He is a respected independent critic of how American intelligence services abuse their powers to illegally spy on private communications of U.S. citizens and around the globe.

Given his expert inside knowledge, it is worth paying attention to what Binney says.

In a media interview this week, he dismissed the so-called Russiagate scandal as a "fabrication" orchestrated by the American Central Intelligence Agency. Many other observers have come to the same conclusion about allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections with the objective of helping Donald Trump get elected.

But what is particularly valuable about Binney's judgment is that he cites technical analysis disproving the Russiagate narrative. That narrative remains dominant among U.S. intelligence officials, politicians and pundits, especially those affiliated with the Democrat party, as well as large sections of Western media. The premise of the narrative is the allegation that a Russian state-backed cyber operation hacked into the database and emails of the Democrat party back in 2016. The information perceived as damaging to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was subsequently disseminated to the Wikileaks whistleblower site and other U.S. media outlets.

A mysterious cyber persona known as "Guccifer 2.0" claimed to be the alleged hacker. U.S. intelligence and news media have attributed Guccifer as a front for Russian cyber operations.

Notably, however, the Russian government has always categorically denied any involvement in alleged hacking or other interference in the 2016 U.S. election, or elections thereafter.

William Binney and other independent former U.S. intelligence experts say they can prove the Russiagate narrative is bogus. The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. These independent experts conclude that the data from the Democrat party could not have been hacked, as Guccifer and Russiagaters claim. It could only have been obtained by a leak from inside the party, perhaps by a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. That means the "Russian hacker" claims are baseless.

Wikileaks, whose founder Julian Assange is currently imprisoned in Britain pending an extradition trial to the U.S. to face espionage charges, has consistently maintained that their source of files was not a hacker, nor did they collude with Russian intelligence. As a matter of principle, Wikileaks does not disclose the identity of its sources, but the organization has indicated it was an insider leak which provided the information on senior Democrat party corruption.

about:blank

about:blank

me title=

William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian sources. It is known from information later disclosed by former NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden that the CIA has a secretive program – Vault 7 – which is dedicated to false incrimination of cyber attacks to other actors. It seems that the purpose of Guccifer was to create the perception of a connection between Wikileaks and Russian intelligence in order to beef up the Russiagate narrative.

"So that suggested [to] us all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0. And that Guccifer 2.0 was inside CIA I'm pointing to that group as the group that was probably the originator of Guccifer 2.0 and also this fabrication of the entire story of Russiagate," concludes Binney in his interview with Sputnik news outlet.

This is not the first time that the Russiagate yarn has been debunked . But it is crucially important to make Binney's expert views more widely appreciated especially as the U.S. presidential election looms on November 3. As that date approaches, U.S. intelligence and media seem to be intensifying claims about Russian interference and cyber operations. Such wild and unsubstantiated "reports" always refer to the alleged 2016 "hack" of the Democrat party by "Guccifer 2.0" as if it were indisputable evidence of Russian interference and the "original sin" of supposed Kremlin malign activity. The unsubstantiated 2016 "hack" is continually cited as the "precedent" and "provenance" of more recent "reports" that purport to claim Russian interference.

Given the torrent of Russiagate derivatives expected in this U.S. election cycle, which is damaging U.S.-Russia bilateral relations and recklessly winding up geopolitical tensions, it is thus of paramount importance to listen to the conclusions of honorable experts like William Binney.

The American public are being played by their own intelligence agencies and corporate media with covert agendas that are deeply anti-democratic.


me name=


lay_arrow desertboy , 13 hours ago

Well - who set up them up, converted from the OSS? The banksters.

"Wild Bill" Donovan worked for JP Morgan immediately after WWII.

"our" US intelligence agencies were set up by, and serve, the masters of high finance. Is this in dispute?

meditate_vigorously , 11 hours ago

They have seeded enough misinformation that apparently it is. But, you are correct. It is the Banksters.

Isisraelquaeda , 2 hours ago

Israel. The CIA was infiltrated by the Mossad long ago.

SurfingUSA , 15 hours ago

JFK was on to that truth, and would have been wise to mini-nuke Langley before his ill-fated journey to Dallas.

Andrew G , 11 hours ago

Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman

vova.2018 , 7 hours ago

Except when there's something exceptionally evil (like pedo/blackmail rings such as Epstein), in which case it's Mossad / Aman

The CIA & MOSSAD work hand in hand in all their clandestine operations. There is not doubt the CIA/MOSSAD are behind the creation, evolution, training, supplying weapons, logistic-planning & financing of the terrorists & the destruction of the Middle East. Anybody that believes the contrary has brain problems & need to have his head examined.

CIA/MOSAD has been running illegal activities in Colombia: drug, arms, organs & human (child-sex) trafficking. CIA/MOSAD is also giving training, logistic & arms to Colombia paramilitary for clandestine operation against Venezuela. After Bolsonaro became president, MOSSAD started running similar operation in Brazil. Israel & Brazil also recognizes Guaido as the legit president of Venezuela.

​​​​​​CIA/MOSSAD have a long time policy of assassinating & taking out pep who are a problem to the revisionist-zionist agenda, not just in the M-East but in the world. The CIA/MOSSAD organizations have many connections in other countries like the M-East, Saudi Arabia, UAE, et al but also to the UK-MI5.

The Israelis infiltrated the US to the highest levels a long time ago - Proof

  • Israel has & collects information (a database) of US citizens in coordination with the CIA & the 5 eyes.
  • Israel works with the NSA in the liaison-loophole operations
  • Mossad undercover operations in WDC & all over the world
  • The American Israel Public Affairs Committee – AIPAC
  • People with 2 citizenships (US/Israel) in WDC/NYC (the real Power)
  • From Steve Bannon a christian-zionist: Collusion between the Trump administration and Israel .
  • D-Trump, Ivanka Trump & husband Kushner (orthodox Juus)
  • Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell, members of the MOSSAD ran their entire pedo-honey-pot operation for the CIA/Mossad
  • CIA/MOSSA want to punish Iran for its role in Syria's victory over ISIS (created by CIA/Mossad) - PROOF: McCain Armed ISIS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziNlUuc167E

New book details Israel's secret history of assassinations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge-mnC2wGss

CIA Assassination Manual Revealed (CIA = Cover action agency)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3gQfoFCpPs

GreatUncle , 6 hours ago

Well I never expected anything different.

They have a hand in everything and probably the murder of JFK.

Hell the CIA have even had their own president.

They are supposed to be commanded by the president but personally I think they are a rogue operation controlled by somebody else.

Lyman54 , 16 hours ago

Millie Weavers documentary explains everything quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HFxVvrXjCg

sborovay07 , 15 hours ago

Funny how a number of the right wing conspiracy stories according to the MSM from a couple years back were true from the get go. 1 indictment over 4 years in the greatest attempted coup in this country's history. So sad that Binney and Assange were never listened to. They can try to silence us who know of the truth, but as Winston Churchill once said, 'Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is.' KDP still censors my book on their advertising platform as it promotes conspiratorial theories (about the Obama led coup) and calls out BLM and Antifa for what they are (marxists) . Yet the same platform still recommends BLM books stating there is a pandemic of cops killing innocent blacks. F them!!!! #RIPSeth #FreeJulian #FreeMillie

smacker , 11 hours ago

Yes, and we all know the name of the DNC leaker who downloaded and provided WikiLeaks
with evidence of CIA and DNC corruption.
He was assassinated to prevent him from naming who Guccifer 2.0 was and where he is located.

The Russia-gate farce itself provides solid evidence that the CIA and others are in bed with DNC
and went to extraordinary lengths to prevent Trump being elected. When that failed, they instigated
a program of x-gates to get him out of office any way they could. This continues to this day.

This is treason at the highest level.

ACMeCorporations , 12 hours ago

Hacking? What Russian hacking?

In recently released testimony, the CEO of CrowdStrike admitted in congressional testimony, under oath, that it actually has no direct evidence Russia stole the DNC emails.

Nelbev , 9 hours ago

"The proof relies on their forensic analysis of the data released by Guccifer. The analysis of timestamps demonstrates that the download of voluminous data could not have been physically possible based on known standard internet speeds. ... a disgruntled staffer who downloaded the information on to a disc. That is the only feasible way such a huge amount of data could have been released. ... William Binney says forensic analysis of the files released by Guccifer shows that the mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian sources. ... "

Any computer file is a bunch of 1s and 0s. Anyone can change anything with a hex editor. E.g. I had wrong dates on some photographs once, downloaded as opposed to when taken, just edited the time stamp. You cannot claim any time stamp is original. If true time stamps, then the DNC files were downloaded to a thumb drive at a computer on location and not to the internet via a phone line. However anyone can change the time stamps. Stating a "mystery hacker deliberately inserted digital [Russian] 'fingerprints' " is a joke if denying the file time stamps were not tampered with. The real thing is where the narrative came from, political spin doctors, Perkins Coie law firm hired by DNC and Hillary campaign who hired Crowdstrike [and also hired Fusion GPS before for pissgate dossier propaganda and FISC warrants to spy on political opponents] and Perkins Coie edited Crowdstrike report with Russian narrative. FBI never looked at DNC servers. This is like your house was broken into. You deny police the ability to enter and look at evidence like DNC computers. You hire a private investigator to say your neighbor you do not like did it and publicise accusations. Take word of political consultants hired, spin doctor propaganda, Crowdstrike narrative , no police investigation. Atlantic Council?

Vivekwhu , 8 hours ago

The Atlantic Council is another NATO fart. Nuff said!

The_American , 15 hours ago

God Damn traitor Obama!

Yen Cross , 14 hours ago

TOTUS

For the youngsters.

Teleprompter Of The United States.

Leguran , 6 hours ago

The CIA has gotten away with so much criminal behavior and crimes against the American public that this is totally believable. Congress just lets this stuff happen and does nothing. Which is worse - Congress or the CIA?

Congress set up the system. It is mandated to perform oversight. And it just sits on its thumbs and wallows in it privileges.

This time Congress went further than ever before. It was behind and engaged in an attempted coup d'état.

Know thy enemy , 10 hours ago

Link to ShadowGate (ShadowNet) documentary - which answers the question, what is the keystone,,,,,

https://www.pscp.tv/Tore_says/1RDGlrYynRgxL

"Comey here, and Holder, while I get a rope for Lynch, and don't forget Brennan."

Kudo's to Millie

DontHateMeBecauseImABureaucrat , 9 hours ago

Neither google nor Apple will open the link. Or it's not there.

bringonthebigone , 8 hours ago

currently it is up here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HFxVvrXjCg

I Claudius , 5 hours ago

It's time for Assange and Wikileaks to name the person who they rec'd the info from. By hiding behind the "we don't name names" Mantra they are helping destroy America by polarizing its citizens. Name the damn person, get it all out there so the left can see that they've been played by their leaders. Let's cut this crap.

freedommusic , 7 hours ago

...all the evidence was pointing back to CIA as the originator [of] Guccifer 2.0.

Yep, I knew since day one. I remember seeing Hillary Clinton talking about Guccifer . As soon as uttered the name, I KNEW she with the CIA were the brainchild of this bogus decoy.

They copy. They mimic. These are NOT creative individuals.

Perhaps hell is too good a place for them.

on target , 4 hours ago

This is old news but worth bringing up again. The CIA never wanted Trump in, and of course, they want him out. Their fingerprints were all over Russiagate, The Kavanaugh hearings, Ukrainegate, and on and on. They are just trying to cover their asses for a string of illegal "irregularities" in their operations for years. Trump should never have tried to be a get along type of guy. He should have purged the entire leadership of the CIA on day one and the FBI on day 2. They can not be trusted with an "America First" agenda. They are all New World Order types who know whats best for everyone.

fersur , 7 hours ago

Boom, Boom, Boom !

Three Reseachable Tweets thru Facebook, I cut all at once, Unedited !

"#SusanRice has as much trouble with her memory as #HillaryClinton. Rice testified in writing that she 'does not recall' who gave her key #Benghazi talking points she used on TV, 'does not recall' being in any meetings regarding Benghazi in five days following the attack, and 'does not recall' communicating with anyone in Clinton's office about Benghazi," Tom Fitton in Breitbart.

"Adam Schiff secretly subpoenaed, without court authorization, the phone records of Rudy Giuliani and then published the phone records of innocent Americans, including @realDonaldTrump 's lawyers, a member of Congress, and a journalist," @TomFitton .

BREAKING: Judicial Watch announced today that former #Obama National Security Advisor and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, admitted in written responses given under oath that she emailed with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Clinton's non-government email account and that she received emails related to government business on her own personal email account.

STONEHILLADY , 7 hours ago

It's not just the Democrats, the warmongering neocons of the Republican party are also in on it, the Bush/Romney McCain/McConnell/Cheney and many more. It's called "Kick Backs" Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up working for all these spying companies that span the 5eyes to Israel. It seems our POTUS has got his hands full swimming up stream to get this stopped and actually get rid of the CIA. It's the number 1 reason he doesn't trust these people, they all try to tell him stuff that is mis-directed.

Liars, leakers, and thieves are running not only our nation but the world, as George Carlin said, "It's a Big Club, and we ain't in it." If you fall for this false narrative of mail in voting and not actually go and vote on election day, you better start learning Chinese for surely Peelosi and Schumer will have their way and mess up this election so they can drag Trump out of office and possible do him and his family some serious harm, all because so many of you listen to the MSM and don't research their phony claims.

Max21c , 7 hours ago

It's called "Kick Backs" Ever notice these so called retired Generals all end up working for all these spying companies that span the 5eyes to Israel.

American Generals & Admirals are a lot more corrupt today than they were a few generations back. Many of them are outright evil people in today's times. Many of these people are just criminals that will steal anything they can get their banana republic klepto-paws on. They're nothing but common criminals and thieves. No different than the Waffen SS or any other group of brigands, bandits, and criminal gangsters.

Max21c , 7 hours ago

The CIA, FBI, NSA, Military Intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, defense contractors are mixed up in a lot of crimes and criminal activities on American soil against American citizens and American civilians. They do not recognize borders or laws or rights of liberty or property rights or ownership or intellectual property. They're all thieves and criminals in the military secret police and secret police gangsters cabal.

BandGap , 7 hours ago

I have seen Binney's input. He is correct in my view because he scientifically/mathematically proves his point.

The blinded masses do not care about this approach, just like wearing masks.

The truth is too difficult for many to fit into their understanding of the world.

So they repeat what they have been told, never stopping to consider the facts or how circumstances have been manipulated.

It is frustrating to watch, difficult to navigate at times for me. Good people who will not stop and think of what the facts show them.

otschelnik , 8 hours ago

It could have been the CIA or it could have been one of the cut-outs for plausible deniability, and of all the usual suspects it was probably CrowdStrike.

- CGI / Global Strategy Group / Analysis Corp. - John Brennan (former CEO)

- Dynology, Wikistrat - General James L. Jones (former chairman of Atlantic Council, NSA under Obama)

- CrowdStrike - Dmitri Alperovich and Shawn Henry (former chief of cyber forensics FBI)

- Clearforce - Michael Hayden (former dir. NSA under Clinton, CIA under Bush) and Jim Jones Jr. (son Gnrl James Jones)

- McChrystal Group - Stanley McChrystal (former chief of special operations DOD)

fersur , 8 hours ago

Unedited !

The Brookings Institute – a Deep State Hub Connected to the Fake Russia Collusion and Ukraine Scandals Is Now Also Connected to China Spying In the US

The Brookings Institute was heavily involved in the Democrat and Deep State Russia collusion hoax and Ukraine impeachment fraud. These actions against President Trump were criminal.

This institute is influenced from foreign donations from entities who don't have an America first agenda. New reports connect the Institute to Chinese spying.

As we reported previously, Julie Kelly at American Greatness released a report where she addresses the connections between the Brookings Institute, Democrats and foreign entities. She summarized her report as follows: Accepting millions from a state sponsor of terrorism, foisting one of the biggest frauds in history on the American people, and acting as a laundering agent of sorts for Democratic political contributions disguised as policy grants isn't a good look for such an esteemed institution. One would be hard-pressed to name a more influential think tank than the Brookings Institution. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit routinely ranks at the top of the list of the best think tanks in the world; Brookings scholars produce a steady flow of reports, symposiums, and news releases that sway the conversation on any number of issues ranging from domestic and economic policy to foreign affairs.

​​ Brookings is home to lots of Beltway power players: Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, are Brookings fellows. Top officials from both Republican and Democrat presidential administrations lend political heft to the organization. From 2002 until 2017, the organization's president was Strobe Talbott. He's a longtime BFF of Bill Clinton; they met in the 1970s at Oxford University and have been tight ever since. Talbott was a top aide to both President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Kelly continued:

Brookings-based fellows working at Lawfare were the media's go-to legal "experts" to legitimize the concocted crime; the outlet manipulated much of the news coverage on collusion by pumping out primers and guidance on how to report collusion events from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment to his final report.

Now, testimony related to a defamation lawsuit against Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous "dossier" on Donald Trump, has exposed his direct ties to Talbott in 2016 when he was still head of Brookings. Talbott and Steele were in communication before and after the presidential election; Steele wanted Talbott to circulate the dossier to his pals in John Kerry's State Department, which reportedly is what Talbott did . Steele also briefed top state department officials in October 2016 about his work.

But this isn't the only connection between the Brookings Institute and the Russia collusion and Ukrainian scandals. We were the first to report that the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) in the Steele report, the main individual who supplied Steele with bogus information in his report was Igor Danchenko.

In November 2019, the star witness for the Democrat Representative Adam Schiff's impeachment show trial was announced. Her name was Fiona Hill.

Today we've uncovered that Hill is a close associate of the Primary Sub-Source (PSS) for the Steele dossier – Igor Danchenko – the individual behind most all the lies in the Steele dossier. No wonder Hill saw the Steele dossier before it was released. Her associate created it.

Both Fiona Hill and Igor Danchenko are connected to the Brookings Institute.

They gave a presentation together as Brookings Institute representatives:

Kelly writes about the foreign funding the Brookings Institute partakes:

So who and what have been funding the anti-Trump political operation at Brookings over the past few years? The think tank's top benefactors are a predictable mix of family foundations, Fortune 100 corporations, and Big Tech billionaires. But one of the biggest contributors to Brookings' $100 million-plus annual budget is the Embassy of Qatar. According to financial reports, Qatar has donated more than $22 million to the think tank since 2004. In fact, Brookings operates a satellite center in Doha, the capital of Qatar. The wealthy Middle Eastern oil producer spends billions on American institutions such as universities and other think tanks.

Qatar also is a top state sponsor of terrorism, pouring billions into Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few. "The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," President Trump said in 2017. "We have to stop the funding of terrorism."

An email from a Qatari official, obtained by WikiLeaks, said the Brookings Institution was as important to the country as "an aircraft carrier."

Yesterday the Brookings Institute was connected to spying by Communist China in a post at the Washington Free Beacon :

Part 1 of 2

fersur , 8 hours ago

Part 2 of 2 !

The Brookings Institution, a prominent Washington, D.C., think tank, partnered with a Shanghai policy center that the FBI has described as a front for China's intelligence and spy recruitment operations, according to public records and federal court documents.

The Brookings Doha Center, the think tank's hub in Qatar, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in January 2018, the institution said . The academy is a policy center funded by the Shanghai municipal government that has raised flags within the FBI.

The partnership raises questions about potential Chinese espionage activities at the think tank, which employs numerous former government officials and nearly two dozen current foreign policy advisers to Joe Biden's presidential campaign.

It is really frightening that one of two major political parties in the US is tied so closely with the Brookings Institute. It is even more frightening that foreign enemies of the United States are connected to this entity as well.

Let it Go , 8 hours ago

One thing for sure is these guys have far to much of our money to spend promoting their own good.

fersur , 7 hours ago

Unedited !

Mueller Indictments Tied To "ShadowNet," Former Obama National Security Advisor and Obama's CIA Director – Not Trump

By Patrick Bergy, Cyber-Security, Veteran & Former DoD Contractor

December 18th, 2018

According to a report in the Daily Beast, which cited the Wall Street Journal's reporting of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into two companies, Wikistrat and Psy Group, "The firm's advisory council lists former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser James L. Jones."

According to numerous reporting from major news outlets like the Wall Street Journal and Daily Beast, both Wikistrat and Psy Group represent themselves as being social media analysts and black PSYOP organizations. Both Wikistrat and Psy Group have foreign ownership mixed between Israeli, Saudi (Middle East) and Russian. Here is what the Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast and pretty much everyone else out there doesn't know (or won't tell you).

The fact Obama's former National Security Advisor, General James Jones, and former Obama CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, are both on Wikistrat's advisory board may not seem suspicious, but both of these general's have another thing in common, and that is the ShadowNet. The ShadowNet, and its optional companion relational database, iPsy, were both originally developed by the small, family owned defense contracting company, Dynology. The family that owns Dynology; Gen. James Jones. I would add Paul Manafort and Rick Davis was Dynology's partner at the time we were making the ShadowNet and iPsy commercially available.

After obtaining the contract in Iraq to develop social media psychological warfare capabilities, known in military nomenclature as Interactive Internet Activities, or IIA, Gen. Jones kept the taxpayer funded application we developed in Iraq for the 4th Psychological Operation Group, and made it commercially available under the trademark of the "ShadowNet" and the optional black PSYOP component, "iPsy." If you think it is interesting that one of the companies under Mueller's indictment is named, "Psy" Group, I did as well. In fact, literally everything both publicly described in news reports, and even their websites, are exactly the same as the ShadowNet and iPsy I helped build, and literally named.

The only thing different I saw as far as services offered by Wikistrat, and that of Dynology and the ShadowNet, was described by The Daily Beast as, "It also engaged in intelligence collection." Although iPsy was a relational database that allowed for the dissemination of whatever the required narrative was, "intelligence collection" struck another bell with me, and that's a company named ClearForce.

ClearForce was developed as a solution to stopping classified leaks following the Edward Snowden debacle in 2013. Changes in NISPOM compliance requirements forced companies and government agencies that had employees with government clearances to take preventive measure to mitigate the potential of leaking. Although the NISPOM compliance requirement almost certainly would have been influenced by either Hayden, Jones or both, they once again sought to profit from it.

Using components of the ShadowNet and iPsy, the ClearForce application (which the company, ClearForce, was named after,) was developed to provide compliance to a regulation I strongly suspect you will find Jones and Hayden had a hand in creating. In fact, I strongly suspect you will find General Jones had some influence in the original requirement for our Iraq contract Dynology won to build the ShadowNet – at taxpayer expense! Dynology worked for several years incorporating other collection sources, such as financial, law enforcement and foreign travel, and ties them all into your social media activity. Their relationship with Facebook and other social media giants would have been nice questions for congress to have asked them when they testified.

Part 1 of 2 !

fersur , 7 hours ago

Part 2 of 2 !

The ClearForce application combines all of these sources together in real-time and uses artificial intelligence to predictively determine if you are likely to steal or leak based on the behavioral profile ClearForce creates of you. It can be used to determine if you get a job, and even if you lose a job because a computer read your social media, credit and other sources to determine you were likely to commit a crime. It's important for you to stop for a moment and think about the fact it is privately controlled by the former CIA director and Obama's National Security Advisor/NATO Supreme Allied Commander, should scare the heck out of you.

When the ClearForce application was complete, Dynology handed it off to ClearForce, the new company, and Michael Hayden joined the board of directors along with Gen. Jones and his son, Jim, as the president of ClearForce. Doesn't that kind of sound like "intelligence collection" described by the Daily Beast in Wikistrat's services?

To wrap this all up, Paul Manafort, Rick Davis, George Nader, Wikistrat and Psy Group are all directly connected to Mueller's social media influence and election interreference in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, I believe all are under indictment, computers seized, some already sentenced. All of these people under indictment by Mueller have one key thing in common, General James Jones's and Michael Hayden's social media black PSYOP tools; the ShadowNet, iPsy and ClearForce.

A recent meeting I had with Congressman Gus Bilirakis' chief of staff, Elizabeth Hittos, is confirmation that they are reviewing my DoD memorandum stating the work I did on the IIA information operation in Iraq, the Dynology marketing slicks for the ShadowNet and iPsy, along with a screenshot of Goggle's Way-Back Machine showing Paul Manafort's partnership with Dynology in 2007 and later. After presenting to her these facts and making clear I have much more information that requires the highest classification SCIF to discuss and requires being read-on to the program, Elizabeth contacted the office of Congressman Devin Nunez to request that I brief the intelligence committee on this critical information pertaining directly to the 2010 Ukrainian elections, Michael Brown riots, 2016 election interference and the "Russia collusion" hoax. All of that is on top of numerous questionable ethical and potentially illegal profits from DoD contracts while servings as NATO Commander and Obama's National Security Advisor.

We also need to know if the ShadowNet and iPsy were allowed to fall into foreign hands, including Russia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. I'm pretty sure South America is going to have a few questions for Jones and Obama as well? Stay tuned!

Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago

Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially 'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.

Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will always be the Americans themselves.

Balance-Sheet , 4 hours ago

Intelligence Agencies of all countries endlessly wage war at all times especially 'Information Warfare' (propaganda/disinformation) and the primary target has always and will always be the domestic population of the Intelligence Agency's country.

Yes, of course the CIA does target ALL other countries but the primary target will always be the Americans themselves.

Paralentor , 5 hours ago

A lot more detail can be found here:

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f37fcc2df77c4044ee2eb03

SHADOW GATE – FULL FILM

462,864 views

yerfej , 8 hours ago

The neoliberals own the media, courts, academia, and BUREAUCRACY (including CIA) and they will do anything to make sure they retain power over everyone. These control freaks work hard to create all sorts of enemies to justify their existence.

LaugherNYC , 15 hours ago

It is sad that this information has to be repeatedly published, over and over and over, by SCI and other Russian. outlets.

Because no legit AMERICAN news outlet will give Binney or Assange the time of day or any credence, this all becomes Kremlin-sponsored disinformation and denials. People roll their eyes and say "Oh God, not the whole 'Seth Rich was murdered by the CIA' crap again!! You know, his FAMILY has asked that people stop spreading these conspiracy theories and lies."

SCI is a garbage bin, nothing more than a dizinformatz machine for Putin, but in this case, they are likely right. It seems preposterous that the "best hackers in the world" would forget to use a VPN or leave a signature behind, and it makes far more sense that the emails were leaked by someone irate at the abuses of the DNC - the squashing of Bernie, the cheating for Hillary in the debates - behavior we saw repeated in 2020 with Bernie shoved aside again for the pathetic Biden.

Would that SOMEONE in the US who is not on the Kremlin payroll would pick up this thread. But all the "investigative journalists" now work indirectly for the DNC, and those that don't are cancelled by the left.

Stone_d_agehurler , 15 hours ago

I am Guccifer and I approve this message.

Sarc/

But i do share your opinion. They are likely right this time and most of the pundits and media in the U. S. know it. That's what makes this a sad story about how rotten the U. S. system has become.

Democrats will sacrifice the Union for getting Trump out of office.

If elections in Nov won't go their way, Civil War II might become a real thing in 2021.

PeterLong , 4 hours ago

If " digital "fingerprints" in order to give the impression that the files came from Russian sources" were inserted in the leak by "Guccifer", and if the leak to wikileaks came from Seth Rich, via whatever avenue, then the "Guccifer" release came after the wikileaks release, or after wikileaks had the files, and was a reaction to same attempting to diminish their importance/accuracy and cast doubt on Trump. Could CIA and/or DNC have known the files were obtained by wikileaks before wikileaks actually released them? In any case collusion of CIA with DNC seems to be a given.

RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago

Because Seth had already given it to Wikileaks. There is no 'Fancy Bear'. There is no 'Cozy Bear'. Those were made up by CrowdStrike, and they tried the same crap on Ukraine, and Ukraine told them to pound sand. When push came to shove, and CrowdStrike was forced to say what they really had under oath, they said: "We have nothing."

novictim , 4 hours ago

You are leaving out Crowd Strike. Seth Rich was tasked by people at the DNC to copy data off the servers. He made a backup copy and gave a copy to people who then got it to Wiki leaks. He used highspeed file transfers to local drives to do his task.

Meanwhile, it was the Ukrainian company Crowd Strike that claimed the data was stolen over the internet and that the thieves were in Russia. That 'proof" was never verified by US Intelligence but was taken on its word as being true despite crowd strike falsifying Russian hacks and being caught for it in the past.

Joebloinvestor , 5 hours ago

The "five eyes" are convinced they run the world and try to.

That is what Brennan counted on for these agencies to help get President Trump.

As I said, it is time for the UK and the US to have a serious conversation about their current and ex-spies being involved in US elections.

Southern_Boy , 5 hours ago

It wasn't the CIA. It was John Brennan and Clapper. The CIA, NSA FBI, DOJ and the Ukrainian Intelligence Service just went along working together and followed orders from Brennan who got them from Hillary and Obama.

Oh, and don't forget the GOP Globalist RINOs who also participated in the coup attempt: McCain, Romney, Kasich, Boehner, Lee and Richard Burr.

With Kasich now performing as a puppy dog for Biden at the Democrat Convention as a Democrat DNC executive, the re-alignment is almost complete: Globalist Nationalist Socialist Bolshevism versus American Populism, i.e. Elites versus Deplorables or Academics versus Smelly Wal-Mart people.

on target , 5 hours ago

No way. CIA up to their eyeballs in this as well as the State Department. Impossible for Russiagate or Ukrainegate without direct CIA and State involvement.

RightlyIndignent , 4 hours ago

Following Orders? How did that argument go at Nuremberg? (hint: not very well)

LeadPipeDreams , 6 hours ago

LOL - the CIA's main mission - despite their "official" charter, has always been to destabilize the US and its citizens via psyops, false flags, etc.

Covid-1984 is their latest and it appears most successful project yet.

Iconoclast27 , 5 hours ago

The CIA received a $200 million initial investment from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations when it was first established, that should tell you everything you need to know how who they truly work for.

A_Huxley , 6 hours ago

CIA, MI6, 5 eye nations.

All wanted to sway the USA their own way.

Let it Go , 8 hours ago

Almost as frightening as the concentrated power held by companies such as Facebook and Google is the fact Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world's richest man, is the person who owns and controls the Washington Post. It is silly to think Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post in 2013 because he expected newspapers to make a lucrative resurgence.

It is more likely he purchased the long-trusted U.S. newspaper for the power it would ensure him in Washington when wielded as a propaganda mouthpiece to extend his ability to both shape and control public opinion. More on this subject in the article below.

https://Amazon, Jeff Bezos, And The Influential Washington Post_31.html

avoiceofliberty , 16 hours ago

The amazing thing about Binney's forensic analysis is that it has been around since 2018 .

It's also been clear since 2017 the hack of the DNC computers didn't hold up under scrutiny .

How it is the Democrats, the Deep State, and the legacy media are still able to cling to the remnants of these long discredited narratives is a mystery.

avoiceofliberty , 6 hours ago

At the official level, you have a point.

However, even before Mueller was appointed, a review of the materials in the extant public record of both the DNC "hack" and the history of Crowdstrike showed the narrative simply did not make sense. A detailed investigation of materials not made public was not necessary to shoot down the entire narrative.

Indeed, one of the great scandals of the Mueller probe is the way it did not bring prudential skepticism to the question of the DNC "hack". When building a case, either for public debate or for public trial, a dose of skepticism is healthy; it leads to a careful vetting of facts and reasoning.

Alice-the-dog , 6 hours ago

The CIA has been an agency wholly independent of the US government almost since its inception. It is not under any significant control by the government, and has its own agenda which may occasionally coincide with that of the government, but only coincidentally. It has its own view of how the world should look, and will not balk at any means necessary to achieve such. Including the murder of dis-favorable members of government.

snodgrass , 6 hours ago

It's the CIA and the FBI, Obama and people in his administration who cooked up Russiagate.

Floki_Ragnarsson , 7 hours ago

The CIA whacked JFK because he was going to slow the roll to Vietnam AND disband the CIA and reform it.

It is broken and needs to be disbanded and reformed along lines that actually WORK! The CIA missed the fall of the USSR, 9/11, etc. HTF does THAT happen?

DeportThemAll , 6 hours ago

The CIA didn't "miss" 9/11... they participated in it.

Let it Go , 8 hours ago

The CIA is a tool that when improperly used can do great damage.

Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. Too many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.

Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligence agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control.

http://Psychological Warfare And Propaganda Out Of Control.html

tion , 16 hours ago

The idea of Binney and Jason Sullivan privately working to 'secure the vote' is something that I actually consider to be very eyebrow raising and alarming.

Son of Captain Nemo , 8 hours ago

Bill Binney under "B" in the only "yellow pages" that show a conscience and a soul!...

https://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/General/B/williambinneysevernMDUS

fliebinite , 9 hours ago

This is the dumbest article ever. Russiagate is a total fabrication of the FBI as per Clinesmith, CIA provided information that would have nipped it at the bud. Read the real news.

bringonthebigone , 9 hours ago

Wrong. this article is one small piece of the puzzle. Clinesmith is one small piece of the puzzle. The Flynn entrapment is one small piece of the puzzle. The Halper entrapment was one small piece of the puzzle.

Because Clinesmith at the FBI covered up the information saying Page was a CIA source does not mean it was a total FBI fabrication and does not mean the CIA was not involved and does not mean the DNC server hack is irrelevant.

Milley Weaver gets close in her recent video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HFxVvrXjCg

Sundance does a better job pulling it all together.

PKKA , 14 hours ago

Relations have already soured between Russia and the United States, and sanctions have been announced. Tensions have grown on the NATO-Russia border. The meat has already been rolled into the minced meat and it will not be possible to roll the minced meat back into the meat. The CIA got it. But the Russian people now absolutely understand that the United States will always be the enemy of Russia, no matter whether socialist or capitalist. But I like it even more than the feigned hypocritical "friendship". Russia has never reached such heights as during the good old Cold War. All Russians have a huge incentive, long live the new Cold War!

smacker , 12 hours ago

More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to world peace.

It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.

Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never accept that.

Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will be.

smacker , 12 hours ago

More and more people have worked out that the fabricated tensions between the US and Russia
and US and China have little to do with those two countries posing any sort of threat to world peace.

It is all about the US trying to remain in No.1 position as uni-polar top dog via the Anglo American Empire.
We see examples of this every day in the M/E, South China Sea, Taiwan, Libya all over Eastern Europe,
Ukraine, Iran and now Belaruse. HK was added along the way.

Both Russia and China openly want a multi-polar world order. But the US will never accept that.

Hence the prospect of war. The only unknown today is what and where the trigger will be.

hang_the_banksters , 31 minutes ago

the best proof thAt Guccifer 2 was CIA hacking themselves to frame Wikileaks is this:

Guccifer has not yet been identified, indicted and arrested.

you'd think CIAFBINSA would be turning over every stone to the ends of the earth to bust Guccifer. we just had to endure 4 years of hysterical propaganda that Russia had hacked our election and that Trump was their secret agent. so Guccifer should be the Most Wanted Man on the planet. meanwhile, it's crickets from FBI. they arent even looking for him. because Guccifer is over at Langley. maybe someone outta ask Brennan where G2 is now.

remember when DOJ indicted all those GRU cybersoldiers? the evidence listed in the indictment was so stunning that i dont believe it. NSA so thoroughly hacked back into GRU that NSA was watching GRU through their own webcams and recording them doing Google searches to translate words which were written in Guccifer's blog posts about the DNC email leaks. NSA and DOJ must think we are all stupid, that we will believe NSA is so powerful to do that, yet they cant identify Guccifer.

i say i dont believe that for a second because no way Russian GRU are so stupid to even have webcams on the computers they use to hack, and it is absurd to think GRU soldiers on a Russian military base would be using Google instead of Yandex to translate words into English.

lay_arrow
ConanTheContrarian1 , 1 hour ago

As a confirmed conspiracy theorist since I came back from 'Nam, here's mine: The European nobility recognized with the American and French revolutions that they needed a better approach. They borrowed from the Tudors (who had to deal with Parliament) and began to rule by controlling the facade of representative government. This was enhanced by funding banks to control through currency, as well as blackmail and murder, and morphed into a complete propaganda machine like no other in history. The CIA, MI6 and Mossad, the mainstream media, deep plants in bureaucracy and "democratic" bodies all obey their dictates to create narratives that control our minds. Trump seems to offer hope, but remember, he could be their latest narrative.

greatdisconformity , 1 hour ago

A Democracy cannot function on a higher level than the general electorate.

The intelligence and education of the general electorate has been sliding for generations, because both political parties can play this to their advantage.

It is no accident that most of the messages coming from politicians are targeted to imbeciles.

[Aug 13, 2020] The Trump Administration's Economic War on the World: Hitting Adversaries, Punishing Innocents, Angering Allies by Doug Bandow

Aug 12, 2020 | original.antiwar.com
As if viewing gambling at Rick's Café Americain in Casablanca, Washington policymakers are shocked, shocked to discover that China, too, can apply economic pressure. Complained the Heritage Foundation's James Carafano: "the Chinese Communist government slapped sanctions on members of Congress as well as a U.S. ambassador. This action is intended to send the world a message: Fear us."

Of course, the penalties Carafano complained of were retaliation for Washington's imposition of similar sanctions on Chinese officials over the crackdown in Hong Kong. The bilateral pissing match will have no impact on Beijing's policies.

Carafano is not the first person to complain about China's economic sanctions. Mathew Ha of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies was upset by South Korea's refusal to follow Washington's criticism of the People's Republic of China, which he blamed on fear of PRC economic retaliation. Washington Examiner columnist Tom Rogan voiced similar irritation with Beijing's threatened economic retaliation after Canberra moved to counteract increased Chinese repression in Hong Kong.

Imagine. China is acting like the US!

It's almost charming to see such anger over Beijing's behavior when America continues to be the global leader in using its economic power to penalize governments which refuse to heed its commands. In January the president said he would punish Iraq if it acted like a sovereign state and insisted on the withdrawal of American troops.

In June the Trump administration threatened to impose sanctions on everyone, including family members , associated with the International Criminal Court if it proceeded with plans to investigate US military personnel. Washington would treat a United Nations body created by a multilateral treaty like Iran. And borrow enforcement tactics from North Korea, which punishes multiple generations for offenses against the regime.

Last month the Trump administration added new sanctions in an attempt to block construction of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline between Germany, a supposed ally, and Russia, essentially demanding that Berlin submit its energy policy to America for approval. (It is widely suspected in Europe that Washington's ultimate objective is to force US natural gas exports into the German market.)

However, what continues to most set America apart from ever other country, including China, is the former's insistence on conscripting the rest of the world to follow US policy. Originally American officials punished American companies and individuals trading with disfavored states. However, in the 1980s the US began expanding penalties for commerce with the Soviet Union and later Cuba to foreign, especially European, subsidiaries of American firms.

The next step, applied to Sudan in 1997, was financial sanctions, punishing any company or individual doing business with anyone in Sudan if they had the slightest connection to any US banking institution. Which prevented normal commerce, irrespective of where a firm was located. As a result, even Khartoum's embassies had to operate on a cash basis. After the 9/11 attacks Washington extended this form of penalty. Today the US uses America's dominant economic role to insist that every resident of earth follow Washington's directives.

The Trump administration sanctions everyone everywhere for everything even if there is no likelihood that doing so will have any practical impact. That is most evident in the administration's high-profile "maximum pressure" campaigns against Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela. So far none of America's targets have yielded.

Washington nevertheless has attempted to spin these failures as victories, since sanctions obviously hurt the countries involved. However, the original objective in every case was to change the target regime's policies. President Donald Trump promised a new regime in power in Caracas, a nuclear agreement with Pyongyang, and an improved nuclear deal with Tehran. In every case he failed to deliver. Indeed, his conduct toward Iran, which refused to even talk with him after he tossed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, degenerated into shameless begging when he promised the reigning clerics a better deal if they settled before the election. The administration's ongoing economic campaigns against Cuba, Russia, and Syria have been no more successful.

Now the president is using economic war against the PRC for domestic political purposes. Hoping to win reelection with a "tough on China" campaign, he likely does not care about sanctions' actual impact. His primary objective is to appear strong and determined to protect America. No matter how ineffective, most any economic penalty will fulfill that role.

History demonstrates that sanctions most often work when they receive wide international backing and are tied to something short of regime change or its policy equivalent. Moreover, commercial pressure needs to be part of a larger diplomatic process. And the conditions to end sanctions must be clear. When unrealistic terms are set, the policy is guaranteed to fail. Even impoverished regimes steadfastly resist demands to surrender political control and other vital interests. Hence the failure of the administration's promiscuous use of "maximum pressure." The result in every case has been maximum resistance. Cuba's communists have been defiant for six decades.

Unfortunately, economic sanctions usually hurt the wrong people. When I visited Cuba in 2018 the strongest critics of the Trump administration's reinvigorated sanctions were private businesspeople. Trump effectively wiped out investments made by multiple entrepreneurs hoping to welcome more American visitors. The private sector's growing success had undermined the communist regime by providing some 40 percent of jobs in Cuba, draining power and revenue away from the state. Trump reversed the process.

The impact of economic warfare often falls hardest on the most vulnerable members of societies already ravaged by authoritarian politics and socialist economics. In the worst case the impact of sanctions is akin to that of military conflict. And many US policymakers don't care. When UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked about the death of a half million Iraqi babies as a result of US sanctions, she famously replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it." No doubt she did, since the high human cost did not affect her. Today economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs warn that U.S. sanctions on Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela also are killing civilians, perhaps resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

In contrast, ruling elites are much better positioned to work commercial restrictions to their advantage. For instance, authoritarian regimes can use foreign threats to rally public support. The Trump administration's policies showed Iran's relative moderates, most importantly President Hassan Rouhani, to be fools to trust the U.S. Hardline factions strengthened their hold over the parliament in February's election and are expected to retake the presidency in next year's contest. Dissidents with whom I met on an earlier trip to Cuba complained that Washington's painful economic assault supported Fidel Castro's criticism of "Yanqui imperialism." The regime blamed its self-inflicted economic failures on the American embargo.

Almost 30 years ago I visited Belgrade and interviewed opposition leader Zoran Djindzic – who after Slobodan Milosevic's defeat became prime minister (and was later assassinated). Djindzic criticized US sanctions which, he complained, left his supporters without enough money even for gasoline to travel to his rallies while Milosevic's allies profited from illicit smuggling.

In part in reaction to such perverse impacts, the US enthusiastically added "smart" or individual sanctions to its repertoire. So Washington punishes specific individuals – often foreign officials in highly politicized cases. For instance, the US recently targeted the hardline party boss for Xinjiang, Chen Quanguo, and the local puppet chief executive for Hong Kong, Carrie Lam. Both are accomplices to great crimes who ultimately will find themselves looking for their proper level of hell. However, neither is likely to barge into Chinese President Xi Jinping's office to demand that he end the central government's oppression in territories that they oversee. If they did so they probably would end up in one of the prisons their opponents are assigned to.

The number of individual sanctions imposed is extraordinary. The Treasury Department's "Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List" runs 1421 pages and covers people, companies, organizations, ships, airplanes, and more. Most individual penalties, though they might make US policymakers feel good, do little more than inconvenience regime elites, who are denied the pleasure of purchasing a second home or hiding ill-gotten assets in America. In January the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher published its annual report on US sanctions, explaining:

" Between claims of 'financial carpet bombing' and dire warnings regarding the 'weaponization' of the US dollar, it was difficult to avoid hyperbole when describing the use of economic sanctions in 2019. Sanctions promulgated by the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ('OFAC') have become an increasingly prominent part of US foreign policy under the Trump administration. For the third year in a row, OFAC blacklisted more entities than it had under any previous administration, adding an average of 1,000 names to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons ('SDN') List each year – more than twice the annual average increase seen under either President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush. Targets included major state-owned oil companies such as Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. ('PdVSA'), ostensible US allies such as Turkey (and – almost – Iraq), major shipping lines, foreign officials implicated in allegations of corruption and abuse, drug traffickers, sanctions evaders, and more. As if one blacklisting was not enough, some entities had the misfortune of being designated multiple times under different regulatory authorities – each new announcement resulting in widespread media coverage if little practical impact. At last count, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ('IRGC') has been sanctioned under seven separate sanctions authorities. Eager to exert its own authorities in what has traditionally been a solely presidential prerogative, in 2019 the US Congress proposed dozens of bills to increase the use of sanctions. Compounding the impact of expansive new sanctions, OFAC's enforcement penalties hit a record of more than US $1.2 billion."

Other than collecting some cash – last year a bit more than a tenth of a percent of the deficit – Washington's economic warfare usually achieves little of note. Instead, the administration's sanctions have been the occasion for endless hypocrisy, which seems inevitable for American foreign policy, and sanctimony, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo supplies in abundance. He is notable for shamelessly lauding brutal, dangerous, and vile regimes, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, while sanctioning awful but actually lesser oppressors like Iran and Cuba. The more closely one studies administration policy, the more political and less serious it is revealed to be.

The Trump administration's ever-increasing use of the dollar to coerce its friends as well as adversaries also is creating resentment even among those who share many of America's interests. So far Europe, which helped negotiate the nuclear pact with Iran, has repeatedly chosen Tehran's Islamist regime over Washington's Trump administration. Most recently European governments rejected the latter's preposterous claim that it remained a participant in the JCPOA which it ostentatiously abandoned and thus could trigger reimposition of UN sanctions.

There also is growing incentive for China, Russia, Europe, and other nations to cooperate in looking for alternative mediums of exchange and payment systems. Commerce involving barter trade, gold, crypto/digital currencies, local currency/non-dollar transactions, and special facilities, such as Europe's INSTEX, which shuffles payments both ways without transfer through a US connected bank, is expanding. Nascent Chinese and Russian payment systems have begun to operate, though an alternative to the US dominated SWIFT system remains far off.

Predictably, Washington reacted to such developments by threatening to sanction anyone attempting to work around US sanctions, most notably the creators of INSTEX. The danger to American financial dominance is real. Even Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin acknowledged the long-term risk to the US dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. Peter Harrell of the Center for a New American Security observed: "US financial dominance is not immutable in a world where the United States constitutes a slowly but steadily shrinking share of global GDP. The Trump administration needs to weigh the near-term benefits of its aggressive use of sanctions against the potential longer-term risks of a global backlash." Obama administration Treasury Secretary Jack Lew warned that "While there is no immediate alternative to the centrality of the US economy and dollar, there are troubling signs that the current approach may accelerate efforts to create new options."

Long-time advocates of US economic aggression are horrified to find that Beijing now views commercial coercion as a legitimate tactic. After all, in their view the only country that has the mandate of heaven to rule the globe is America. Do as we say, not as we do, long has been Uncle Sam's mantra.

The good news is that the PRC's economic clout remains limited. Despite its malign intentions, it is far less able than the US to compel others to comply with its dictates. Financial penalties can be a useful international tool, but not as America's "go-to" response to every foreign challenge, especially given the human cost that so often results. Washington needs to relearn the concepts of humility, restraint, and proportionality before it sparks a global revolt that harms more innocent parties and further undermines America's economic clout.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Aug 13, 2020] Today, Washington is saturated with China hawks. Unfortunately, andy voices that champion keeping America strong by avoiding conflict with China are reflexively smeared as "appeasement."

Aug 13, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

America's actions have already caused Beijing and Moscow to put aside historic enmity and increase its partnership on economic issues and increasingly frequent joint military drills . China and Iran recently completed the basics of an energy and military cooperation agreement. Moreover, President Xi Jinping has become increasingly effective at deepening ties with European, African, and Latin American states.

Today, Washington is saturated with China hawks. Unfortunately, andy voices that champion keeping America strong by avoiding conflict with China are reflexively smeared as "appeasement." I fear America may one day find out to its harm that rejecting sober diplomatic engagement, which could have extended its security and prosperity well into the future, was dismissed in favor of an unnecessary military-first tactic of coercing China.

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after twenty-one years, including four combat deployments. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.

[Aug 12, 2020] Have to wonder at the re-emergence of Russiagate. Seems a major reason for its emergence is to shame voters into voting for Biden

Aug 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Erelis , Aug 10 2020 19:51 utc | 28

Have to wonder at the re-emergence of Russiagate. Seems a major reason for its emergence is to shame voters into voting for Biden. If you do not vote for Biden, you are Putin's useful idiot. In particular aimed at African Americans. Recently a NYT reporter claimed that it was Russian mean tweets, etc that caused a very dramatic drop in African American turn out in 2016. See screen shot by Aron Mate as the NYT reporter deleted the tweets.

https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1292637512813481984/photo/1

Looks like the DNC may be very nervous about Black turnout after Biden's many racial gaffes. Imagine Black turnout if he chooses Susan Rice as his VP. The DNC may have to go to Putin to ask for his help.



librul , Aug 10 2020 20:50 utc | 35

Spawn of the Dossier

Were you aware that the Steele dossier had a significant other?

"Rep Devin Nunes:

"You may remember that the State Department was involved and there were additional
dossiers that weren't the Steele dossier- except that they mirrored the Steele dossier.
And we think there is a connection between the [former] president of Brookings
and those dossiers that were given to the State Department."
"
...
Also from article:

"
The "additional dossiers that weren't the Steele dossier" addressed by Nunes
is a reference to a lesser known dodgy dossier produced by Brookings-affiliated
journalist Cody Shearer (brother-in-law of Strobe Talbott) which was crafted
explicitly to validate the wildly unsupported claims found in Steele's dossier.
"

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/08/10/the-brookings-hand-behind-russiagate-points-back-to-rhodes-trust-coup-on-america/

Jackrabbit , Aug 10 2020 21:03 utc | 38

I know it sounds wacky to those of you who still put some store in MSM nonsense, but I still believe that what we know as "Russiagate" was a carefully planned operation to:

  1. initiate a new anti-Russia McCarthyism -
    after Trump's election, MSM repeated Russigate accusations about Russian meddling every night for months;
  2. elect MAGA Nationalist (Trump, not Hillary!) -

    as Kissinger had called for in his Aug 2014 WSJ Op-Ed;

  3. discredit Wikileaks/Assange;
  4. lead to a vindictive settling of scores with Assange, Flynn, Manafort.

Also: It's likely that Skripal was the true "primary sub-source" and that he was drugged because he planned to flee back to Russia because he realised that he knew too much. He knew that the "dirty dossier" was meant to be untrue and easily debunked. It would never actually tarnish Trump - only Russia. Not surprisingly, Trump's MAGA Nationalism has been strengthened by Russiagate allegations while the anti-Russia sentiment remains.

!!

[Aug 12, 2020] What Binney concluded was that the data was *manipulated" and therefore can not be used to establish much of anything. However, the point that the data could not be transmitted at the speed estimated in 2016 is still basically valid and that the data was loaded onto removable storage is also still likely

Aug 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 12 2020 2:09 utc | 114

bevin at 83

From the document: "Binney is quoted as being convinced by Campbell's analysis and now believes the DNC data was hacked."

This person gets it wrong. What Binney concluded was that the data was *manipulated" and therefore can not be used to establish much of anything. However, the point that the data could not be transmitted at the speed estimated in 2016 is still basically valid and that the data was loaded onto removable storage is also still likely. *However*, that fact has always been mostly irrelevant, since no one knows how many times it was moved and by what means. Almost certainly it was moved by an external storage device at some point before ending up in Wikileaks. Craig Murray pretty much said as much.

How I would have done it is sit outside the DNC server location with a decent high-speed WiFi connection to their wireless network (I presume they have one, everyone does these days), and after doing whatever was necessary, either as an employee or a spy, to connect to the network, I would have downloaded the data to my wireless device (laptop, presumably). The NSA would be oblivious to this transfer, although depending on my anti-forensics skill, it might still have been detected internally by a computer forensics expert. CrowdStrike never found the actual leaker or the exfiltration method AFAIK; all they found was some malware - which means whoever took it was either authorized to do so (or used the credentials of someone else authorized to do so - standard operating procedure for either external or internal spies) or was very good at anti-forensics. Or CrowdStrike was simply incompetent. Or all three.

What the data analysis *does* do is disprove the US allegation that Russians extracted the data *over the Internet* *directly* to Wikileaks. Nothing in the Mueller report suggests the data was moved by external storage media. Binney's statement that if it was moved over the Internet, the NSA would know it and could prove it remains true. That they never have is one huge red flag about the Mueller claims.

The rest of the conspiracy analysis in the linked document is only minimally interesting. The 5G stuff just shows the writer to be a non-scientist, as they fully admit, while still suggesting that 5G is some sort of health threat. I wouldn't be surprised if it is to some degree. The problem is that no one outside the non-ionizing radiation scientific community has any real clue to *what* degree. If the international organizations have concluded it is not, it takes, as they say, "extraordinary evidence" to prove them wrong. None of that has been forthcoming, in particular nothing by Snake here. So it's a waste of time to take it seriously. I've asked Snake for *one* single experiment done by *anyone* with real credentials that uses the actual level of radiation from either a 5G phone or a tower to cause subjects to get the virus. AFAIK there is no such experiment done anywhere by anyone. So there is no evidence it happens - or for that matter, no evidence it doesn't except current recognized science. Which, as I say, has been dismissed by the real experts. Everything else is speculation - and conspiracy theory.

In general, I like conspiracy theories. They provide a fertile field for investigation - if someone has the means to do so. Most conspiracy theorists don't have the means. They just regurgitate the available reports - which, by definition, are unreliable - and engage in "analysis", which really means speculation. Only on the ground investigation can begin to get at the truth.

Back in 1968 or 1969, I forget which, I actually went to Point Pleasant, West Virginia, to talk to people about the legendary "Mothman" that journalist John Keel had written about. I talked to the cops involved, a stringer reporter who had accompanied Keel in his investigations, and some of the UFO witnesses in the area. I couldn't establish what actually happened from this, but it *did* confirm what Keel had written was what he was told.

Keel was an "old-school" journalist who believed in "ground truth". The problem with most conspiracy theorists is that most of them don't have either the technical expertise or the resources to get "ground truth". Keel himself told me once that he would go to a location, do some investigation, deliver a talk of some sort, and write off his expenses as tax write-offs, which he said the IRS was not happy about. And he was by no means rich, his books never sold that much. Without a significant income, it's next to impossible to determine the truth of 99% of the events in any given conspiracy theory.

Or for that matter, the truth in 99% of the main stream news. But it's not 100%. The other problem conspiracy theorists have - and we see it here daily - is that just because a report comes from the MSM, it *has* to be false in its *entirety*. Which is ridiculous. Most of the MSM news is valid reporting. It's just how much is left out and how the spin is applied from the wording or who the source was that is the problem. A few things might be completely made up, but most things aren't. But if the reporter hasn't himself done the leg-work to verify the statements of the sources, then it has to be considered unreliable or at least incomplete.

Anyway, that's for the link. It was interesting.

[Aug 12, 2020] BREAKING: New York Judge Requests Testimony from Julian Assange in Seth Rich Case

Aug 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 12 2020 14:02 utc | 131

Don't know if this is true, but...YES!

BREAKING: New York Judge Requests Testimony from Julian Assange in Seth Rich Case

[Aug 12, 2020] The ongoing inquest into the cause of Dawn Sturgess's death remain at risk of exposure; to reduce that risk and move on to a new policy towards Russia and other enemies, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have now forced Sedwill and Younger into retirement, concealing the purge and their purpose

Aug 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Australian lady , Aug 11 2020 2:53 utc | 59

"The Sedwill/Younger narrative of what happened on the day, the British prosecution case against two GRU agents for the novichok attack, and the ongoing inquest into the cause of Dawn Sturgess's death remain at risk of exposure; to reduce that risk and move on to a new policy towards Russia and other enemies, Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings have now forced Sedwill and Younger into retirement, concealing the purge and their purpose": John Helmer."Dances with Bears" website.
Thanks to Mark2 for the YouTube link on the 77th brigade. You may find Helmer's investigations as fascinating as I do.
And as an adjunct to uncle tungsten's comments re. the round table and Rhodes scholarship recipients. Susan Rice is a Rhodes scholar. This is portentous.


Paracletus , Aug 11 2020 3:24 utc | 61

"The long read [...] does not account for who or what instigated the British spies into launching their campaign against Trump. My hunch is that then CIA director John Brennan was the central person behind it."

You're starting from the assumption that our British "cousins" are junior partners in the American hegemon's globalist designs, but in fact American imperialism is a departure from its founding principles, in which willing Anglophiles (Aaron Burr, J.P. Morgan, the Dulles Bros., to name a few -- you get the picture) have always subverted efforts by US leaders to break from British geopolitics as formulated by Halford Mackinder, etc., for whom the survival of Atlanticist world power still depends on preventing US-Russia collaboration to bring about a world anti-colonialist order. This oligarchy, whose species memory far surpasses that of the clueless masses for whom they rewrite history, can still feel the burn of Catherine the Great's support for the American Revolution when she refused George III Russia's help suppressing rebellion in the American colonies, or when Alexander II deployed two whole fleets of the Russian Navy to prevent the British from bailing out the failing Confederacy. More recently, Franklin Roosevelt sent Churchill into apoplectic rage when he categorically rejected that racist pig's demand to return her colonies back to Britain at the end of the war.

Since at least the assassination of Lincoln (or earlier, when British soldiers came down from Canada to burn down Washington in 1814) the British Empire and its surviving heirs have always been at the core of efforts to denature America, replacing win-win Hamiltonian economics with a phony "free-trade" ideology increasingly adopted as gospel by "western" economic authorities, and sabotaging every effort by Americans to play a productive, cooperative role with other nations in world affairs. Just like Hillary Clinton and her crazed minions refuse to acknowledge the election of Donald Trump, the Brits never accepted the loss of their former colonies, and have never missed an opportunity to subvert the uniquely American System by which we became a world power -- no thanks to any kind of "special relationship" with Britain, which quickly sank its hooks into our finances by establishing Wall Street as an outpost of the City of London, and infiltrating all of our political and economic as well as cultural and academic institutions (Harvard, e.g.) with devotees of that financial empire. True American interests have always been betrayed by Anglophile fifth-columnists aligned with the Brits -- more broadly defined as a true oligarchy that goes back to Venice and its alliance with the Ottoman Empire to bring down Constantinople, the gateway to a Eurasian powerhouse which then and now threatens to weaken these globalists' hold over world affairs.

So "Rule Britannia" is still the battle cry of the Five Eyes "intelligence community" as it spins out wild, implausible narratives to demonize every alternative to the necrotic vulture capitalism behind globalist hegemony, which most mistakenly see as an American enterprise but in reality is the essence of the "Deep State" that so-called patriots believe they oppose. Such is these psy-warriors' control of collective awareness, through mainstream media and well-placed mouthpieces, as well as, increasingly, "independent" social media and education itself, that red-blooded Americans who instinctively deplore this usurpation of their sovereignty blame Russia, or China, or whomever, and mindlessly parrot absurd "intelligence community" slanders against any country standing up to the status quo Perfidious Albion has been craftily building since... well, since the day after Yorktown. Any initial skepticism at this historical perspective, protestations that such claims are preposterous and the British Empire died long ago, will quickly fall away as the origin of every fake news item used against the Trump administration is examined, whether paid for by the Democratic Party, the FBI, etc. Consider this a mere primer in a much-needed re-framing of strategic analyses at this time. As Leviathan lashes out in increasing pain at an encroaching multi-polar paradigm of development and growth, its DNA will become increasingly apparent.

My hunch is that the "long read," by omitting this piece of the puzzle, is a bit of a cover-up... or, as they say, "limited hangout."

Jackrabbit , Aug 11 2020 3:44 utc | 62

Paracletus @Aug11 3:24 #61

a bit of a cover-up... or, as they say, "limited hangout."

I concur with that.

I believe that the operation was approved by bigwigs in both the US and UK establishment.

Gina Haspel's presence in London is not likely to be an accident. If the operation was supposed to elect Hillary instead of Trump, I suspect she wouldn't be CIA Director today.

We should not underestimate the angst in 2013 and 2014 at Russia's interventions in Syria and Ukraine. Russian assertiveness showed that their alliance with China was serious.

See my comment @Aug10 21:03 #38 for more.

!!

uncle tungsten , Aug 11 2020 10:37 utc | 75

Australian lady #71

The poms have a way of getting away with this kind of stuff - have been doing it for their entire history. Lots of conspiring, lots of coverupping. But when the Americans are actively involved I guess things can get complicated.


Thank you for that post. re Skripals - it is also possible that the two 'Russian chaps' picked up what they were after (left at a drop by Sergei) and returned to London as planned and then on to Russia that night. When the MI6 imagined rendezvous between the Russian chaps and Skripals failed to materialise and then things went pear shape at the pub, MI6 decided to fix the Skripals. Perhaps they left the 'Russian chaps' alone as it was all too late or too dangerous for MI6 to grab them as well. Perhaps Sergei gave them material that was promptly uploaded and sent home as the two rode the train to London. They caught the 1300 train afaik and the Skripals were 'hit' at 1700 more or less.

But something critical seems to have gone down at the pub and MI6 was not in that loop. Mayhem ensued as the Skripals then walked away to their doom.

Pure speculation on my part as I seek logic in a black ops world.

Thank you for the advice on Susan Rice. Rhodes Scholar data base here for barflies to ponder . See Alumni and Volunteers for a roadmap etc.

[Aug 09, 2020] Russia, China and Iran seeking to influence US ahead of elections, top intelligence official says - US elections 2020 by David Smith

Aug 07, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

Russia is backing Donald Trump, China is supporting Joe Biden and Iran is seeking to sow chaos in the US presidential election, a top intelligence official has warned in a sobering assessment of foreign meddling.

The statement on Friday by William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, raises fears of a repeat of the 2016 election, when Russia manipulated social media to help Trump and hurt his opponent Hillary Clinton.

"Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia 'establishment'," Evanina said. "This is consistent with Moscow's public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration's policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside Russia."

Evanina identified Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia Ukrainian politician, as "spreading claims about corruption – including through publicized leaked phone calls" to attack Biden's campaign. The Washington Post reported that Derkach has met repeatedly with Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who has pushed conspiracy theories about the former vice-president.

US Postal Service announces cost-saving changes amid vote-by-mail fears Read more

Evanina also warned that some "Kremlin-linked actors" were spreading false claims about corruption to undermine Biden, while others were trying to "boost President Trump's candidacy via social media and Russian television".

Evanina, the top intelligence official monitoring threats to the election, is a Trump appointee. His statement lists China before Russia but presents less specific evidence of direct interference by Beijing.

"We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as unpredictable – does not win re-election," Evanina said. "China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China's interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China."

He added: "Beijing recognizes that all of these efforts might affect the presidential race."

Evanina highlighted China's criticism of Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the closure of China's consulate in Houston and the White House responses to Chinese actions in Hong Kong and the South China Sea. On Friday, the US imposed sanctions on Hong Kong's chief executive, Carrie Lam, and 10 other senior officials. Trump has also ordered crackdowns on the Chinese owners of the popular apps TikTok and WeChat.

Iran, meanwhile, was seeking to undermine US democratic institutions and Trump, and to divide the country ahead of the 2020 elections, Evanina's statement said.

"Iran's efforts along these lines probably will focus on on-line influence, such as spreading disinformation on social media and recirculating anti-US content. Tehran's motivation to conduct such activities is, in part, driven by a perception that President Trump's reelection would result in a continuation of US pressure on Iran in an effort to foment regime change."

Trump pulled the US out of a nuclear deal agreed by Barack Obama and imposed various sanctions on Tehran.

The anti-Trump pressure group National Security Action denied that China's public actions rose to the level of Russia's covert election interference. "Jarringly, the statement attempted to minimize what Russia is doing – again attacking our democracy in a bid to secure Trump's reelection – by comparing it to China's public criticism of the administration's recent punitive measures against Beijing," a spokesperson, Ned Price, said. "Any interference in our democracy is unacceptable, but there is no equivalence between the two efforts."

In a press conference at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Friday evening, Trump reacted to the assessment by insisting: "I think that the last person Russia wants to see in office is Donald Trump because nobody's been tougher on Russia than I have, ever.

"China would love us to have an election where Donald Trump lost to 'Sleepy' Joe Biden. They would own our country. If Joe Biden was president, China would own our country ... Iran would love to see me not be president."

The president added: "I'll make this statement. If and when we win, we will make deals with Iran very quickly. We'll make deals with North Korea very quickly. Whatever happened to the war in North Korea? You haven't seen that, have you?"

A hacking and social media campaign by Russia in 2016 is credited by US intelligence with helping Trump to victory. It triggered the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which described Russian meddling but did not conclude that there had been direct collusion by Trump or his campaign.

The November election is already under siege from the coronavirus pandemic, concerns over whether the system can handle a surge in mail-in voting and constant attacks by Trump on the integrity of the process.

Evanina warned that foreign adversaries may try to interfere with election systems by trying to sabotage the voting process, stealing election data or questioning the validity of results: "Foreign efforts to influence or interfere with our elections are a direct threat to the fabric of our democracy."

The report raised concern on Capitol Hill. Marco Rubio and Mark Warner, the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said they "encourage political leaders on all sides to refrain from weaponizing intelligence matters for political gain".

Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate majority leader, said: "It is no surprise our adversaries have preferences in our elections. Foreign nations have tried to influence our politics throughout American history. As Director Evanina's statement makes clear, Russian malign influence efforts remain a significant threat. But it would be a serious mistake to ignore the growing threats posed by China and Iran."

[Aug 09, 2020] There is little incentive for the Times and their intelligence-community "sources" to spin more elaborate lies when the media-political-intellectual culture has degraded to the point that no one thinks beyond the level of the naked meme. The sole lesson for the Beltway establishment from 2003 Iraq-WMD fiasco is to try to avoid lies specific enough that they can be disproven.

Aug 09, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

David G , Aug 8 2020 21:23 utc | 30

What MoA is focusing on here – that the body of the NY Times article lacks any specific allegations to back up the scare headline – closely parallels the "Russian bounties" story from a few weeks ago.

In that case as well, someone who actually read the initial, supposedly blockbuster piece, found nothing to support the headline or provide details beyond the lead sentence or two of the piece. And I'm speaking in objective terms: leaving aside whether a reader might or might not find any specific alleged findings credible, they simply weren't there.

The follow-up "Russian bounties" articles added a very few specific allegations. These were unconvincing, but more to the point, nobody paid attention to them or seemed to feel they were needed, and they ceased within a few days. This was because the initial article had served its purpose simply by putting this one sentence out there: "Russia is paying bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers."

That one bare assertion is now established as a meme (in more like the original sense of the word than the funny pictures everyone sends around) that impersonates as an established fact, and now regularly appears in establishment narratives, such as remarks by members of Congress, and other corporate media pieces, e.g. this week's interview of Trump by Jonathan Swan, which itself got a lot of coverage: ("Trump didn't bring up the bounties in his phone conversation with Putin!").

The Times article MoA tries to examine today, only to find it doesn't actually exist in substance beyond the headline, serves the same purpose, but for this sentence: "Russian meddling in U.S. elections continues in 2020." This is necessary for the narrative managers so that they aren't limited to referring to "meddling" as a mere historic event from 2016, and can treat it as a live – and established as true – threat now. (Of course, the meddling in 2016 was itself a phony story, and this shows how these manufactured memes can be stacked one on top of the other to create the false edifice that the Beltway consensus successfully purveys as the real world to most people in the U.S.)

There is little incentive for the Times and their intelligence-community "sources" to spin more elaborate lies when the media-political-intellectual culture has degraded to the point that no one thinks beyond the level of the naked meme. They thus avoid two problems associated with staging more elaborate hoaxes: (1) it's more work; (2) specific falsehoods can be disproven with facts. The sole major lesson the Beltway establishment took from the 2003 Iraq-WMD fiasco is to try to avoid lies specific enough that they can be disproven.


Richard Steven Hack , Aug 9 2020 2:28 utc | 52

"Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose."

That's always been the purpose of intelligence agencies - in every nation throughout history.

Government agencies work for their own benefit, without exception. And the leaders of government always work the same way, regardless of the actual "national interests" or "public interest".

The problem is that everyone believes the fantasy that somehow they can "elect" leaders and government workers who don't do this. But all elections are manipulated by the political elites themselves to insure that no one gets into power who might the remotest notion of upsetting the profitable apply cart. And if any movement arose that sought to prevent the manipulation of elections - say, a "third party" or some movement to de-fund parties by elites - that movement itself would be deflected or undermined or taken over.

It's a circus and you all are the circus animals. Get used to it.

J W , Aug 9 2020 2:07 utc | 51

Posted by: JC | Aug 9 2020 0:45 utc | 47

I don't know where the idea that China wants Biden to win came from. The consensus I get from reading actual PRC media in native Chinese is certainly the opposite: They are 100% sure the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate either way, so they will rather have Trump's outward incompetence than another Obama-like knife-behind-the-smile schemer.

Paul , Aug 9 2020 0:58 utc | 48

It is the rulers themselves and those who rule the rulers, who are fearful of losing control of the levers of power. I recall the British in Egypt boasting: 'we don't rule Egypt, we rule the rulers.'

It is not the accumulation of power for its own sake that is the intoxicating elixir of the ruling elite. It is furthering their objectives, both open and hidden.

To understand their primary objectives one should ask: just what is the single most bi partisan policy objective of US presidents, since Woodrow Wilson, with a few minor differences of opinion and emphasis from Eisenhower and Kennedy? Just what was the first priority item on the agenda at both the 1919 Paris 'Peace' Conference and the first United Nations meetings at Lake Success?

It was amending the title deeds of Palestine and attempting to confer some kind of quasi legitimacy on the new title deed holders.

The rulers are very afraid the future of the Zionist project is slipping away from their control. So in their rabid and delusional minds anything goes from now on in the furtherance of that self inflicted nightmare and the elimination of anyone or any country that inhibits that objective. Watch out.

[Aug 09, 2020] NYT as an amplifier for the mislabeled US 'Intelligence' Agencies rumor and baseless claims about foreign interferences in US elections

The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy, just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
Aug 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
No Evidence Of Foreign Interference In U.S. Elections, U.S. Intelligence Says

Yesterday the mislabeled U.S. 'Intelligence' Agencies trotted out more nonsense claims about foreign interferences in U.S. elections.

The New York Times sensationally headlines:

Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says
But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr.

But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia Continues Interfering' statement:

Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.

At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.

But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike Mr. Trump, the officials said.

The assessment, included in a statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.

The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it up.

When one reads the statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:

For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.

After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian parliamentarian published Ukrainian evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in U.S. elections?

The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process."

But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?

As a recent piece in Foreign Affairs noted :

The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the flames.

But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?

Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence.

Even the NYT writers have to admit that there is nothing there:

The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...

and

Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.

How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?

If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?

Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget.

Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.

Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink

[Aug 08, 2020] Russia Hoax- Are We All Being Played- Put Up Or Shut Up! - Zero Hedge

Highly recommended!
Aug 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2020 - 21:05 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com,

Many people have asked me why I haven't written a book since the start of my reporting on the FBI's debunked investigation into whether President Donald Trump's campaign conspired with Russia.

I haven't done so because I don't believe the most important part of the story has been told: indictments and accountability. I also don't believe we actually know what really happened on a fundamental level and how dangerous it is to our democratic republic. That will require a deeper investigation that answers the fundamental questions of the role played by former senior Obama officials, including the former President and his aides.

We're getting closer but we're still not there.

Still, the extent of what happened during the last presidential election is much clearer now than it was years ago when trickles of evidence led to years of what Fox News host Sean Hannity and I would say was peeling back the layers of an onion. We now know that the U.S. intelligence and federal law enforcement was weaponized against President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and administration by a political opponent. We now know how many officials involved in the false investigation into the president trampled the Constitution.

I never realized how terrible the deterioration inside the system had become until four years ago when I stumbled onto what was happening inside the FBI. Those concerns were brought to my attention by former and current FBI agents, as well as numerous U.S. intelligence officials aware of the failures inside their own agencies. But it never occurred to me when I first started looking into fired FBI Director James Comey and his former side kick Deputy Director A ndrew McCabe that the cultural corruption of these once trusted American institutions was so vast.

I've watched as Washington D.C. elites make promises to get to the bottom of it and bring people to justice. They appear to make promises to the American people they never intended to keep. Who will be held accountable for one of the most egregious abuses of power by bureaucrats in modern American political history? Now I fear those who perpetuated this culture of corruption won't ever really be held accountable.

These elite bureaucrats will, however, throw the American people a bone. It's how they operate.

They expect us to accept it and then move on.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

One example is the most recent decision by the Justice Department to ask that charges be dropped on former national security advisor Michael Flynn. It's just a bone because we know now these charges should have never been brought against the three-star general but will anyone on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team have to answer for ruining a man's life. No, they won't. In fact, Flynn is still fighting for his freedom.

Think about what has already happened? From former Attorney General Jeff Session's appointment of Utah Prosecutor John Huber to the current decision by Attorney General William Barr to appoint Connecticut prosecutor John Durham to investigate the malfeasance what has been done? Really, nothing at all. No one has been indicted.

The investigation by the FBI against Trump was never predicated on any real evidence but instead, it was a set-up to usurp the American voters will. It doesn't matter that the establishment didn't like Trump, in 2016 the Americans did. Isn't that a big enough reason to bring charges against those involved?

His election was an anomaly for the Washington elite. They were stunned when Trump won and went into full gear to save their own asses from discovery and target anyone who supported him. The truth is they couldn't stand the Trump and American disruptors who elected him to office.

Now they will work hand in fist to ensure that this November election is not a repeat win of 2016. We're already seeing that play out everyday on the news.

But Barr and Durham are now up against a behemoth political machine that seems to be operating more like a steam roller the closer we get to the November presidential elections.

Barr told Fox News in June that he expects Durham's report to come before the end of summer but like always, it's August and we're still waiting.

Little is known about the progress of Durham's investigation but it's curious as to why nothing has been done as of yet and the Democrats are sure to raise significant questions or concerns if action is taken before the election. They will charge that Durham's investigation is politically motivated. That is, unless the charges are just brought against subordinates and not senior officials from the former administration.

I sound cynical because I am right now. It doesn't mean I won't trying to get to the truth or fighting for justice.

But how can you explain the failure of Durham and Barr to actually interview key players such as Comey, or former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, or former CIA Director John Brennan. That is what we're hearing from them.

If I am going to believe my sources, Durham has interviewed former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, along with FBI Special agent Joe Pientka, among some others. Still, nothing has really been done or maybe once again they will throw us bone.

If there are charges to be brought they will come in the form of taking down the subordinates, like Strzok, Pientka and the former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith , who altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application against short term 2016 campaign advisor Carter Page.

Remember DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report in December, 2019: It showed that a critical piece of evidence used to obtain a warrant to spy on Page in 2016 was falsified by Clinesmith.

But Clinesmith didn't act alone. He would have had to have been ordered to do such a egregious act and that could only come from the top. Let's see if Durham ever hold those Obama government officials accountable.

I don't believe he will.

Why? Mainly because of how those senior former Obama officials have behaved since the troves of information have been discovered. They have written books, like Comey, McCabe, Brennan and others, who have published Opinion Editorials and have taken lucrative jobs at cable news channels as experts.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

It's frankly disgusting and should anger every American. We would never get away with what these former Obama officials have done. More disturbing is that the power they wield through their contacts in the media and their political connections allows these political 'oligarchs' unchallenged power like never before.

Here's one of the latest examples.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top prosecutor Andrew Weissmann just went after Barr in a New York Times editorial on Wednesday. He went so far as to ask the Justice Department employees to ignore any direction by Barr or Durham in the Russia investigations. From Weissmann's New York Times Opinion Editorial:

Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That's because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.

Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The other , led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them.

But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations , should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.

I think Barr and Durham need to move fast if they are ever going to do anything and if they are going to prove me wrong. We know now that laws were broken and our Constitution was torched by these rogue government officials.

We shouldn't give the swamp the time-of-day to accuse the Trump administration of playing politics or interfering with this election. If the DOJ has evidence and is ready to indict they need to do it now.

If our Justice Department officials haven't done their job to expose the corruption, clean out our institutions and hold people accountable then it will be a tragedy for our nation and the American people. I'm frankly tired of the back and forth. I'm tired of being toyed with and lied to. I believe they should either put up or shut up.

[Aug 08, 2020] The New York Times has finally woken up to the fact that Seattle s CHOP was a complete disaster – a month after it was disbanded by Guy Birchall

Somalia in Seattle ;-)
It would be interesting to see how many of inhabitants of CHAZ zone, who experinced the "summer of love" will vote for Trump in Novemebr.
Notable quotes:
"... The land of soy milk and honey was disbanded on July 1 and was duly eulogised by the usual suspects as basically an extended block party. A month on, the NY Times finally got around to sending a reporter to speak to the people who lived and worked in the area before the protestors moved in and produced an admittedly excellent piece of reportage on the situation. ..."
"... The piece, as journalist Michael Tracey observed on Twitter, would have been dismissed as right-wing propaganda just a month ago and shows that this little experiment in anarcho-communism was a million miles away from paradise. ..."
"... The picture painted by the residents is one of gangs of armed thugs running protection rackets and widespread vandalism. The first person mentioned in the piece, a gay man of Middle Eastern extraction named Faizel Khan, reveals that to get to the coffee shop he runs he had to get permission from "gun wielding white men" who at one point barricaded him and all his customers in the store. ..."
"... In his pre-CHOP days, Mr Hearns was a security guard for many years, but after the police vacated the area (their precinct was taken over by protesters and then promptly set on fire) he became part of the "Black Lives Matter Community Patrol". This patrol had locals "pay for their protection." ..."
"... It doesn't sound like they were particularly good at ensuring community cohesion either, considering six people were shot under their jurisdiction and two of them died. ..."
"... Observers also noted that rather than being a multi-racial melting pot of equality, the CHOP turned into a "white occupation" as the numbers of Antifa activists began to outnumber the BLM protesters. They also established "black only segregated areas" within the CHOP, making it frightening similar to the Confederacy, which also, coincidentally, seceded from the union. ..."
"... The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. ..."
Aug 08, 2020 | www.rt.com

Following an investigative report the paper of record has revealed that business owners who were stuck in the Capitol Hill Organised Protest 'aren't so sure about abolishing the police'. No sh*t Sherlock.

The New York Times has done something distinctly out of character and actually produced some decent journalism. Taking a break from getting editors sacked for allowing Republican senators to write op-eds and forcing out the few remaining sane people on their staff for not quaffing the identity politics Cool-Aid enthusiastically enough, they dispatched a reporter to Seattle to pick through the remnants of the CHOP , a month after it closed.

The Capital Hill Organised Protest, formally CHAZ (Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone), was the area of the city that, for 23 glorious days, declared independence from the United States. A bunch of Black Lives Matter and Antifa radicals hoofed out the police and decided to try and run the area as some sort of Marxist utopia. What they actually established was a gang run hellhole that made the Wild West look like Switzerland.

It wasn't described as such at the time of course. Seattle's mayor said the city was in for a "summer of love" and most of the left-wing press would have had you believe that it was pretty much a hippy commune full of free vegan food and urban collective farms.

The land of soy milk and honey was disbanded on July 1 and was duly eulogised by the usual suspects as basically an extended block party. A month on, the NY Times finally got around to sending a reporter to speak to the people who lived and worked in the area before the protestors moved in and produced an admittedly excellent piece of reportage on the situation. It was headlined, "Abolish the Police? Those Who Survived the Chaos in Seattle Aren't So Sure." The piece, as journalist Michael Tracey observed on Twitter, would have been dismissed as right-wing propaganda just a month ago and shows that this little experiment in anarcho-communism was a million miles away from paradise.

To say they "aren't sure" has to be the understatement of the year. The picture painted by the residents is one of gangs of armed thugs running protection rackets and widespread vandalism. The first person mentioned in the piece, a gay man of Middle Eastern extraction named Faizel Khan, reveals that to get to the coffee shop he runs he had to get permission from "gun wielding white men" who at one point barricaded him and all his customers in the store.

Mr Khan's experiences during these three and a bit weeks of lawlessness were so horrendous that he and a host of other small business owners, described as "lonely voices in progressive areas," are suing Seattle after the local police force refused to respond to their calls for the duration of the CHOP. And as the litany of horrors they were subjected to is laid bare in the NY Times article, it is not hard to see why.

Another character we meet in this saga is Rick Hearns. In his pre-CHOP days, Mr Hearns was a security guard for many years, but after the police vacated the area (their precinct was taken over by protesters and then promptly set on fire) he became part of the "Black Lives Matter Community Patrol". This patrol had locals "pay for their protection." Now what other organisation does that remind you of? If you can't think of it, may I suggest you watch virtually any Martin Scorsese movie and I think you'll get the picture.

It doesn't sound like they were particularly good at ensuring community cohesion either, considering six people were shot under their jurisdiction and two of them died. Interestingly, since they were replacing the "institutionally racist" police force, (run by a black woman incidentally but why let facts spoil it) one of the victims was a black teenager.

Observers also noted that rather than being a multi-racial melting pot of equality, the CHOP turned into a "white occupation" as the numbers of Antifa activists began to outnumber the BLM protesters. They also established "black only segregated areas" within the CHOP, making it frightening similar to the Confederacy, which also, coincidentally, seceded from the union. Oh, and they had a Warlord, Raz from CHAZ, too, just as an icing on the cake.

Quite why these so-called activists felt the need to see how anarchy turns out in a world where Somaila exists is beyond me, and frankly any sane person who is even vaguely aware of history. I'm sure if they'd managed to get hold of the port it wouldn't have been long before they decided to give piracy on the high seas a try, but alas they didn't have the time.

This just makes the tone of the NY Times piece all the more baffling. While it does chart the horrors of the zone well, framing the notion of "abolishing the police" as anything other than irredeemably stupid is frankly ridiculous. I suppose they do deserve praise for finally telling the story, but in no way does it make up for the way they have fomented and given succour to the absurd and dangerous ideas that gave rise to the CHOP for so long.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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

Guy Birchall, British journalist covering current affairs, politics and free speech issues. Recently published in The Sun and Spiked Online. Follow him on Twitter @guybirchall 7 Aug, 2020 22:11 Get short URL CHAZ/CHOP protesters remove man for bothering them, June 13, 2020

[Aug 08, 2020] Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says

Aug 08, 2020 | www.msn.com

Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says Julian E. Barnes 4 hrs ago


Trump falsely claims coronavirus is "disappearing" and Russia Coronavirus updates: School district says 100 students, staff positive for COVID-19 The New York Times logo Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says

WASHINGTON -- Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.

a group of people standing next to a person in a suit and tie: Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week in Wilmington, Del. A new intelligence assessment said Russia continues to interfere in the election on President Trump's behalf, while China prefers Mr. Biden. © Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times Joseph R. Biden Jr. last week in Wilmington, Del. A new intelligence assessment said Russia continues to interfere in the election on President Trump's behalf, while China prefers Mr. Biden.

At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.

me marginwidth=

But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike Mr. Trump, the officials said.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

The assessment, included in a statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.

The White House has objected in the past to conclusions that Moscow is working to help Mr. Trump, and Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed growing concern that the intelligence agencies are not being forthright enough about Russia's preference for him and that the agencies are introducing China's anti-Trump stance to balance the scales.

a group of people posing for a picture: Trump supporters in Ohio on Thursday, during the president's visit to a factory in Clyde. © Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times Trump supporters in Ohio on Thursday, during the president's visit to a factory in Clyde.

The assessment appeared to draw a distinction between what it called the "range of measures" being deployed by Moscow to influence the election and its conclusion that China prefers that Mr. Trump be defeated.

It cited efforts coming out of pro-Russia forces in Ukraine to damage Mr. Biden and Kremlin-linked figures who "are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television."

China, it said, has so far signaled its position mostly through increased public criticism of the administration's tough line on China on a variety of fronts.

An American official briefed on the intelligence said it was wrong to equate the two countries. Russia, the official said, is a tornado, capable of inflicting damage on American democracy now. China is more like climate change, the official said: The threat is real and grave, but more long term.

Democratic lawmakers made the same point about the report, which also found that Iran was seeking "to undermine U.S. democratic institutions, President Trump, and to divide the country" ahead of the general election.

"Unfortunately, today's statement still treats three actors of differing intent and capability as equal threats to our democratic elections," Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a joint statement.

Asked about the report during a news conference on Friday night at his golf club in New Jersey, Mr. Trump said, "The last person Russia wants to see in office is Donald Trump because nobody's been tougher on Russia than I have." He said that if Mr. Biden won the presidency, "China would own our country."

Aides and allies of Mr. Biden assailed Mr. Trump, saying that he had repeatedly sided with President Vladimir V. Putin on whether Russia had intervened to help him in 2016 and that he had been impeached by the House for trying to pressure Ukraine into helping him undercut Mr. Biden.

"Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly invited, emboldened and even tried to coerce foreign interference in American elections," said Tony Blinken, a senior adviser to the former vice president.

It is not clear how much China is doing to interfere directly in the presidential election. Intelligence officials have briefed Congress in recent days that much of Beijing's focus is on state and local races. But Mr. Evanina's statement on Friday suggested China was on weighing an increased effort.

"Although China will continue to weigh the risks and benefits of aggressive action, its public rhetoric over the past few months has grown increasingly critical of the current administration's Covid-19 response, closure of China's Houston Consulate and actions on other issues," Mr. Evanina said.

Mr. Evanina pointed to growing tensions over territorial claims in the South China Sea, Hong Kong autonomy, the TikTok app and other issues. China, officials have said, has also tried to collect information on the presidential campaigns, as it has in previous contests.

The release on Friday was short on specifics, but that was largely because the intelligence community is intent on trying to protect its sources of information, said Senator Angus King, the Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

"The director has basically put the American people on notice that Russia in particular, also China and Iran, are going to be trying to meddle in this election and undermine our democratic system," said Mr. King, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Intelligence officials said there was no way to avoid political criticism when releasing information about the election. An official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that the goal was not to rank order threats and that Russia, China and Iran all pose a danger to the election.

Fighting over the intelligence reports, the official said, only benefits adversaries trying to sow divisions.

While both Beijing and Moscow have a preference, the Chinese and Russian influence campaigns are very different, officials said.

Outside of a few scattered examples, it is hard to find much evidence of intensifying Chinese influence efforts that could have a national effect.

Much of what China is doing currently amounts to using its economic might to influence local politics, officials said. But that is hardly new. Beijing is also using a variety of means to push back on various Trump administration policies, including tariffs and bans on Chinese tech companies, but those efforts are not covert and it is unclear if they would have an effect on presidential politics.

Russia, but not China, is trying to "actively influence" the outcome of the 2020 election, said the American official briefed on the underlying intelligence.

"The fact that adversaries like China or Iran don't like an American president's policies is normal fare," said Jeremy Bash, a former Obama administration official. "What's abnormal, disturbing and dangerous is that an adversary like Russia is actively trying to get Trump re-elected."

Russia tried to use influence campaigns during 2018 midterm voting to try to sway public opinion, but it did not successfully tamper with voting infrastructure.

Mr. Evanina said it would be difficult for adversarial countries to try to manipulate voting results on a large scale. But nevertheless, the countries could try to interfere in the voting process or take steps aimed at "calling into question the validity of the election results."

The new release comes on the heels of congressional briefings that have alarmed lawmakers, particularly Democrats. Those briefings have described a stepped-up Chinese pressure campaign, as well as efforts by Moscow to paint Mr. Biden as corrupt.

"Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process," Mr. Evanina said in a statement.

The statement called out Andriy Derkach, a pro-Russia member of Ukraine's Parliament who has been involved in releasing information about Mr. Biden. Intelligence officials said he had ties to Russian intelligence.

Intelligence officials have briefed Congress in recent weeks on details of the Russian efforts to tarnish Mr. Biden as corrupt, prompting senior Democrats to request more information.

A Senate committee led by Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, has been leading an investigation of Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden and his work for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm. Some intelligence officials have said that a witness the committee was seeking to call was a witting or unwitting agent of Russian disinformation.

Democrats had pushed intelligence officials to release more information to the public, arguing that only a broad declassification of the foreign interference attempts can inoculate voters against attempts by Russia, China or other countries to try to influence voting.

In meetings on Capitol Hill , Mr. Evanina and other intelligence officials have expanded their warnings beyond Russia and have included China and Iran, as well. This year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence put Mr. Evanina in charge of election security briefings to Congress and the campaigns.

Intelligence and other officials in recent days have been stepping up their releases of information about foreign interference efforts, and the State Department has sent texts to cellphones around the world advertising a $10 million reward for information on would-be election hackers.

How effective China's campaign or Russia's efforts to smear Mr. Biden as corrupt have been is not clear. Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.

The first reactions from Capitol Hill to the release of the assessment were positive. A joint statement by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee praised it, and asked colleagues to refrain from politicizing Mr. Evanina's statement.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the acting Republican chairman of the committee, and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the Democratic vice chairman, said they hoped Mr. Evanina continued to make more information available to the public. But they praised him for responding to calls for more information.

"Evanina's statement highlights some of the serious and ongoing threats to our election from China, Russia, and Iran," the two men's joint statement said. "Everyone -- from the voting public, local officials, and members of Congress -- needs to be aware of these threats."

Maggie Haberman contributed reporting from New York.


[Aug 08, 2020] Takes one to know one- New 'Russian disinformation' scare-sheet by State Department's propaganda arm is full of projection -- RT Op-ed

Aug 08, 2020 | www.rt.com

Takes one to know one? New 'Russian disinformation' scare-sheet by State Department's propaganda arm is full of projection Helen Buyniski Helen Buyniski

is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 6 Aug, 2020 12:42 Get short URL FILE PHOTO. The State Department Building is pictured in Washington, U.S., January 26, 2017. © REUTERS/Joshua Roberts 16 1 Follow RT on RT The State Department has released a report purporting to unmask "Russia's disinformation and propaganda ecosystem," highlighting supposed Russian proxies in an effort to cast all opposition to US policy as Kremlin-linked.

Behind every narrative unfriendly to US geopolitical aims is a Russian proxy typing madly away, according to the Global Engagement Center (GEC), the State Department's "counter-propaganda" vehicle, which released a report to that effect on Wednesday titled "Pillars of Russia's Disinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem."

More than half of the 76-page paper consists of "proxy site profiles" – writeups of websites deemed to be secretly (or not-so-secretly) operated by the Kremlin. While some are openly connected to the Russian government (New Eastern Outlook, an official publication of the Russian Academy of Sciences), others – like Montreal-based Global Research – are not.

READ MORE 'We must deal with Russia as it is, not as we wish it to be': US ex-diplomats, academics call for engagement with Moscow

In the eyes of the GEC, however, all "serve no other purpose but to push pro-Kremlin content" (which might be news to the websites' operators). Most have previously appeared on lists of "Russian propaganda websites" such as the sprawling blacklist published by PropOrNot – a shady outfit linked to pro-war think tank, the Atlantic Council – in November 2016.

While the report is supposedly dedicated to "exposing Russia's tactics so that partner and allied governments, civil society organizations, academia, the press, and the international public" can arm themselves against evil Kremlin propaganda, its focus on specific websites, their social media follower counts, and the amount of traffic they get seems tailor-made for legitimizing government censorship. Any ideas which resemble the content of these particular websites are to be squashed, sidelined, and suppressed, as are any other sites who publish writers associated with the "proxy sites."

The "ecosystem" metaphor is deployed to explain why some alleged Russian proxies occasionally come out with material opposing the Russian government line – they're just "muddying the waters of the information environment in order to confuse those trying to discern the truth."

As for "truth," the report has an interesting interpretation of the concept. The claims that it deems to constitute "disinformation" include the assertion that "financial circles and governments are using the coronavirus to achieve [their] own financial and political goals" (are there any that aren't?).

They also include claims that "EU bureaucrats and affiliated propaganda bodies are blaming Russia for the crisis over the outbreak of coronavirus" (who knew the Financial Times was a Kremlin disinfo outlet too?)

READ MORE Credibility of European Court of Human Rights lies in ruins after judges' links to Soros revealed

Also included are claims that "George Soros' tentacles entangle politics and generate chaos around the world" (if the shoe fits ).

The GEC report wouldn't be a Russia scare-sheet if it didn't include a heavy dose of projection, and this one does not disappoint. The Kremlin's "weaponization of social media" and "cyber-enabled disinformation" are deemed "part of its approach to using information as a weapon," while Moscow is accused of "invest[ing] massively in its propaganda channels, its intelligence services and its proxies to conduct malicious cyber activity to support their disinformation efforts."

But the CIA and US military intelligence have been engaging in pre-emptive cyber-warfare for two years with the full knowledge and consent of the executive branch – a legitimization of covert activities that previously ran on a don't-ask-don't-tell basis dating at least back to the development of the Stuxnet virus that devastated Iran's nuclear sites over a decade ago.

US weaponization of social media is so pervasive the US Army was recently booted off streaming platform Twitch for relentlessly propagandizing teenage users. The Pentagon has been spreading pro-US propaganda using hordes of "sock puppets" – fake social media accounts purporting to be real people – for upwards of a decade. Indeed, the report hints at these very operations, praising the "thriving counter-disinformation community" that is "pushing back" against those naughty Russians.

With social media platforms jittery over the looming US election in November, the report appears designed to serve as a handy cheat-sheet as to which opinions to censor to avoid a repeat of President Donald Trump's upset victory in 2016 – even though none of the listed "proxies" could be considered pro-Trump by any stretch of the imagination. It also provides a portable reference for Americans worried about committing thought-crime, though the complete lack of fanfare accompanying its publication – Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mentioned it in passing during a press conference on Wednesday – would seem to suggest it is not meant for the hoi polloi.

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


[Aug 08, 2020] Russia-China -Dedollarization- Reaches -Breakthrough Moment- As Countries Ditch Greenback For Bilateral Trade -

Aug 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Russia-China "Dedollarization" Reaches "Breakthrough Moment" As Countries Ditch Greenback For Bilateral Trade by Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2020 - 21:55 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Late last year, data released by the PBOC and the Russian Central Bank shone a light on a disturbing - at least, for the US - trend: As the Trump Administration ratcheted up sanctions pressure on Russia and China, both countries and their central banks have substantially "diversified" their foreign-currency reserves, dumping dollars and buying up gold and each other's currencies.

Back in September, we wrote about the PBOC and RCB building their reserves of gold bullion to levels not seen in years. The Russian Central Bank became one of the world's largest buyers of bullion last year (at least among the world's central banks). At the time, we also introduced this chart.

We've been writing about the impending demise of the greenback for years now, and of course we're not alone. Some well-regarded economists have theorized that the fall of the greenback could be a good thing for humanity - it could open the door to a multi-currency basket, or better yet, a global current (bitcoin perhaps?) - by allowing us to transition to a global monetary system with with less endemic instability.

Though, to be sure, the greenback is hardly the first "global currency".

Falling confidence in the greenback has been masked by the Fed's aggressive buying, as central bankers in the Eccles Building now fear that the asset bubbles they've blown are big enough to harm the real economy, so we must wait for exactly the right time to let the air out of these bubbles so they don't ruin people's lives and upset the global economic apple cart. As the coronavirus outbreak has taught us, that time may never come.

But all the while, Russia and China have been quietly weening off of the dollar, and instead using rubles and yuan to settle transnational trade.

Since we live in a world where commerce is directed by the whims of the free market (at least, in theory), the Kremlin can just make Russian and Chinese companies substitute yuan and rubles for dollars with the flip of a switch: as Russian President Vladimir Putin once exclaimed , the US's aggressive sanctions policy risks destroying the dollar's reserve status by forcing more companies from Russia and China to search for alternatives to transacting in dollars, if for no other reason than to keep costs down (international economic sanctions can make moving money abroad difficult).

In 2019, Putin gleefully revealed that Russia had reduced the dollar holdings of its central bank by $101 billion, cutting the total in half.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

And according to new data from the Russian Central Bank and Federal Customs Service, the dollar's share of bilateral trade between Russia and China fell below 50% for the first time in modern history.

Businesses only used the greenback for roughly 46% of settlements between the two countries. Over the same period, the euro constituted an all-time high of 30%. While other national currencies accounted for 24%, also a new high.

As one 'expert' told the Nikkei Asian Review, it's just the latest sign that Russia and China are forming a "de-dollarization alliance" to diminish the economic heft of Washington's sanctions powers, and its de facto control of SWIFT, the primary inter-bank messaging service via which banks move money from country to country.

The shift is happening much more quickly than the US probably expected. As recently as 2015, more than 90% of bilateral trade between China and Russia was conducted in dollars.

Alexey Maslov, director of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told the Nikkei Asian Review that the Russia-China "dedollarization" was approaching a "breakthrough moment" that could elevate their relationship to a de facto alliance.

"The collaboration between Russia and China in the financial sphere tells us that they are finally finding the parameters for a new alliance with each other," he said. "Many expected that this would be a military alliance or a trading alliance, but now the alliance is moving more in the banking and financial direction, and that is what can guarantee independence for both countries."

Dedollarization has been a priority for Russia and China since 2014, when they began expanding economic cooperation following Moscow's estrangement from the West over its annexation of Crimea. Replacing the dollar in trade settlements became a necessity to sidestep U.S. sanctions against Russia.

"Any wire transaction that takes place in the world involving U.S. dollars is at some point cleared through a U.S. bank," explained Dmitry Dolgin, ING Bank's chief economist for Russia. "That means that the U.S. government can tell that bank to freeze certain transactions."
The process gained further momentum after the Donald Trump administration imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods. Whereas previously Moscow had taken the initiative on dedollarization, Beijing came to view it as critical, too.

"Only very recently did the Chinese state and major economic entities begin to feel that they might end up in a similar situation as our Russian counterparts: being the target of the sanctions and potentially even getting shut out of the SWIFT system," said Zhang Xin, a research fellow at the Center for Russian Studies at Shanghai's East China Normal University.

[Aug 07, 2020] more than one answer

Aug 07, 2020 | blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

. The decision involved various persons with differing motives. Some of those people, especially in the military, were against using the bomb. Japan was ready to surrender even before the nuclear bombs were dropped. It did not surrender because the bombs destroyed two of its cities.

A major reason to use the new bombs was to demonstrate to the Soviet Union - already selected as the next enemy - that the U.S. had superior weapons. But it did not take long for the scientist in the Soviet Union to catch up and to test their own nuclear device.

It then daunted to some in Washington that a world with nuclear weapons is less secure than one without them. For 75 years they tried to stop the race for more nuclear weapons and to create a path to their total abolishment. But the hawks were more numerous - they still are - and they won out each and every time.

A history of that process is well caught in Scott Ritter's opus "Scorpion King - America's suicidal embrace of nuclear weapons from FDR to Trump".


bigger

Scott Ritter has studied the Soviet Union, worked in military intelligence and as a United Nations weapon inspector in Iraq. He is extraordinary qualified to write about nuclear weapon policies.

The book is an updated version of the 2010 edition. It is comprehensive and covers the decision processes of every U.S. administration with regards to nuclear weapons, nuclear arms control, non proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

Over the first decades many new nuclear arms and delivery systems were introduced. There was always a demand for even more. The nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union were widely exaggerated. The U.S. assessments of Soviet power were often fake. One commission after the other was setup to make nuclear war plans, to decide which cities should be obliterated, how many million people should be killed and to calculate how many additional weapons were needed to achieve that.

Over time the insanity of the nuclear arms race became more obvious. But when presidents tried to negotiate arms control agreements, and to lower the number of nuclear weapons, there were always people who worked to hinder them. Some successes were made. Nuclear tests were banned. A number of strategic weapons were restricted. Anti-ballistic missiles, introduced to prevent an enemy's response to an offensive first strike, were limited. Certain categories of intermediate nuclear weapons were abolished.

But then came the breakup of the Soviet Union. The U.S. felt no longer a need to restrict itself. Its 'unilateral moment' had begun. Since the 1990s it is again trying to gain an absolute nuclear supremacy. It encroached on Russia's borders and it reintroduced anti-ballistic missile capabilities to make a nuclear first strike against Russia possible.

The attempt failed when Russia in 2018, a decade after warning the U.S. to back off, introduced new weapons which can evade any attempt to counter them. The Obama administrations had failed to draw the right consequences from Russia's warning. Under Trump more nuclear treaties were abolished and soon there will be none left. The world is today more in danger of a nuclear war than it ever was.

As Ritter diagnoses:

The United States is a nation addicted to nuclear weapons and the power and prestige, both real and illusory, that these weapons bring. Breaking this addiction will prove extremely difficult. This is especially true given the lack of having any real nuclear disarmament policy in place since the dawn of the nuclear age. The failure of the United States to formulate or to implement effective nuclear disarmament policy has placed America and the world on very dangerous ground. The longer America and the world continue to possess nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used. The only way to prevent such a dire outcome is through abolition, and not the reduction of control, of all nuclear weapons.

The book gives a detailed history of the nuclear decision processes of every U.S. administration since the dawn of the nuclear age. It digs into the motives of many of the involved persons. It documents how - throughout many administrations - the general nuclear policies were kept unchanged. The differences were only gradual.

With 501 pages, including end notes, the Scorpion King takes more than one evening to fully comprehend.

But I for one am grateful to have had the chance to read it page for page. Scott Ritter's opus will now be THE work of reference to consult when I write about nuclear policies.

The book is available as paperback for $29.95 or electronically for $19.00.

Posted by b on August 6, 2020 at 18:38 UTC | Permalink

Comments Thx b.
Matter of proliferation and hypocrisy in foreign policy ...

Permitting Pakistan to develop the Islamic nuclear weapon !

https://www.eurotrib.com/story/2020/7/7/13426/56228

Posted by: Oui | Aug 6 2020 19:14 utc | 1 "The president has made clear that we have a tried and true practice here. We know how to win these races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion. If we have to, we will, but we sure would like to avoid it," Special Presidential Envoy Marshall Billingslea said in an online presentation to a Washington think tank. [Reuters, May 21, 2020]

One problem with this thinking is that Putin is a maniacal tightwad, believer in balanced budget and rainy day funds, and he seems to have some control over military costs. Russian experts and most of all, their bosses, take home many times less that their "American partners", projects are selected more carefully, old technologies are maximally reused. American MIC is a horde of hungry pigs that are world's top expert at inflating costs, plying fanciful technologies that sometimes work, but often do not (after spending many billions) etc. Repeating the past glories of "spending into oblivion" will not work again.

Second problem is horribly illustrated in Beirut (and in few places before, Tianjin comes to mind). We have a huge pile of highly explosive substances, but they are stored and handled properly, so nothing will happen, right? Or we have best possible software to automatically launch nuclear missiles when an attack is detected, but it is 110% reliable, and the international tensions will always be handled with care to prevent "hair trigger" status, right?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Aug 6 2020 19:25 utc | 2 Nukes are a self-licking ice-cream cone for the protection racket.

USA power-elite are not addicted to nukes, they're addicted to power.

This is easily seen via the supremacist ideologies that they subscribe to:


Together, these distill the worst impulses of Western civilization and form a mindset of might makes right that is better known today as the "rules-based order".

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 6 2020 19:32 utc | 3 @Jackrabbit

You're in fine form today. Succinct and to the point.

Posted by: Red Ryder | Aug 6 2020 19:39 utc | 4 @ Jackrabbit # 3

I would only offer a point of clarification to your comment. That clarification would be that its the global power-elite, not USA, and they are addicted to owning the tools of Western private finance which is the source of their power.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 6 2020 19:46 utc | 5 It's fear. Many Americans (not just the power elite) see themselves living in a hostile world. Probably goes back to the Mayflower. And Hollywood. If it's not natives and Russians it's sharks and spiders. They think having lots of nukes will protect them.

Posted by: dh | Aug 6 2020 19:49 utc | 6 Thank you for supporting Scott Ritter. I saw him speak at a small book store in Schenectady NY before the Bush II genocide on Iraq and Afghanistan. Myself and my wife will never forget his words and strengthened our resolve to try and stop the war by protesting in NYC,Boston and our small town of Saratoga NY. I hope that Mr Ritter continues his work to awaken others to the truth of what a sad pathetic country the USA is. I wish him well.

Posted by: So | Aug 6 2020 20:08 utc | 7 Just had to get 'Trump's' name on that headline. He probably wouldn't have used that line of it was Hilary in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Arne S | Aug 6 2020 20:22 utc | 8 @ Posted by: Arne S | Aug 6 2020 20:22 utc | 8

He had to put Trump's name because, otherwise, he would overshadow the important year of 2018 (when Putin announced Russia's new weapons).

Posted by: vk | Aug 6 2020 20:33 utc | 9 Another reason things don't change is because of the media. The media keeps the people placated, or at least tries, and in fact succeeds to a great extent. See this new article Palace Eunuchs or: Why Mainstream Media Fears the Truth to see how this has happened. It wasn't always like today. But over time the media has been bought out. And they work with and for the MIC.

Posted by: Kali | Aug 6 2020 21:22 utc | 10 thanks b... i agree with jackrabbit - it is all about being addicted to power and trying to hold onto it ( as it slips away )..

this hate on for russia is mystifying.. i think - is this a bunch of war on commies relics from the past driving usa foreign policy? or is it a bunch of sore losers like browder and friends from the 90's? or is it just a case of your usual garden variety insanity on display pretty frequently, from the usa establishment?? i still don't get this hate on for russia... it makes no sense, other then the money it generates for the military complex..

Posted by: james | Aug 6 2020 21:39 utc | 11 Good Evening! A discussion about nuclear weapons should take into consideration the scientific and technical progress since 1945 - though the latter may be hidden from broader public. Yesterday @Schmatz referred to arcticles of Meyssan regarding the explosion in Beirut. Today some more information was published on https://www.voltairenet.org/article210672.html. The German tests of 1944 and 1945 were of the same type (hybrid, lithium, fusion). Israel is not the only gang to have this type of mini-nukes. Big nuclear bombs are out of date. War today has another face. BE AWARE! Nations and states are out of date, too. The war now is against mankind itself. The only remedy against this destruction is mentioned in my preceding comment. Kind Regards, Gerhard

Posted by: Gerhard | Aug 6 2020 21:42 utc | 12 Nuclear War and the Ultimate Game of Hardball


The assassination was a continuation of the Cuban Missle Crisis.
US planes were launched towards Cuba immediately after the assassination, but recalled in time.

It wasn't until 1995 that people had the book "The Spy That Saved The World" - Oleg Penkovsky.

The voluminous technical missile details this spy revealed allowed the US to determine the state of readiness,
or rather unreadiness, of the missiles being deployed in Cuba. Thus, Kennedy knew he had a window of time to
take the path of diplomacy, and without this key information his decision making process would have been quite different.

But there was another critical window that the spy Penkovsky revealed.
Khrushchev famously threatened that his factories were producing like "sausages" ICBM capable of reaching the US;
Khrushchev could make it rain ICBM. The spy Penkovsky revealed that this was simply a bluff.
Khrushchev might be able to launch ONE experimental ICBM towards the US but that was it.
The window however, Penkovsky revealed, was only reliable for three years. Penkovsky believed that within as
little as three years the Soviets could be producing ICBM in large numbers.

The Joint Chiefs Of Staff, as history records, contained men with the right stuff, right enough to inspire "Doctor Strangelove".
They wanted to take out the Soviet Union while we could. Kennedy, however, did not want to go down in history
as the greatest mass murderer of all time.

It was a game of Super Hardball Poker. The ICBM Window was closing down like a guillotine,
Kennedy had his bellicose generals and Khrushchev had his own hardline generals to contend with.
What move in this game could Kennedy make?

The US generals had WANTED the Soviets to run the blockade of Cuba and "cross the line" to war
and Khrushchev didn't know that his ICBM bluff cards were exposed.

Kennedy's move: he could let Khrushchev know of his slim poker hand.
Kennedy was also proving to the Soviet generals that here was a US President that wanted to deal,
which would be useful later when seeking treaties. Did Kennedy also blunt the US general's urge for war
by closing a key vulnerability in the Soviet defenses? Penkovsky had also revealed to us key Soviet
defense vulnerabilities.

Did Kennedy, in this game of Super Hardball Poker give up the spy, codenamed HERO, to the Soviets?
Did Kennedy reveal the depth of knowledge HERO had given us about the Soviets?

Oleg Penkovsky was arrested by the Soviets on the seventh day of the Cuban Missle Crisis.

One year later the assassination created a different stalemate.

The plotter's plan was to blame Cuba for the assassination of our President thus bringing a retaliatory strike
against Cuba. This would escalate to full out war with the USSR. Robert Kennedy immediately wanted to thwart
the plans of his brother's killers. Before that bloody day was done, instead of blaming Cuba Robert Kennedy supported
a safer alternate theory, the lone gunman theory.

Vice President Johnson was heading for a fall before the assassination, his criminal past was going to catch up with him.
The Kennedys were going to drop Johnson from the ticket during the second presidential term.
The Joint Chiefs Of Staff brought Johnson into the plot late in the game; but, he double-crossed them after
the assassination and didn't give them the war against the Soviets (by first attacking Cuba) they had wanted.

As an insider Johnson had the goods on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they in turn had the goods on him. Stalemate.
Robert Kennedy had knowledge of Johnson's criminal past, but the Kennedys acting as tipsters to the Soviets
in the Oleg Penkovsky affair put a sword over Robert's head. Just as importantly Robert Kennedy would make
an already dangerous world more dangerous if he made it known publicly that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had tried
to launch a war that day and were willing to assassinate presidents in order to carry this out.

Robert Kennedy supported the hoax that was the Warren Commission to protect his brother's reputation and his own,
but more importantly to deter nuclear war. Johnson was high in the saddle as President and thus supported the Commission,
and he retired key members of The Joint Chiefs of Staff. With his reputation intact Robert Kennedy planned to
later become President and once he had power he would bring justice against his brother's killers.

Posted by: librul | Aug 6 2020 21:55 utc | 13 @ Kali | Aug 6 2020 21:22 utc | 10

"It wasn't always like today. But over time the media has been bought out."

Sorry, but that is incorrect. The "news" media in the US has always been the knowing tool of the oligarchy. Should anyone doubt that, just read Jack London's 1908 novel "The Iron Heel." In addition to describing to a "T" the devices the oligarchy uses to keep down and punish the proletariat, he describes the use of the press to silence, punish and do away with troublemakers such as socialists.

The fictional revelations in the novel will be immediately recognizable to MOA members as present-day techniques of repressing the proletariat and corrupting the media.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 6 2020 22:14 utc | 14 p.s.

"The Iron Heel" is available online.

Posted by: AntiSpin | Aug 6 2020 22:15 utc | 15 The historian b links at the beginning of his piece makes the point that the building of the bombs was taking place well before Truman came to office and basically had no knowledge of what had been going on. The timeline for that circumstance is horribly short, and here is how Peter Kuznick describes it in the interview I linked to at 25 on the open thread:

"...65% of potential voters [in a Gallup poll] said they wanted Wallace back as vice president, 2% said they wanted Harry Truman. But Truman gets in there, is vice president for 82 days, Roosevelt dies, Truman becomes president on April 12th, 1945, the day that shall live in infamy. And so Truman on April 13th, his first day in office, Secretary of the Navy, Forrestal sends his private plane down to Spartanburg, South Carolina, to bring James Byrnes back to Washington. Truman was desperate. He sits down with Byrnes and he says, I don't know anything, Roosevelt didn't talk to me about what was going on, or the agreements at Yalta, I don't know anything, fill me in on everything and Byrnes then starts to lay it out. That the Soviets can't be trusted, that you know, that they're breaking their agreements. So that's a Truman who was inclined to think that way anyway, starts hearing it from Byrnes.

And even though that was the opposite of what Roosevelt believed and Roosevelt said right up to his dying day, Roosevelt was sure that the US and the Soviets would get along after the war..."

I wouldn't want to make any other observation than that as b's historian suggests, there were many influences behind the scenes of the fateful decision. Just to point out the similarity in the apparent railroading out of Wallace at such a critical time. It does remind one of politics today.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 6 2020 22:20 utc | 16 I distinctly remember reading somewhere that at the height of the insanity the USA had so many nuclear warheads that it had difficulty finding worthwhile targets for them. So much so that the ended up designating one nuke to destroy a post office in Siberia. A Freaking Post Office.

For all I know they pointed two some poor postmistress. You know: one to obliterate the mailboxes, and the other to make the rubble bounce around a bit....

Mad as Hatters, the lot of 'em.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Aug 6 2020 22:32 utc | 17 Fascinating book review and important commentary. Thanks b.

(PS on English usage. In paragraph 4 I think you meant "It then dawned on some in Washington...". If I am 'daunted' by something I am hesitating out of fear or scale [e.g. I was daunted by the huge task that lay ahead...]). Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but I like your posts a lot and am impressed by your grasp of idiom in a second language.

Posted by: Patroklos | Aug 6 2020 22:40 utc | 18 sounds like an excellent book, i'll order as soon as i finish "the deficit myth".

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 6 2020 22:58 utc | 19 james @ 11,in the Paul Jay interview, Peter Kuznick makes the point that early on, when the weapons were first used on Japan, there wasn't a formidable military industrial complex, so Truman seems to have made the decision solely on the advice that the Russians were not to be trusted. Still, behind the scenes, that complex had to be in its infancy, as Eisenhower warned before he left office.

And psychohistorian is correct, it morphed into the entity that now is the main driver of world finance, not just in the US. So it is not the people of the US who are addicted to horrible weapons; it is that huge military/industrial/banking complex feeding off hapless Americans as it also feeds off the rest of the world, under the umbrella of neoliberalism: 'austerity for you but not for me.'

Grim stuff, and hopefully its days are numbered.

Posted by: juliania | Aug 6 2020 23:03 utc | 20 kennedy was a long time warmonger prior to the cuban missle crisis. he ran to the right of nixon, claiming nixon and eisenhower had left american vulnerable to a mythical "missle gap" which was not close to being true. both sides had ample weapons to destroy each other; what difference did the u.s.s.r. having a few more in cuba to match the u.s. placing some missles in turkey. this is often portrayed as j.f.k.'s shining moment, instead of a astoundingly reckless course of action that took the world close to a nuclear war. the russia missles in cuba would not have given them any sort of nuclear advantage, it would have taken them to the parity of being able to destroy american cities as many times as the americans could destroy russian cities, a meaningless equality. indeed the us withdrew the turkish missles, from what i remember, after the crisis.
it was the worst single example of american military overreach since needlessly blowing up hiroshima and nagasaki, an incredibly ill judged attempt to maintain u.s. superiority at all potential costs, and this time it was against an adversary that could destroy the united states. sound familiar? it should, it's been the strategy of the u.s. empire at least since 1945.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Aug 6 2020 23:09 utc | 21 Nukes exist to be paid for. Corporate welfare. The Russians and everyone else got them because the US had them. Peiod. End of story. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Aug 6 2020 23:36 utc | 22 It is very costly trying to live up to your ego. Many within the US government have big big egos, but who will pay the cost?

Posted by: Dick | Aug 6 2020 23:44 utc | 23 Lots of good discussion and links to excellent essays on the subject. Here are four, John Pilger's essay , "Another Hiroshima is Coming Unless We Stop It Now;" Dave Lindorff's essay , "Unsung Heroes of Los Alamos: Rethinking Manhattan Project Spies and the Cold War;" H. Bruce Frankiln's essay , "How the Fascists Won World War II;" and Robert Jacobs and Ran Zwigenberg's essay , "The American Narrative of Hiroshima is a Statue that Must be Toppled." Of course, there are dozens more written over the years at each anniversary of Hiroshima Day. As a former teacher, I found the last essay to be perhaps the most important as it details the great effort expended to keep that Narrative as THE ONLY OFFICIAL NARRATIVE to be allowed. But also as AntiSpin said, the fixing of the facts around the policy has gone on for 100+ years.

We humans face an EVIL GANG that's worse in its goals than Hitler was. Most are situated within the Outlaw US Empire, with the remainder sprinkled within its satrapies. They are mostly members of the Rentier Class psychohistorian rails about constantly for good reason, but others are traditional imperialists and fascists. All constitute what is known as the Donor Class--the controllers of the Duopoly within the Outlaw US Empire and of the satrapies abroad. But in a great many ways that do matter, they are outed now as more people globally become aware of their existence and designs. Much discussion here revolves around the issue of how to deprive them of the power they wield. Other discussions are subsets, such as the attempt to launch a new Cold War aimed at China. IMO, the key involves dragging ALL the skeletons from the closet and having them dance for all the world to see. Part of that is condemning the Outlaw US Empire for its genocide of the Japanese people in the nuclear fires and those that preceded them.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 6 2020 23:48 utc | 24 juliania shared a link in the open thread which fits here as well.. thanks juliania...

Why Did Americans Accept Barbaric Slaughter of Japanese Civilians?

Posted by: james | Aug 7 2020 1:21 utc | 25 @ 20 juliania.. thanks.. i agree with pyschohistorians view @5 - global power elite are behind this.. however, they need the assistance and help of the american military and political leaders too... do you think pompeo would act any different here?? he has proven beyond doubt that the usa on most levels, is not to be trusted.. let me quote from your link from the other thread, which i have linked to above @ 25..

"In fact, Major General Haywood Hansell, the head of the 21st bomber command that was doing the bombing in Japan, resisted orders to abandon precision bombing at the end of'44. He didn't want to bomb urban areas. So Hap Arnold sacked him and installed General Curtis LeMay as commander of the 21st Bomber Command and LeMay had no such compunction. The large-scale bombing on the night of March 9th through 10th when 324 aircraft attacked Tokyo and killed probably one hundred thousand people, destroyed 16 square miles, injured a million, at least 41,000 seriously injured, more than a million homeless. The air reached eighteen hundred degrees Fahrenheit. LeMay says that the victims were scorched and boiled and baked to death. He referred to this as his masterpiece."

it takes more then the global power elite to enact these types of horrific acts as i see it.. if ordinary people like general haywood hansell can say no to this, so can others... but as we see general curtis lemay had no compunction murdering 100,000 innocent people.. someone might be pulling the levers, but it has to be followed thru by more ordinary people who need to resist it..

Posted by: james | Aug 7 2020 1:30 utc | 26 I did not know that today it was the anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, after all I was not even born then...

But, knowing now, it makes even more sense that the governor of Beirut compared ( I imagine that as ignorant of the date as i am...) the port blast with a destruction equaling that of Hiroshima...Who I fear that do not ignore this are other people...

I do not go to the heights of other people looking for signals everywhere, but after some years of reading info I do not think any more some events are coincidences...

Look at this other oddity...

In the afternoon of this Thursday a fire was reported in the World Trade Center tower located in the city of Brussels, in Belgium

The fire occurred at 4:00 p.m. (local time) and would not have left victims so far

https://twitter.com/teleSURtv/status/1291446525659422721

What I find odd enough is not only that the building is named World Trade Center....but, also that it has a banner in its fachade which reads "The future is here"...

What kind of future?

Then just saw this front page of The Economist at Daniel Estulin Twitter account...

https://twitter.com/EstulinDaniel/status/1291496244548902912

Intriguing to say the least....

Posted by: H.Schmatz | Aug 7 2020 1:31 utc | 27 Truman's statement following the destruction of Hiroshima is interesting to read. He starts off by describing Hiroshima as "an important Japanese Army base" rather than a city filled with civilians.

He later says "We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war".

Nothing there about wholesale slaughter of the population or destroying their food supply or drinking water, just attacks on military-related targets.

Interesting.

Posted by: BillB | Aug 7 2020 1:52 utc | 28 Gordon Duff, even a broken clock is correct ... well you know the rest https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/08/06/breathtaking-case-closed-infrared-video-reveals-details-of-israeli-nuclear-missile/

I do NOT believe this was a nuclear attack on Beirut but it does look like a missile strike.
Yes, the Lebanese govt is corrupt, negligent, and awful but that doesn't exclude the possibility that a foreign actor took advantage of the situation. I am wondering if Israel just had to use their new toy, that cargo ship, container missile and I still think it's possible that if they did attack Lebanon that they only meant to hit the fireworks warehouse. In any case, I think this vid is worth looking at.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Aug 7 2020 2:02 utc | 29 @28 Yes very interesting. You may find the Potsdam Declaration interesting too. The Japanese were given an opportunity to surrender. They turned it down.

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

Posted by: dh | Aug 7 2020 2:07 utc | 30 @29

Heavy

Posted by: librul | Aug 7 2020 2:28 utc | 31 @31 Wars are heavy. They are fought to some kind of conclusion. Not sure why Hiroshima was the target. I imagine other targets were considered but the basic idea was to create a major impression.

Posted by: dh | Aug 7 2020 2:41 utc | 32 @31 Sorry librul. I guess you weren't talking about Hiroshima.

Posted by: dh | Aug 7 2020 2:53 utc | 33 I have become comfortably numb. This happened some time ago coinciding with the release of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. 80,000 people died immediately in Hiroshima on this day in 1945. With Nagasaki, the total was over 220,000 in two single incidents. Do shape-shifting lizards from another dimension control our world behind the scenes? Most likely. Global policies lack humanity. They also lack intelligence, being born of a lizard brain. This is the end game. This is the Kaliyuga. Billions will die while we remain comfortably numb, armchair pundits. March on Scott Ritter, stalwart Marine!

Posted by: jadan | Aug 7 2020 3:27 utc | 34 dh 33

I read the two Japanese cities were selected because of their geography. Surrounded by hills to contain and concentrate the blast for better effects.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 7 2020 3:31 utc | 35 Christian J. Chuba 29

Why do you post the duff shit here? Should be plenty of UFO and other nutcase forums it can be posted on.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 7 2020 3:36 utc | 36 @35 Possibly. I think it was the psychological effect they were going for,

https://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/429433621/why-did-the-u-s-choose-hiroshima

Posted by: dh | Aug 7 2020 3:41 utc | 37 Peter AU1

Surrounded by hills

dh

psychological effect

My understanding is that they chose it because it was had experienced very little previous bombing. And they had deliberately withheld bombing there for some months before dropping the bomb.

They were as interested in learning about the effects of a nuke on a city as they were in sending a 'message' to the Japanese Govt.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 7 2020 3:55 utc | 38 @38 "They were as interested in learning about the effects of a nuke on a city as they were in sending a 'message' to the Japanese Govt."

I'm sure that was a factor. They probably wanted to send a message to the rest of the world as well.

Posted by: dh | Aug 7 2020 4:12 utc | 39 DH and others,

One reason the US dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to send a message to the Soviets that it had nuclear weapons - and was prepared to use them.

Japan had petitioned the US to surrender on the condition that it be allowed to retain its monarchy. The US insisted on unconditional surrender.

Hibiki Yamaguchi: "Can the Atomic Bombings on Japan Be Justified? A Conversation with Dr. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa"

"... [A dilemma] Truman faced was the so-called unconditional-surrender demand. Under Roosevelt, the United States had been demanding unconditional surrender by Japan, and Truman followed this policy faithfully. This was because Japan had engaged in military aggression causing the war (unjust war) and had committed all kinds of atrocities against American and Allied soldiers (violations on justice in warfare). In order to defeat Japanese militarism so that Japan could never rise up again as a military power, the United States and its allies should impose on Japan unconditional surrender.

But, as the war developed, there were certain people, very influential people within the government – such as Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, and Deputy Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew – who thought it necessary to define what "unconditional surrender" exactly meant. Particularly important was the status of the emperor. If the United States were to insist on unconditional surrender, particularly if it were to insist on, for instance, trying or punishing the emperor, as some within the administration insisted, the Japanese would fight on to the very last man. Therefore, in order to terminate the war, the US government would have to define the terms in such a way that it could allow the Japanese to preserve the monarchical system, even under the current dynasty.

In fact, before the Potsdam Conference began, Stimson presented the president with the draft proposal for the Potsdam on July 2. This draft included two important items. First, it anticipated the Soviet entry into the war. In fact, the Operation Division of the Army General Staff, which had worked on the proclamation draft, thought the most effective means of forcing Japan's surrender was to time the issuance of the ultimatum to Japan so that it coincided with the initiation of Soviet entry into the war. The second provision was that the Allied powers would allow Japan to preserve the monarchical system under the current dynasty.

What happened with these provisions? When the actual Potsdam proclamation was issued, it stated nothing about the Soviet Union and nothing about unconditional surrender. Those two conditions were rejected because of political considerations.

So the first assumption – that the atomic bomb was the only alternative for the United States to end the war – turned out to be false, a myth. The fact is not only that Truman did not choose those alternatives, but also that he just rejected them out of political consideration ..."

In the end, Japan surrendered once the Soviets declared war on that country, and eventually the US allowed Japan to retain its monarchy and to keep Hirohito on the throne.

Incidentally Nagasaki was selected for bombing because it was on a list of potential targets on which Kokura was first , but on the morning of 9 August 1945, the weather over the town was cloudy and the crew of the B-29 bomber could not see the target city clearly. Nagasaki was second on the list. The bomb hit a Roman Catholic cathedral during a celebration of Sunday Mass.

Posted by: Jen | Aug 7 2020 5:11 utc | 40

[Aug 06, 2020] Is War With China Inevitable by J

Notable quotes:
"... "When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," ..."
"... "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense." ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
Aug 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The rattling of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. is becoming louder, and causing many to ponder if World War III is not far off. There are those in the international community increasingly alarmed given the COVID situation, the South China Sea imbroglio, and China's growing threat that they intend to invade and absorb Taiwan into Communist China within a year. These items have led to the belief that World War III is on the horizon.

Just recently, Dr.Leonid Roshal, a noted Moscow physician, hostage negotiator, and advisor to the WHO remarked that the COVID pandemic is a dry run for World War III, and that COVID-19 is practice for future biological warfare. Covid-19 pandemic has functioned as a "rehearsal for biological warfare," Dr. Roshal also believes that the rapidly-spreading virus was a test for the world's healthcare systems.

In an interview with Forbes, Professor Roshal, President of the Research Institute of Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology, explained that not all nations were ready for a mass influx of patients, and their lack of preparation has been exposed by the pandemic.

"When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," he explained. "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense."

In addition, Hong Kong-based virologist Yan Li-Meng, currently in hiding at an undisclosed location, claims that the COVID-19 coronavirus came from a People's Liberation Army lab, and not from a Wuhan wet market as Beijing has claimed. Speaking on a live stream interview on Taiwan's News Agency Lude Press, she said, "At that time, I clearly assessed that the virus came from a Chinese Communist Party military lab. The Wuhan wet market was just used as a decoy." Yan has been in hiding in the U.S. after fleeing Hong Kong in April.

Chinese PLA Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang stated recently that TAIWAN WILL be reunified with the rest of China - and any attempt by the United States to interfere is futile and dangerous. Senior Colonel Guoqiang is Deputy Director of the Ministry of Defense's Information Office, and Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesman. J


entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these months dealing with the pandemic.

All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)

Posted by: Diana Croissant , 05 August 2020 at 03:44 PM

Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these months dealing with the pandemic.

All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)

Posted by: Diana Croissant 05 August 2020 at 03:44 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

J

I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some saber rattling from both sides.

Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the capability to inflict a black eye.

The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush & Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.

Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the CCP wants.

This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8

It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.

Posted by: Jack , 05 August 2020 at 03:58 PM

J

I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some saber rattling from both sides.

Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the capability to inflict a black eye.

The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush & Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.

Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the CCP wants.

This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8

It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.

Posted by: Jack 05 August 2020 at 03:58 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology .

There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump. Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea 2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.

There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker, Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the US is having issues tracking.

The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.

This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.

China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.

Posted by: Horatio , 05 August 2020 at 04:51 PM

More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology .

There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump. Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea 2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.

There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker, Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the US is having issues tracking.

The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.

This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.

China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.

Posted by: Horatio 05 August 2020 at 04:51 PM

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

Bjorn H

... BTW, "J" is a farmer in Oklahoma who served a long time in USAF.

Posted by: turcopolier , 05 August 2020 at 05:04 PM

Bjorn H

... BTW, "J" is a farmer in Oklahoma who served a long time in USAF.

Posted by: turcopolier 05 August 2020 at 05:04 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.

Horatio,

"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Posted by: Fred , 05 August 2020 at 05:05 PM

We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.

Horatio,

"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Posted by: Fred 05 August 2020 at 05:05 PM

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.

That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda. Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..

Posted by: Paco , 05 August 2020 at 05:28 PM

The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.

That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda. Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..

Posted by: Paco 05 August 2020 at 05:28 PM

[Aug 04, 2020] Russia never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred"). ..."
"... I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore). ..."
"... True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways: ..."
"... While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different. ..."
Aug 04, 2020 | www.unz.com

Truth be told, most Russian politicians (with the notable exception of the official Kremlin court jester, Zhirinovskii) and analysts never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend. The Kremlin was especially cautious, which leads me to believe that the Russian intelligence analysts did a very good job evaluating Trump's psyche and they quickly figured out that he was no better than any other US politician.

Right now, I know of no Russian analyst who would predict that relations between the US and Russia will improve in the foreseeable future. If anything, most are clearly saying that "guys, we better get used to this" (accusations, sanctions, accusations, sanctions, etc. etc. etc.).

Furthermore, it is pretty obvious to the Russians that while Crimea and MH17 were the pretexts for western sanctions against Russia, they were not the real cause. The real cause of the West's hatred for Russia is as simple as it is old: Russia cannot be conquered, subdued, subverted or destroyed. They've been at it for close to 1,000 years and they still are at it. In fact, each time they fail to crush Russia, their russophobia increases to even higher levels (phobia both in the sense of "fear" and in the sense of "hatred").

Simply put -- there is nothing which Russia can expect from the upcoming election. Nothing at all. Still, that does not mean that things are not better than 4 or 8 years ago. Let's look at what changed.

I would argue that since at least Russia and the AngloZionist Empire have been at war since at least 2013, when Russia foiled the US plan to attack Syria under the pretext that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against civilians (in reality, a textbook case of a false flag organized by the Brits), This means that Russia and the Empire have been at [Cold] war since at least 2013, for no less than seven years (something which Russian 6th columnists and Neo-Marxists try very hard to ignore).

True, at least until now, this was has been 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic, but this is a real existential war of survival for both sides: only one side will walk away from this struggle. The other one will simply disappear (not as a nation or a people, but as a polity; a regime). The Kremlin fully understood that and it embarked on a huge reform and modernization of the Russian armed forces in three distinct ways:

A "general" reform of the Russian armed forces which had to be modernized by about 80%. This part of the reform is now practically complete. A specific reform to prepare the western and southern military districts for a major conventional war against the united West (as always in Russian history) which would involve the First Guards Tank Army and the Russian Airborne Forces. The development of bleeding-edge weapons systems with no equivalent in the West and which cannot be countered or defeated; these weapons have had an especially dramatic impact upon First Strike Stability and upon naval operations.

While some US politicians understood what was going on (I think of Ron Paul, see here ), most did not. They were so brainwashed by the US propaganda that they were sure that no matter what, "USA! USA! USA!". Alas for them, the reality was quite different.

Russian officials, by the way, have confirmed that Russia was preparing for war . Heck, the reforms were so profound and far reaching, that it would have been impossible for the Russians to hide what they were doing (see here for details; also please see Andrei Martyanov's excellent primer on the new Russian Navy here ).

While no country is ever truly prepared for war, I would argue that by 2020 the Russians had reached their goals and that now Russia is fully prepared to handle any conflict the West might throw at her, ranging from a small border incident somewhere in Central Asia to a full-scaled war against the US/NATO in Europe .

Folks in the West are now slowly waking up to this new reality (I mentioned some of that here ), but it is too late. In purely military terms, Russia has now created such a qualitative gap with the West that the still existing quantitative gap is not sufficient to guarantee a US/NATO victory. Now some western politicians are starting to seriously freak out (see this lady , for example), but most Europeans are coming to terms with two truly horrible realities:

Russia is much stronger than Europe and, even much worse, Russia will never attack first (which is a major cause of frustration for western russophobes)

As for the obvious solution to this problem, having friendly relations with Russia is simply unthinkable for those who made their entire careers peddling the Soviet (and now Russian) threat to the world.

But Russia is changing, albeit maybe too slowly (at least for my taste). As I mentioned last week, a number of Polish, Ukrainian and Baltic politicians have declared that the Zapad2020 military maneuvers which are supposed to take place in southern Russia and the Caucasus could be used to prepare an attack on the West (see here for a rather typical example of this nonsense). In the past, the Kremlin would only have made a public statement ridiculing this nonsense, but this time around Putin did something different. Right after he saw the reaction of these politicians, Putin ordered a major and UNSCHEDULED military readiness exercise which involved no less than 150,000 troops, 400 aircraft & 100 ships ! The message here was clear:

Yes, we are much more powerful than you are and No, we are not apologizing for our strength anymore

And, just to make sure that the message is clear, the Russians also tested the readiness of the Russian Airborne Forces units near the city of Riazan, see for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2s2V8iPofFs?feature=oembed

This response is, I think, the correct one. Frankly, nobody in the West is listening to what the Kremlin has to say, so what is the point of making more statements which in the future will be ignored equally as they have been in the past.

If anything, the slow realization that Russia is more powerful than NATO would be most helpful in gently prodding EU politicians to change their tune and return back to reality. Check out this recent video of Sarah Wagenknecht, a leading politician of the German Left and see for yourself:

https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7uu5fk

The example of Sahra Wagenknecht is interesting, because she is from Germany, one of the countries of northern Europe; traditionally, northern European powers have been much more anti-Russian than southern Europeans, so it is encouraging to see that the anti-Putin and anti-Russia hysteria is not always being endorsed by everybody.

But if things are very slowly getting better in the EU, in the bad old US of A things are only getting worse. Even the Republicans are now fully on board the Russia-hating float (right behind a "gay pride" one I suppose) and they are now contributing their own insanity to the cause, as this article entitled " Congressional Republicans: Russia should be designated state sponsor of terror " shows (designating Russia as a terrorist state is an old idea of the Dems, by the way).

Russian options for the Fall

In truth, Russia does not have any particularly good options towards the US. Both parties are now fully united in their rabid hatred of Russia (and China too, of course). Furthermore, while there are many well-funded and virulently anti-Russian organizations in the US (Neo-cons, Papists, Poles, Masons, Ukrainians, Balts, Ashkenazi Jews, etc.), Russian organizations in the US like this one , have very little influence or even relevance.

Banderites marching in the US

However, as the chaos continues to worsen inside the US and as US politicians continue to alienate pretty much the entire planet, Russia does have a perfect opportunity to weaken the US grip on Europe. The beauty in the current dynamic is that Russia does not have to do anything at all (nevermind anything covert or illegal) to help the anti-EU and anti-US forces in Europe: All she needs to do is to continuously hammer in the following simple message: "the US is sinking -- do you really want to go down with it?".

There are many opportunities to deliver that message. The current US/Polish efforts to prevent the EU from enjoying cheap Russian gas might well be the best example of what we could call "European suicide politics", but there are many, many more.

Truth be told, neither the US nor the EU are a top priority for Russia, at least not in economic terms. The moral credibility of the West in general can certainly be described as dead and long gone. As for the West military might, it is only a concern to the degree that western politicians might be tempted to believe their own propaganda about their military forces being the best in the history of the galaxy. This is why Russia regularly engages in large surprise exercises: to prove to the West that the Russian military is fully ready for anything the West might try. As for the constant move of more and more US/NATO forces closer to the borders of Russia, they are offensive in political terms, but in military terms, getting closer to Russia only means that Russia will have more options to destroy you. "Forward deployment" is really a thing of the past, at least against Russia.

With time, however, and as the US federal center loses even more of its control of the country, the Kremlin might be well-advised to try to open some venues for "popular diplomacy", especially with less hostile US states. The weakening of the Executive Branch has already resulted in US governors playing an increasingly important international role and while this is not, strictly speaking, legal (only the federal government has the right to engage in foreign policy), the fact is that this has been going on for years already. Another possible partner inside the US for Russian firms would be US corporations (especially now that they are hurting badly). Finally, I think that the Kremlin ought to try to open channels of communication with the various small political forces in the US which are clearly not buying into the official propaganda: libertarians, (true) liberals and progressives, paleo-conservatives.

What we are witnessing before our eyes is the collapse of the US federal center. This is a dangerous and highly unstable moment in our history. But from this crisis opportunities will arise. The best thing Russia can do now is to simply remain very careful and vigilant and wait for new forces to appear on the US political scene.

Twilight Patriot , says: • Website July 29, 2020 at 12:26 am GMT

I really agree with you that the “blame Russia” and “blame China” thing has gotten out of hand in US politics. Whether it will turn into a shooting war seems doubtful to me, as the government is still full of people who are looking out for their own interests and know that a full-sized war with Russia, China, Iran or whoever will not advance their interests.

But who would have guessed, a few years ago, that “Russian asset” would become the all-purpose insult for Democrats to use, not just against Republicans, but against other Democrats?

With Republicans I think that “blame China” is stronger. China makes a good scapegoat for the economic situation in the United States. But convincing the working class that China is the source of their problems (and that Mr. MAGA is going to solve those problems by standing up to China) requires ignorance of the crucial facts about the trade relationship between those two countries.

Namely, that the trade deficit exists only because the Federal Reserve chooses to create huge amounts of new dollars each year for export to other countries, and it’s only possible for US exports to fall behind imports so badly (and thus put so many American laborers out of work) because the Fed is making up the difference by exporting dollars. Granted, it isn’t a policy that the US can change without harming the interests of its own upper classes; at the same time, it isn’t a policy that China could force on the US without the people in charge of the United States wanting it.

This is a topic I’ve dealt with a few times on my own blog.

Why I Don’t Fear Chinese Hegemony: https://www.twilightpatriot.com/2020/05/why-i-dont-fear-chinese-hegemony.html

Nobody Will Win The Trade War: https://www.twilightpatriot.com/2019/09/nobody-will-win-trade-war.html

[Aug 03, 2020] Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.

Highly recommended!
Aug 03, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

oldster 08.03.20 at 1:17 am 141

Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.

(I don't know where a young you-tuber probably not born before the millennium encountered Shulamith Firestone's old partner in crime, but I am delighted that she did! I know it shows my age, but I think that young activists today could benefit a lot from reading what my generation's activists wrote. Also, from getting off my lawn.)

oldster 08.03.20 at 1:21 am ( 142 )

and I forgot the link:
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm

[Aug 03, 2020] KEEPING YOUR MOUTH SHUT by James L. Gibson & Joseph L. Sutherland

Highly recommended!
This is a shadow of USSR over the USA. Dead are biting from the grave.
Notable quotes:
"... Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019, fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We find that: ..."
"... those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging in more self-censorship ..."
"... fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and portentous. ..."
"... Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ..."
Aug 03, 2020 | poseidon01.ssrn.com

Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019, fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We find that:

(1) Levels of self-censorship are related to affective polarization among the mass public, but not via an "echo chamber" effect because greater polarization is associated with more self-censorship.

(2) Levels of mass political intolerance bear no relationship to self-censorship, either at the macro- or micro-levels.

(3) Those who perceive a more repressive government are only slightly more likely to engage in self-censorship. And

(4) those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging in more self-censorship .

Together, these findings suggest the conclusion that one's larger macro-environment has little to do with self-censorship. Instead, micro-environment sentiments -- such as worrying that expressing unpopular views will isolate and alienate people from their friends, family, and neighbors -- seem to drive self-censorship.

We conclude with a brief discussion of the significance of our findings for larger democracy theory and practice. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3647099

There can be little doubt that Americans today are deeply divided on their values, many issue preferences, and their ideological and partisan attachments (e.g., Druckman and Levendusky 2019). Indeed, these divisions even extend to the question of whom -- or what kind of person -- their children should marry (Iyengar et al. 2019)!

A concomitant of these divisions is that political discourse has become coarse, abrasive, divisive, and intense. When it comes to politics today, it is increasingly likely that even an innocent but misspoken opinion will cause a kerfuffle to break out.

It therefore should not be surprising to find that a large segment of the American people engages in self-censorship when it comes of expressing their views.1 In a nationally representative survey we conducted in 2019 (see Appendix A), we asked a question about self-censorship that Samuel Stouffer (1955) first asked in 1954, with startling results: fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and portentous.

... ... ...

===

1 Sharvit et al. put forth a useful definition of self-censorship (2018, 331): " Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ." Studies of self-censorship have taken many forms, ranging from philosophical inquiries (e.g., Festenstein 2018) to studies of those withholding crucial evidence of human rights abuses (e.g., Bar-Tal 2017) to studies of self-censorship among racial minorities (e.g., Gibson 2012).

[Aug 03, 2020] The Guardian is running a more sophisticated version of the false flag story about Russian influence

Aug 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Aug 4 2020 0:59 utc | 21

The Guardian is running a more sophisticated version of the story. It claims the Russians hacked the papers and gave them to Jeremy Corbyn so he could win the General Elections of December 2019:

Russians hacked Liam Fox's personal email to get US-UK trade dossier

The stolen documents – a 451-page dossier of emails – ultimately ended up in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn during last winter's election campaign after Russian actors tried to disseminate the material online.

They had been posted on the social media platform Reddit and brought to the attention of the then Labour leader's team. Corbyn said the documents revealed the NHS "was on the table" in trade talks with the US.

Details of Russia's targeting of Fox's emails were first revealed on Monday by Reuters, which said his account was accessed several times between 12 July and 21 October last year. It was unclear if the documents were obtained when the staunch leave supporter was still trade secretary; he was dropped by Boris Johnson on 24 July.

However, it still is keeping the earliest date as July 12th, thus reproducing the entire Reuters' version.

My guess is that The Guardian adapted the story to its center-left (i.e. Blairite) audience, in a way both Corbyn and the Conservative and Unionist Party could be melded together as a single evil force. If that's the case, then it is circumstantial evidence for a highly and centrally coordinated propaganda machine in the UK, possibly ran directly from the MI5/6, which directly involves all the important British newspapers, TV channels and more.

It's interesting to see how The Guardian sophisticated the clearly fake story. In the excerpt I quoted above, it is clear the source of the leak could've only been secretary Fox (or Fox served as the sacrificial lamb, it doesn't matter for the sake of the argument here).

Then, it connected Fox's leak with Raab's public accusation of Russia (that story where he accused Russia in the name of the British government, but didn't reveal the evidence).

To end with a high note, the Guardian then revived a story of hacked e-mails from 2012 and 2017.

You can then see how the British are capable of recycling old, failed propaganda attacks/fake news to transform then into a new "truth". Very curious and sophisticated methodology of building a long-term, sustained, false narrative. It almost mirrors the Christian method of typology, where a previous event is brought up from oblivion to serve as a prelude for the new event (i.e. the newest fake news).

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 4 2020 1:08 utc | 22

"The attack bore the hallmarks of a state-backed operation."

There is no such thing.

Look at the Twitter hack last week. Everyone said "must be some sophisticated actor, possibly state-sponsored". Turns out it was a 17-year-old in Florida. That has happened repeatedly in the last ten years or more: hacks that looked "sophisticated" turned out to be done by a single individual. People forget that some organized crime hacker groups earn millions of dollars from their hacks and can afford to put quite an effort into the development of sophisticated hacking tools that are the equal of anything a state intelligence agency can produce.

People in infosec know the truth: it's not that hard to compromise any corporation or individual. And "attribution by target" - that is, the notion that because a particular person or organization is government or media, therefore it has to be a state-related hacker - is completely false. *Any* hacker will hit *any* target that provides 1) a challenge, and/or 2) personal identification information, and/or intellectual property that can be sold on the Dark Web.

Only situations where specialized knowledge that is not commonly available to individuals or civilian groups was used in the hack can clearly indicate a state actor. Stuxnet is the classic example, requiring access to and the ability to test the malware with specific pieces of hardware that aren't commonly available to persons outside of industrial or nuclear engineering.

Stealing some papers from a government individual off his phone or home or office desktop is almost trivial in comparison.

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 4 2020 1:12 utc | 24

"his account was accessed several times between 12 July and 21 October"

So for three months they did nothing to fix his security? Good work, guys...you're fired. This is typical - hackers sitting in a corporation's network for months or even years without being detected. It's likely they didn't even notice the unauthorized access until they decided to look back. Not to mention that a government worker isn't supposed to be using "personal email" to host classified information. So the idiot involved should be fired.

Typical infosec clusterfuck. That's assuming it happened at all, of course, which is doubtful.

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 4 2020 1:21 utc | 25

Well, lost two post due to the VPN being on...sigh...

OK, to quote the old British comedy radio show, "I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again"...

"...the attack bore the hallmarks of a state-backed operation."

There is no such thing. *Any* hacker will hack *any* target provided it provides 1) a challenge, and/or 2) personal identification information, and/or 3) intellectual property, the latter two being sold on the Dark Web. Trying to attribute the hacker based on his target is a fool's game - not that there is any lack of fools in the infosec space who use such attribution as marketing, such as CrowdStrike.

Then there's the fact that this guy's account was accessed several times over a three-month period - meaning no one was monitoring his email security, least of all him. Not to mention that he was passing classified papers over a personal email account - which should get him fired. Email is *insecure*, period, unless encrypted between the parties involved. And even then, you just compromise one party's desktop, laptop or phone, and bingo, encryption bypassed. And compromising an individual's or organization's email system is not particularly hard, as any penetration tester knows. One phishing email targeted to the right person usually does it.

[Aug 03, 2020] Joe Biden Advance Team Recommends British Approach To Fighting Russia Start The Disinformation Before The Fact, The Fake Before The Truth -- Doubt Is Russian Mind Control

What is missing from Russian side is a consistent, principled opposition to a very crude campaign of warmongering.
Aug 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
jayc , Aug 3 2020 20:35 utc | 10

A poster shared this John Helmer story a few days ago - it is very relevant here:

JOE BIDEN ADVANCE TEAM RECOMMENDS BRITISH APPROACH TO FIGHTING RUSSIA – START THE DISINFORMATION BEFORE THE FACT, THE FAKE BEFORE THE TRUTH -- DOUBT IS RUSSIAN MIND CONTROL
http://johnhelmer.net/joe-biden-advance-team-recommends-british-approach-to-fighting-russia-start-the-disinformation-before-the-fact-the-fake-before-the-truth-doubt-is-russian-mind-control/#more-34229

This is the purpose of the Russia-is-responsible-for-all-malign-events disinformation campaigns as stated by a junior deep-stater:

"An analysis of the UK experience offers some indicators as to what deters Russia .Taken together, this swift, coordinated national response backed by the weight of the international community and imposition of punitive measures exposed Russian malign influence activities and incompetence, embarrassing Russia in the eyes of its citizens. Over time, such reputational damage could cause more serious problems for the Russian government vis-à-vis the Russian people."


Lurk , Aug 3 2020 20:55 utc | 11

@ jayc | Aug 3 2020 20:35 utc | 10

Last time, Putin was seen weaponizing humor. What devious plan is up next in his perverted sadistic mastermind? Weaponizing critical thought?

karlof1 , Aug 3 2020 21:09 utc | 13

As 5-Eyes nations fall further behind Russia & China, the outright lies and disinformation will increase as they'll no longer be capable of honest competition--and that's just the business sphere. In the social sphere, as living standards continue to fall for 5-Eyes residents relative to Russia and China, the shrillness and mendacity of the lying will escalate to cover for the vast political failure that's responsible for the decline. As some have noted, there's been a reversal of positions with the Outlaw US Empire becoming ever more degraded like the USSR previously. Both UK and USA continually behave as spoilt brats, taking their ball home when no longer allowed to win. Self-examination is Taboo. Those watching rightly question how it was that such people rose to dominant positions--completely accidental is the answer.

[Aug 03, 2020] When corporate power is your real government, corporate media is state media by Caitlin Johnstone

Aug 03, 2020 | www.rt.com

By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz In the American corporatist system, where wealthy elites control the elected government through lobbyists, corporate media is state media, promoting narratives that help maintain the corporate-approved status quo.

The New York Times published an astonishingly horrible article the other day titled "Latin America Is Facing a 'Decline of Democracy' Under the Pandemic" accusing governments like Venezuela and Nicaragua of exploiting Covid-19 to quash opposition and oppress democracy.

The article sources its jarringly propagandistic claims in multiple US government-funded narrative management operations like the Wilson Center and the National Endowment for Democracy -sponsored Freedom House , the extensively plutocrat-funded Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the United States Naval Academy.

The crown jewel of this piece of State Department stenography reads as follows:

"Adding to these challenges, democracy in Latin America has also lost a champion in the United States, which had played an important role in promoting democracy after the end of the Cold War by financing good governance programs and calling out authoritarian abuses."

Whoa, nelly.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1288972702716395526&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fop-ed%2F496962-caitlin-johnstone-corporate-media%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

The fact that America's most widely regarded newspaper feels perfectly comfortable making such a spectacularly in-your-face lie on behalf of the US government tells you everything you need to know about what the mass media in America really are and what they do.

The United States has never at any time been a champion of democracy in Latin America, before or since the Cold War. It has intervened hundreds of times in the continent's affairs throughout history, with everything from murderous corporate colonialism to deadly CIA regime-change operations to overt military invasions . It is currently trying to orchestrate a coup in Venezuela after failing to stage one during the Bush administration, it's pushing regime change in Nicaragua, and The New York Times itself admitted this year that it was wrong to promote the false US government narrative of electoral shenanigans in Bolivia's presidential race last year, a narrative which facilitated a bloody fascist coup .

This is propaganda. There is no other word for it. And yet the only time Western politicians and news reporters use that word is to talk about nations like Russia and China.

READ MORE Caitlin Johnstone: In post-Iraq invasion world, it's absolutely insane to blindly believe the US narrative on China

Why is propaganda used in an ostensibly free democracy with an ostensibly free media? Why are its news media outlets so consistently in alignment with every foreign policy objective of US government agencies, no matter how destructive and inexcusable? If the media and the government are two separate institutions, why do they so consistently function as though they are not separate?

Well, that's easy. It's because they aren't separate. The only thing keeping this from being seen is the fact that America's real government isn't located where people think it is.

In a corporatist system of government, where no hard lines are drawn between corporate/financial power and state power, corporate media is state media. Since bribery is legal in the US political system in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations, America's elected government is controlled by wealthy elites who have money to burn and who benefit from maintaining a specific status quo arrangement.

The fact that this same plutocratic class also owns America's media, which is now so consolidated that it's almost entirely run by just six corporations , means that the people who run the government also run the media. This allows America's true rulers to set up a system which promotes narratives that are favorable to their desired status quo.

Which means that the US has state propaganda. They just don't call it that themselves.

Strip away the phony two-handed sock puppet show of US electoral politics and look at how power actually moves in that country, and you just see one more tyrannical regime which propagandizes its citizens, brutally cracks down on protesters , deliberately keeps its populace impoverished so they don't get powerful enough to change things, and attacks any nation which dares to disobey its dictates.

Beneath the thin layer of narrative overlay about freedom and democracy, the US is just one more despotic, bloodthirsty empire. It's no better than any of the other despotic, bloodthirsty empires throughout history. It just has good PR.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=RT_com&dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1289095579335720960&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rt.com%2Fop-ed%2F496962-caitlin-johnstone-corporate-media%2F&siteScreenName=RT_com&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

Plutocrats not only exert control over America's media and politics, they also form alliances with the secretive government agencies whose operators remain amid the comings and goings of the official elected government. We see examples of this in the way new-money tech plutocrats like Jeff Bezos , Peter Thiel and Pierre Omidyar have direct relationships with the CIA and its proxies.

We also see it in the sexual blackmail operation which was facilitated by the late Jeffrey Epstein in connection with billionaire Leslie Wexner and Israeli intelligence , along with potentially the FBI and/or other US intelligence agencies . Today the internet is abuzz as newly unsealed court documents relating to Epstein and his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell reveal witness testimony regarding underage sex trafficking, with such high-profile names appearing in the documents as Alan Dershowitz , Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew .

The Overton window of acceptable political discourse has been shrunk into such a narrow spectrum of debate that talking about even well-known and extensively documented facts involving the real nature of America's government and media will get you laughingly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, which is itself a symptom of tight narrative control by a ruling class which much prefers Americans thinking they live in a free democracy whose government they control with their votes.

//www.youtube.com/embed/Yw0qkvvSE7s

In the old days you used to be able to tell who your rulers were because they'd sit on thrones and wear golden crowns and make you bow before them. Human consciousness eventually evolved beyond the acceptability of such brazen indignities, so it became necessary for rulers to take on more of a background role while the citizenry clap and cheer for the illusory puppet show of electoral politics.

But the kings are still among us, just as cruel and tyrannical as ever. They've just figured out how to mask their tyranny behind the facade of freedom.

But 2020 has been a year of revelations , a trend which seems likely to continue accelerating . Truth cannot stay hidden forever.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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

[Aug 03, 2020] Austria Confirms OPCW Report On Skripal Faking by the British Vienna Exposes Financial Times Lies and Cover-Up

Aug 03, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Maritimer , August 1, 2020 at 4:39 am

" have covered up British government lying on the Skripal blood testing and the Novichok evidence."

From Fool Me Once, Twice University:

"Sir Reginald, how is the Covid 19 vaccine propaganda campaign shaping up?"

Plague Species , August 1, 2020 at 10:24 am

I have a comment that was moderated in the vaccine thread that speaks to this. Some yahoo claimed that those engaged in the vaccine hype are on the up and up and have the same motivation all of us unwashed have for an effective and affordable vaccine.

These are the people in charge and we're to believe they are on the up and up and have our best interests at heart -- that they are magnanimous people with the utmost integrity? Yeah, no, I don't think so.

The irony is, a vaccine gone wrong, because caveat emptor is now the rule of the day, will be the REAL Novichok writ large on the world at large.

Steven Tooge , August 1, 2020 at 5:02 am

Okay, so what killed Dawn Sturgess?

John A , August 1, 2020 at 7:34 am

Drug overdose most probably. She was hastily cremated, just to make sure there were no subsequent autopsies.

Susan the other , August 1, 2020 at 11:13 am

So the story about the "perfume bottle" was as fictitious as it sounded? I wonder about the rumors that the Skripals were knocked out with fentanyl might be true.

Olga , August 1, 2020 at 11:47 am

It always seemed to me that Dawn S was just an afterthought. A woman, who was known to use drugs, died (unclear how) – and wouldn't it just help our case if we linked it to Skripals' troubles? The story of a sealed perfume bottle – which seemed to have no effect on her partner – was always something out of an Alice-in- Wonderland narrative.
And to think that there is a whole department, somewhere in the bowels of MI6 – that is paid to come up with such nonsense.
Lies, upon lies, upon more lies. My first reaction on seeing Helmer's report last week was 'et tu, FT-us?' There simply is not a single western media outlet that can be trusted not to lie.
And if anyone is still confused – just think about this: where are the Skripals? We've not seen or heard of them in about two years. Julia is a Russian citizen – who seems to have been kidnapped by another govt (UK). Imagine if Russians had done something like that.

cirsium , August 1, 2020 at 5:58 pm

contaminated batch of drugs – the local police were issuing warnings to drug addicts. See John Helmer's post
http://johnhelmer.net/british-coroner-hides-british-police-evidence-in-the-novichok-case-as-bbc-prepares-to-broadcast-new-lies/

John A , August 1, 2020 at 5:31 am

Funnily enough, this is not a big enough bombshell to alert British msm to report it.

Acacia , August 1, 2020 at 5:53 am

So, they lied, then lied about lying, then lost track of their own lies, and then lied about that too.

And now the story is "who are the 'moles' that exposed the lies about the lies?".

Susan the other , August 1, 2020 at 11:15 am

And as usual we will only have to wait for some appropriate amount of time to pass before we get the next British rendition of the story. It'll be a good one because it's possible the British could be dragged into the Hague for this, isn't it?

Ramon , August 2, 2020 at 7:57 am

Delay and delay until people say "who are the Skripals?" Already people are saying "what's the Steele dossier?" (Just googled Steele, comes at 16th place, page two)

David , August 1, 2020 at 7:32 am

"Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government's allegation that Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention."
Er, OK, could we perhaps have a link to this official confirmation, or at least a summary of what the Austrian government is supposed to have said? Otherwise it's just an assertion without any evidence.

Helmer seems a bit confused. All the article says is that it's been established by the bar-code that the ultimate source of the copy of the OPCW report used by the FT was the Austrians , who as a state party would routinely have received a copy of the report. Since the FT presumably wanted to protect their sources they obscured the origins. And since it's highly unlikely the whoever leaked a copy of the report would have handed it directly to the FT (why would they?) it's likely that it came through intermediaries. He doesn't claim to have seen the report himself, and in the long and complicated story of his to which he links simply quotes an anonymous "expert" who hasn't seen the report either. Bricks wthout straw
It was obvious at the time, and still is, that there was something weird about the Skripal affair, but this doesn't get us any further forward, I'm afraid.

Zamfir , August 1, 2020 at 9:49 am

I am confused as well. The oe24 website doesn't say anything about the contents of the report, and does not say that Austria wrote the report, or that Austria did their own research.

All it says is that Marsalek had the Austrian copy of the document.

Light Rue , August 1, 2020 at 9:55 am

John Helmer seems to spend a lot of words dancing around so that he can selectively quote the the following two paragraphs:

The OPCW's findings confirm the United Kingdom's analysis of the identity of the toxic chemical. It supports our finding that a military grade nerve agent of a type known as Novichok was used in Salisbury. DSTL, our laboratories at Porton Down, established the highest concentrations of the agent were found on the handle of Mr Skripal's front door.

But of course, while the identification of the nerve agent used is an essential piece of technical evidence in our investigation, neither DSTL's analysis, nor the OPCW's report, identifies the country or laboratory of origin of the agent used in this attack.So let me also set out the wider picture, which leads the United Kingdom to assess that there is no plausible alternative explanation for what happened in Salisbury than Russian State responsibility. We believe that only the Russian Federation had the technical means, operational experience, and the motive to target the Skripals.

I.e. Everyone involved is confident Novichok was used, but they were unable to track it to a specific Russian lab. Given all the other evidence, this is hardly exculpatory, nor is it contradictory, unless there have previously been high-profile claims that the specific source of the Novichok was identified. Checking Wikipedia and sources back in 2018 finds multiple statements, including from the UK government, that they had not be able to track down the exact source of the nerve agent.

Harry , August 1, 2020 at 11:12 am

My reading of Mr Helmer's piece is that he is claiming the Lab report did not confirm the presence of a Novichuk type chemical.

From memory, I recall the Russian MFA claiming the Lab report actually specified BZ, another chemical from a different family of chemicals.

It would be good if the ambiguity were removed.

Susan the other , August 1, 2020 at 11:23 am

That's how I read it as well. The Austrians reported that they found no traces of Novichok or other nerve agent in the Skripals' blood samples. At that point, you'd think, they would have run further tests to determine what agent was involved. The smartest poison would have been one that left no trace. So that lets out the "technical means" of the Russian state – it clearly was never needed.

Zamfir , August 1, 2020 at 11:46 am

But that's the weird thing. Helmer says:
"Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government's allegation that Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention."

But his only link is the Oe24 website, and it does not say anything like that. It only says that the Austrian government had a copy of the OPCW report, and this particular copy was leaked to Marsalek.

The Oe24 website does not say anything about the content of that report, and it does not say that the Austria government did any research of their own.

Perhaps Helmer has other sources, but I can't find them. In particular, I would have expected a link to the official confirmation by the Austrian government, if there is such a thing

David , August 1, 2020 at 12:17 pm

I don't think "the Austrians" have played any role in this at all, in spite of Helmer's confusing suggestions. As OPCW state parties they would have received a copy of the report. That's it. The OE24 story is just that their own copy leaked in some way, which is embarrassing for the Austrian government since these reports are confidential. But there's no suggestion that the Austrians played any other role, or even that they could have if they wanted to. (Why would they?).
To answer your question properly, you'd need an organic chemist who was a specialist in nerve agents. Remember that "Novichok" is not a nerve agent: it just means something like "new one", and is the generic name for at least five known nerve agents developed by the Soviet Union before the end of the Cold War. Each presumably has common characteristics but also differences, and you'd need an expert to tell you what traces they leave, how fast these traces decay, and so on. It may simply have been that, whilst the symptoms of the Skripals were consistent with the use of one or more of the agents, it couldn't be shown clearly exactly what the agent was. Certainly the careful statements of the UK government at the time would support that interpretation.
Don't forget by the way that the Russians, as OPCW state parties, would have a copy of the report, and may have decided that it would suit their interests if it became public in some roundabout manner.

Harry , August 1, 2020 at 10:14 am

I asked Helmer on his own website for the same. There is one step missing from the argument – the content of the OPCW memo. Apparently Helmer in another piece quotes a chemist who appears to have seen the document and says the FT could not have had material which confirmed the British government story. But we are not in a position to judge for ourselves.

The way the other piece reads, the memo may be on the Austrian newspapers website. But when I clicked on the link I could not find it. Quite often, sensitive links like this are moved to prevent a snowjob falling apart. So its possible Helmer might have linked to it and the link was moved. But I cannot say.

However I have to disagree regarding whether this adds information. The FT presented their story to make it appear the document had been leaked by the Russians. They didnt obscure the source, they misrepresented it. Curiouser still is the involvement of the FT Russian correspondent.

But I suspect this is just one installment in the story. I await Mr. Helmer's clarification.

Harry , August 1, 2020 at 10:26 am

This is the key phrase

"The Austrian copy of the OPCW file now confirms this was a misrepresentation of the chemical formula and other evidence the OPCW had gathered."

Is it possible to show us this?

Kurt Sperry , August 1, 2020 at 1:47 pm

It was obvious at the time, and still is, that there was something weird about the Skripal affair, but this doesn't get us any further forward, I'm afraid.

Quite, my reaction as well.

johnson , August 1, 2020 at 7:40 pm

Agreed. The level of reporting here fails to even clear the bar of "anonymous people close to the matter" sourcing that we would be excoriating mainstream media for: he doesn't offer us the contents of the report, or claim to have seen it, or even provide testimony of someone who does claim to have seen it. Helmer comes off, at best, as a crank, and at worst intentionally obfuscatory. Is this typical of his work?

shtove , August 1, 2020 at 7:38 am

Strange report, dancing around the substance underlying its allegation – that the report showed no evidence of novichok.

Mr. House , August 1, 2020 at 7:46 am

Yes yes we lied about that, and that, and yes that, oh and also that, but this time we are telling the TRUTH!

a different chris , August 1, 2020 at 10:08 am

This is my favorite along those lines:

>The leak had been an "explosive secret betrayal"

Letting the unwashed get the truth is a "betrayal" to them. Ok, got it.

jefemt , August 1, 2020 at 9:59 am

Another Paywalled Rag .. WSJ and NYT come to mind

Integrity in the 4th Estate. Clutch yer pearls and ponder the misinformation EVERYWHERE

Hubert Horan , August 1, 2020 at 10:12 am

FYI Dan McCrum, the FT reporter Helmer says was part of the cover up, is also the reporter who broke the recent Wirecard story

Harry , August 1, 2020 at 10:16 am

Absolutely Mr. Horan. Which makes perfect sense given the hedge fund analyst who alerted the FT to the docs was a Wirecard short.

The Rev Kev , August 1, 2020 at 10:48 am

What's the bet that in a coupla years, that there will be a showcase trial of some Russians like they are doing in the Netherlands at the moment over the MH17 shoot down. You would think that being in the same country that they could do it through the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Only problem here is that they cannot stop the accused giving evidence in defence but they can through these show trials. To think that the OPCW had such a great reputation just a few years ago but now they have been corrupted.

Meanwhile in Oz, I see advertised on TV a three-part series coming here called "The Salisbury Poisoning." I can hardly wait-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekoW6g_wg7A

Alex Cox , August 1, 2020 at 12:05 pm

The series is produced by the BBC and The Guardian. Craig Murray has done a thorough takedown of all three episodes on his site.

KMD , August 1, 2020 at 12:16 pm

Perhaps it's this one?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/06/putins-gonna-get-me/

Craig Murray has been on this from the beginning. The official explanation(s) never made any sense.

stan6565 , August 1, 2020 at 4:01 pm

I have seen these two strange looking persons here in Esher, south west London. I don't know if they are he's or she's or them's but sure as fek they are evil russkies with their backpacks full of nasty substances.

Save for somewhat lighter facial and bodily complexion they are same as the beach vendors i encountered in Jamaica many years ago, who were not only offering ackee and fish but also a whole array of chemical mind altering substances as well as privileged access to all and any members of their supposed family, especially those of self declared female persuasion.

Synoia , August 1, 2020 at 6:59 pm

If you want to see many strange people I suggest Public Viewing in the House of Commons. Especially at question time.

km , August 1, 2020 at 10:57 am

But but but Bellingcat, which is a totally independent organization interested only in exposing the truth said that it was proven that Russia did it it with the super duper evil novichoks!

And if the official story doesn't quite hang together and the Skripals don't need to be "kept safe", then that begs the question of where are they?

stan6565 , August 1, 2020 at 3:53 pm

Madame Tussaud's is opening next week. The two Skripal drones are already there.

TimH , August 1, 2020 at 10:57 am

Aren't there treaties to not develop nerve agents? So not just the question of who supplied and administered the agent, but being caught at breaking the treaty?

JTMcPhee , August 1, 2020 at 11:45 am

Rules are for little people, not "state actors." "A fig for your treaty." Remember, of course, the sell substantiated comment that the US (and its imperial minions and lackeys" is/are not "agreement-capable."

Interesting, the rigorous and gimlet-eyed analysis being applied to Helmer's article. Too bad people who are doing that did not also apply the same rigor and skepticism to the "government" fish story

"We'll know our disinformation campaign is complete when everything the American public believes is false." Evil CIA Director William Casey, Feb. 1981. https://amallulla.org/casey/

Parker Dooley , August 1, 2020 at 12:49 pm

"Innocent pesticide and anesthesiology research. How unfortunate that one of our candidate formulas turned out to be so toxic to humans."

David , August 1, 2020 at 2:07 pm

These agents were developed before the entry into force of the CWC, and it appears that they were deliberately designed to circumvent its likely provisions. According to various published sources, some of the agents were "binaries", ie they were agents which would be created in the field from precursors which would not themselves be subject to the Treaty. It has been suggested that they were developed hidden within a much larger agricultural pesticide programme. The old Soviet regime always drew a distinction between signing a Treaty (which was a political act) and implementing it, which was another matter. I doubt if much has changed in Moscow since then.

Stephen , August 1, 2020 at 1:10 pm

just to add to what appears to be the majority of posts on this matter -- I find the article from Helmer entirely unconvincing, and certainly doesn't supply any evidence, or reasoning, that would justify the view that the Brits claim of Russian use of a Novichock type agent on the Skripals "looks to have fallen apart"
Helmer's article was either very badly written, or very cleverly composed to give it the "look and feel" of a well researched and well footnoted article despite an underlying disconnect between evidence provided and verdict announced.
It's almost impossible to refute such an article, beyond returning it to the author for a rewrite.
I wouldn't go to the wall defending the Brits version of events, but at this point it hangs together WAY better than Mr. Helmer's article does

CanChemist , August 1, 2020 at 1:11 pm

For those interested in better understanding the agents in question, here's a link to a discussion at the time on a well known chemistry blog with chemistry commenters, In the Pipeline:

"A Poisoning in England: But Which Poison?"
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2018/03/08/a-poisoning-in-england-but-which-poison

Like other commenters I'm not exactly sure what is being asserted by whom here. But I would say generally, given the context of who the Skripals were and the timing with Russian signaling, not to mention the Russians having excellent chemistry capabilities, nobody I know in the chemistry community doubted it was the Russians. I'd struggle to believe they were set up. And if it were traced back conclusively to a Russian fingerprint, that would be a feature not a bug, to keep the expats in line.

harry , August 1, 2020 at 2:09 pm

1) The Uk has fairly good chemistry capabilities too. And so conveniently located

2) The timing was terrible for Russia. But excellent for the UK. Cui bono?

3) This article suggests that the chemical in question was not what was reported in the media. Its interesting that this material is not public domain. The Russians announced the confidential Lab analysis result was BZ. They were ignored. Naturally

4) The Skripals fed ducks by hand after leaving home. They gave bread to local children to feed the ducks. Neither the kids nor the ducks suffered any ill effects.

5) UK government timeline makes no sense

6) Dawn Sturgess' partner is adamant that the "perfume" he gave her was still in its cellophane wrap. There is no explanation for how it was there given the charity bin he took it from had been emptied several times.

7) A doctor at the local hospital wrote a letter to the Times disputing the notion of any poisoning in the area.

This list of inconsistencies is not complete. There are many others. Which is not to say i know what happened. Just that the story the UK told approximates impossible.

CanChemist , August 1, 2020 at 2:48 pm

I'll throw out a few points ;)

1. The UK is certainly capable. However these aren't synthetically difficult, the hard part is not killing yourself in the process.

2. I think it fits with Putin's messaging, and maybe they expected to pull this off like a heart attack or drug OD and the agent screwed up. Historically some of their foreign assassinations were designed to be written off as accidents or suicides.

3. Chemistry reporting is generally terrible so yes. And there are tons of things, not just chemical warfare but even mundane things like cosmetic formulations, that are not in the public domain. As a chemist I wouldn't believe what Russia said unless I'd heard it confirmed through the gravevine. In any case we certainly know it's a nerve agent, and therefore deliberate.

4. Agree that the delivery method isn't clear, but I don't find it hard to believe they came into contact with a sophisticated poison and that once that happened, we saw the result. There are a lot of ways to deliver a poison e.g. remember the ricin umbrella incident. I don't think the UK correctly figured it out.

5,6. I agree, and it's related to 4.

7. Honestly doctors are so generally underinformed that when chemists manage to poison themselves at work, someone else from the lab has to go with them to help the hospital understand how to treat. So I don't put any weight on this.

I think it's possible to agree that the UK story has issues, probably due to not having proper investigation by actual experts, without that eliminating the possibility of the Russian angle. The Russians have a long and storied history of poisoning dissidents in pretty dramatic ways in foreign countries this matches their pattern. Remember the polonium incident? That was messy and they didn't care. And if the UK was doing it 'in house' there would be a lot more pressure not to have collateral damage on a setup like this. Given that history, I think that invoking a setup takes a lot more evidence, when it's already credible that the Russians did it again given who Skripal was.

urblintz , August 1, 2020 at 5:07 pm

see comment below

btw, is your last name Clapper? Maybe Murray?

"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election," he said. "And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So, we were concerned." https://observer.com/2017/05/james-clapper-russia-xenophobia/

urblintz , August 1, 2020 at 5:10 pm

comment below should be here

is your last name Clapper? Maybe Murray?

https://observer.com/2017/05/james-clapper-russia-xenophobia

CanChemist , August 1, 2020 at 5:33 pm

I'll clarify my statements and say that they are specific to the Russian government. I have personally had long working relationships with Russian scientists, and they are excellent scientists and people who are deservedly part of the international scientific community. Russian chemistry and physics are first rate.

And now here's two links I quickly pulled,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/06/the-long-terrifying-history-of-russian-dissidents-being-poisoned-abroad/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/09/a-brief-history-of-attempted-russian-assassinations-by-poison/

If you don't like these links, a Google search will show you there are a lot more than just a few people. The Russian government certainly has a track record with this, and I think it's fair to state this criticism publicly.

urblintz , August 1, 2020 at 4:58 pm

"The Russians have a long and storied history of poisoning dissidents in pretty dramatic ways in foreign countries"

links please and I'll need more than one about Litvinenko or the familiar Russo-phobic screed from a deranged British anti-communist still living in the '50's.

Alex , August 1, 2020 at 6:04 pm

No one has explained how the Scripals could have pure novichok on their hands for appox. 4hours feeling fine drinking in the Mill pub and then going for a meal in a Zizzi restaurant and then both very suddenly, a man twice the weight and age of his
daughter, together become. very ill at exactly the same moment

Oh and hey those professional Russian assasins stroll out of Salisbury station undesguised at about 11.30am knowing full well that CCT will catch them out and walk up to the Scripal M16 funded house on a Sunday lunchtime with the Scripals in at the time!

mauisurfer , August 1, 2020 at 9:30 pm

How likely is it that the first person to come to the aid of the Skripals just happened to be
Colonel Alison McCourt, chief nursing officer in the British Army. This fact was kept secret for months afterwards, and only came to be known through happenstance.
McCourt joined the Army in 1988 and became Chief Nursing Officer for the Army on February 1, 2018, just a month before the Skriprals' poisoning. She received the OBE (Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) honour from the Queen in 2015. The biography, which includes a posed photo of McCourt outside the prime minister's residence 10 Downing Street, notes, "Alison has deployed to Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Sierra Leone." Subsequent assignments include Officer Instructor at the Defence Medical Services Training Centre and a deployment to Kosovo as the Senior Nursing Officer for 33 Field Hospital in 2001. During that operational tour she was the in-theatre lead for the establishment of the joint UK/US hospital facility at Camp Bondsteel."

Sound of the Suburbs , August 2, 2020 at 3:43 am

I read the FT.
It's a neoliberal joke.
I enjoy making comments, giving an alternative explanation of events.

The funniest bit.
The curse of FT.
They always promote neoliberals and are convinced neoliberal leaders will bring success to a country.
It always turns into a disaster.

Sound of the Suburbs , August 2, 2020 at 3:57 am

Another amusing aspect is when they give the game away accidently.
The FT had graphs of growth over the years.
A quick glance revealed that growth was much higher in the Keynesian era, even in the 1970s.

The FT did a timeline of financial crises with each one marked by a vertical bar.
There were lots before the Keynesian era, and lots after the Keynesian era, but hardly any during the Keynesian era.
Surprisingly the FT journalist missed the obvious.
If they had realised they wouldn't have put the timeline in.

John A , August 2, 2020 at 6:31 am

Anybody coming new to the Skripal story could do worse than read this blog, which covers all the absurdities and improbabilities and impossibilities of the official British government story:

https://www.theblogmire.com/the-salisbury-poisonings-two-years-on-a-riddle-wrapped-in-a-cover-up-inside-a-hoax/

David , August 2, 2020 at 6:55 am

Well, we seem to have arrived at a consensus that Helmer has published a story with a click-bait title and introduction making accusations which he doesn't even try to substantiate. Either he's completely confused, or he's just publishing propaganda. Whichever, I won't take him seriously as a journalist any more: a pity, because some of the things he's written in the past have been quite informative.

mauisurfer , August 2, 2020 at 9:28 am

disagree strongly

John A , August 2, 2020 at 10:36 am

I also disagree strongly.
'We seem to have arrived at a consensus..' 'We' is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting in your claim.

[Aug 02, 2020] Russiagate, Nazis, and the CIA by ROB URIE

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences. ..."
"... The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. ..."
"... To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so? ..."
"... Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business. ..."
"... Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world. ..."
"... Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered. ..."
"... To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind. ..."
"... Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War. ..."
"... the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith. ..."
"... Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control . ..."
"... The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948. ..."
"... That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges ..."
"... Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?' ..."
"... Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. ..."
Jul 31, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
Facebook Twitter Reddit Email

The political success of Russiagate lies in the vanishing of American history in favor of a façade of liberal virtue. Posed as a response to the election of Donald Trump, a straight line can be drawn from efforts to undermine the decommissioning of the American war economy in 1946 to the CIA's alliance with Ukrainian fascists in 2014. In 1945 the NSC (National Security Council) issued a series of directives that gave logic and direction to the CIA's actions during the Cold War. That these persist despite the 'fall of communism' suggests that it was always just a placeholder in the pursuit of other objectives.

The first Cold War was an imperial business enterprise to keep the Generals, bureaucrats, and war materiel suppliers in power and their bank accounts flush after WWII. Likewise, the American side of the nuclear arms race left former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA to put their paranoid fantasies forward as assessments of Russian military capabilities. Why, of all people, would former Nazi officers be put in charge military intelligence if accurate assessments were the goal? The Nazis hated the Soviets more than the Americans did.

The ideological binaries of Russiagate -- for or against Donald Trump, for or against neoliberal, petrostate Russia, define the boundaries of acceptable discourse to the benefit of deeply nefarious interests. The U.S. has spent a century or more trying to install a U.S.-friendly government in Moscow. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. sent neoliberal economists to loot the country as the Clinton administration, and later the Obama administration, placed NATO troops and armaments on the Russian border after a negotiated agreement not to do so . Subsequent claims of realpolitik are cover for a reckless disregard for geopolitical consequences.

The paradox of American liberalism, articulated when feminist icon and CIA asset Gloria Steinem described the CIA as ' liberal, nonviolent and honorable ,' is that educated, well-dressed, bourgeois functionaries have used the (largely manufactured) threat of foreign subversion to install right-wing nationalists subservient to American business interests at every opportunity. Furthermore, Steinem's aggressive ignorance of the actual history of the CIA illustrates the liberal propensity to conflate bourgeois dress and attitude with an imagined gentility . To the point made by Christopher Simpson , the CIA could have achieved better results had it not employed former Nazi officers, begging the question of why it chose to do so?

On the American left, Russiagate is treated as a case of bad reporting, of official outlets for government propaganda serially reporting facts and events that were subsequently disproved. However, some fair portion of the American bourgeois, the PMC that acts in supporting roles for capital, believes every word of it. Russiagate is the nationalist party line in the American fight against communism, without the communism. Charges of treason have been lodged every time that military budgets have come under attack since 1945. In 1958 the senior leadership of the Air Force was charging the other branches of the military with treason for doubting its utterly fantastical (and later disproven) estimate of Soviet ICBMs. Treason is good for business.

Shortly after WWII ended, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi military officers, including former Gestapo and SS officers responsible for murdering tens and hundreds of thousands of human beings , to run a spy operation known as the Gehlen Organization from Berlin, Germany. Given its central role in assessing the military intentions and capabilities of the Soviet Union, the Gehlen Organization was more likely than not responsible for the CIA's overstatement of Soviet nuclear capabilities in the 1950s used to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. Former Nazis were also integrated into CIA efforts to install right wing governments around the world.

By the time that (Senator) John F. Kennedy claimed a U.S. 'missile gap' with the Soviets in 1958, the CIA was providing estimates of Soviet ICBMs (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles), that were wildly inflated -- most likely provided to it by the Gehlen Organization. Once satellite and U2 reconnaissance estimates became available, the CIA lowered its own to 120 Soviet ICBMs when the actual number was four . On the one hand, the Soviets really did have a nuclear weapons program. On the other, it was a tiny fraction of what was being claimed. Bad reporting, unerringly on the side of larger military budgets, appears to be the constant.

Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act passed by Congress in 1998, the CIA was made to partially disclose its affiliation with, and employment of, former Nazis. In contrast to the ' Operation Paperclip ' thesis that it was Nazi scientists who were brought to the U.S. to labor as scientists, the Gehlen Organization and CIC employed known war criminals in political roles. Klaus Barbie, the 'Butcher of Lyon,' was employed by the CIC, and claims to have played a role in the murder of Che Guevara . Wernher von Braun, one of the Operation Paperclip 'scientists,' worked in a Nazi concentration camp as tens of thousands of human beings were murdered.

The historical sequence in the U.S. was WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, to an economy that was heavily dependent on war production. The threatened decommissioning of the war economy in 1946 was first met with an honest assessment of Soviet intentions -- the Soviets were moving infrastructure back into Soviet territory as quickly as was practicable, then to the military budget-friendly claim that they were putting resources in place to invade Europe. The result of the shift was that the American Generals kept their power and the war industry kept producing materiel and weapons. By 1948 these weapons had come to include atomic bombs.

To understand the political space that military production came to occupy, from 1948 onward the U.S. military became a well-funded bureaucracy where charges of treason were regularly traded between the branches. Internecine battles for funding and strategic dominance were (and are) regularly fought. The tactic that this bureaucracy -- the 'military industrial complex,' adopted was to exaggerate foreign threats in a contest for bureaucratic dominance. The nuclear arms race was made a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the U.S. produced world-ending weapons non-stop for decades on end, the Soviets responded in kind.

What ties the Gehlen Organization to CIA estimates of Soviet nuclear weapons from 1948 – 1958 is 1) the Gehlen Organization was central to the CIA's intelligence operations vis-à-vis the Soviets, 2) the CIA had limited alternatives to gather information on the Soviets outside of the Gehlen Organization and 3) the senior leadership of the U.S. military had long demonstrated that it approved of exaggerating foreign threats when doing so enhanced their power and added to their budgets. Long story short, the CIA employed hundreds of former Nazi officers who had the ideological predisposition and economic incentive to mis-perceive Soviet intentions and misstate Soviet capabilities to fuel the Cold War.

Where this gets interesting is that American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg was working for the Rand Corporation in the late 1950s and early 1960s when estimates of Soviet ICBMs were being put forward. JFK had run (in 1960) on a platform that included closing the Soviet – U.S. ' missile gap .' The USAF (U.S. Air Force), charged with delivering nuclear missiles to their targets, was estimating that the Soviets had 1,000 ICBMs. Mr. Ellsberg, who had limited security clearance through his employment at Rand, was leaked the known number of Soviet ICBMs. The Air Force was saying 1,000 Soviet ICBMs when the number confirmed by reconnaissance satellites was four.

By 1962, the year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the CIA had shifted nominal control of the Gehlen Organization to the BND, for whom Gehlen continued to work. Based on ongoing satellite reconnaissance data, the CIA was busy lowering its estimates of Soviet nuclear capabilities. Benjamin Schwarz, writing for The Atlantic in 2013, provided an account, apparently informed by the CIA's lowered estimates, where he placed the whole of the Soviet nuclear weapons program (in 1962) at roughly one-ninth the size of the U.S. effort. However, given Ellsberg's known count of four Soviet ICBMs at the time of the missile crisis, even Schwarz's ratio of 1:9 seems to overstate Soviet capabilities.

Further per Schwarz's reporting, the Jupiter nuclear missiles that the U.S. had placed in Italy prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis only made sense as first-strike weapons. This interpretation is corroborated by Daniel Ellsberg , who argues that the American plan was always to initiate the use of nuclear weapons (first strike). This made JFK's posture of equally matched contestants in a geopolitical game of nuclear chicken utterly unhinged. Should this be less than clear, because the U.S. had indicated its intention to use nuclear weapons in a first strike -- and had demonstrated the intention by placing Jupiter missiles in Italy, nothing that the U.S. offered during the Missile Crisis could be taken in good faith.

The dissolution of the USSR in 1991 was met with a promised reduction in U.S. military spending and an end to the Cold War, neither of which ultimately materialized. Following the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Cold War entered a new phase. Cold War logic was repurposed to support the oxymoronic 'humanitarian wars' -- liberating people by bombing them. In 1995 'Russian meddling' meant the Clinton administration rigging the election of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian presidential election. Mr. Clinton then unilaterally reneged on the American agreement to keep NATO from Russia's border when former Baltic states were brought under NATO's control .

The Obama administration's 2014 incitement in Ukraine , by way of fostering and supporting the Maidan uprising and the ousting of Ukraine's democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, ties to the U.S. strategy of containing and overthrowing the Soviet (Russian) government that was first codified by the National Security Council (NSC) in 1945. The NSC's directives can be found here and here . The economic and military annexation of Ukraine by the U.S. (NATO didn't exist in 1945) comes under NSC10/2 . The alliance between the CIA and Ukrainian fascists ties to directive NSC20 , the plan to sponsor Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis in order to install them in the Kremlin to replace the Soviet government. This was part of the CIA's rationale for putting Ukrainian-affiliated former Nazis on its payroll in 1948.

That Russiagate is the continuation of a scheme launched in 1945 by the National Security Council, to be engineered by the CIA with help from former Nazi officers in its employ, speaks volumes about the Cold War frame from which it emerges.

Its near instantaneous adoption by bourgeois liberals demonstrates the class basis of the right-wing nationalism it supports. That liberals appear to perceive themselves as defenders 'democracy' within a trajectory laid out by unelected military leaders more than seven decades earlier is testament to the power of historical ignorance tied to nationalist fervor. Were the former Gestapo and SS officers employed by the CIA 'our Nazis?'

The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act came about in part because Nazi hunters kept coming across Nazi war criminals living in the U.S. who told them they had been brought here and given employment by the CIA, CIC, or some other division of the Federal government. If the people in these agencies thought that doing so was justified, why the secrecy? And if it wasn't justified, why was it done? Furthermore, are liberals really comfortable bringing fascists with direct historical ties to the Third Reich to power in Ukraine? And while there are no good choices in the upcoming U.S. election, the guy who liberals want to bring to power is lead architect of this move. Cue the Sex Pistols .

[Aug 02, 2020] Austria Confirms OPCW Report On Skripal-Faking By The British, Exposes FT Lies Cover-Up -

Aug 02, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Austria Confirms OPCW Report On Skripal-Faking By The British, Exposes FT Lies & Cover-Up by Tyler Durden Sun, 08/02/2020 - 08:10 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by John Helmer via Dances With Bears blog,

Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government's allegation that Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention.

Investigations in Vienna by four Austrian government ministries, the BVT intelligence agency, and by Austrian prosecutors have revealed that secret OPCW reports on the blood testing of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, copies of which were transferred to the Austrian government, did not reveal a Russian-made nerve agent.

me title=

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.400.1_en.html#goog_928075609

Two reports, published in Vienna this week by the OE media group and reporter Isabelle Daniel, reveal that the Financial Times publication of the cover-page of one of the OPCW reports exposed a barcode identifying the source of the leaked documents was the Austrian government. The Austrian Foreign Ministry and the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung (BVT), the domestic intelligence agency equivalent to MI5 or FBI, have corroborated the authenticity of the documents.

The Austrian disclosures also reveal that in London the Financial Times editor, Roula Khalaf, four of the newspaper's reporters, and the management of the Japanese-owned company have fabricated a false and misleading version of the OPCW evidence and have covered up British government lying on the Skripal blood testing and the Novichok evidence.

On Wednesday afternoon this week, OE24, a news portal of the OE media group in Vienna, broke the first story (lead image, right) that the barcode found on the OPCW document photograph published in London had been traced to several Austrian state ministries . The next day, OE political editor Isabelle Daniel reported the Austrian Foreign, Defence and Economics Ministries had received copies of the barcoded OPCW dossier, and that the Justice Ministry and prosecutors were investigating "potential moles".

Daniel also quoted a Foreign Ministry source as saying its copy of the documents had been securely stored in its disarmament department safe, and that there were "no tips" the leak had come from there. Daniel also quoted a BVT spokesman as confirming the authenticity of the OPCW file had been verified. "We have checked it recently. Officially it has not come to us."

Left: Isabelle Daniel of OE, Vienna. Right, Roula Khalaf Razzouk, editor of the Financial Times since her recent appointment by the Nikkei group, the newspaper's owner. Her full name and concealment of her Lebanese political and business interests can be followed here . The names of the four Financial Times reporters who have participated in the misrepresentation and cover-up are Paul Murphy, investigations editor; Dan McCrum, a reporter; Helen Warrell, NATO correspondent; and Max Seddon of the Moscow bureau.

about:blank

about:blank

me title=

The leak had been an "explosive secret betrayal" and a criminal investigation was under way, OE24 reported. OE is a privately owned Austrian media group, based in Vienna. It publishes a newspaper, the news portal OE.at, radio and television.

The Financial Times report first exposing the OPCW documents appeared on July 9. Details of how the newspaper fabricated the interpretation the OPCW had corroborated Russian involvement in the Novichok attack can be read here . For the full Skripal story, read the book .

At an OPCW Executive Council meeting on April 14, 2018, five weeks after the Skripal attack, the British Government confirmed that a few days earlier "all States parties" had received copies of the OPCW dossier. This included Austria, as the Viennese sources now acknowledge.

Source: https://www.opcw.org/

"The OPCW responded promptly to our request to send their experts to the United Kingdom," declared Peter Wilson, the British representative to the OPCW on April 14, 2018.

"They conducted a highly professional mission. The OPCW's designated laboratories have also responded professionally and promptly. What the Director-General said was really important on this, and the Technical Secretariat's presentation shows how professional that work was. The report the Technical Secretariat presented to us on 11 April was thorough and methodical. The Technical Secretariat responded quickly to our request to share that report with all States Parties. All have had the chance to see the quality of that work."

Wilson went on to say:

"As you know, on 4 March Yulia and Sergei Skripal were poisoned in Salisbury, the United Kingdom, with a chemical weapon, which United Kingdom experts established to be a Novichok. OPCW has now clearly verified those findings."

The Austrian copy of the OPCW file now confirms this was a misrepresentation of the chemical formula and other evidence the OPCW had gathered.

Wilson went on to conclude:

"the identification of the nerve agent used is an essential piece of technical evidence in our investigation, neither DSTL's [Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down] analysis, nor the OPCW's report, identifies the country or laboratory of origin of the agent used in this attack. So let me also set out the wider picture, which leads the United Kingdom to assess that there is no plausible alternative explanation for what happened in Salisbury than Russian State responsibility. We believe that only the Russian Federation had the technical means, operational experience, and the motive to target the Skripals."

The first qualifying sentence was the British truth; the conclusion was the British lie. The Austrian evidence now verifies there was no evidence of a Russian source in the blood and other test samples; no evidence of Novichok; and no evidence to corroborate the British allegations of a Russian chemical warfare attack.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

In its report, the Financial Times displayed a partial photograph of the cover-page of one of the OPCW documents in its possession (lead image, left). A classification stamp appears to be showing through the title page, but no barcode is visible. The London newspaper appears to have cropped the published picture so as to hide the barcode . That concealment -- proof of the Austrian source – allowed the newspaper reporters to claim the source of the document was unknown, probably Russian, as the headline implied: "Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek touted Russian nerve gas documents."

A British military source was reported as claiming "the documents were 'unlikely' to have come from OPCW member states in western Europe or the US." Khalaf and her reporters added: "The OPCW, which is based in The Hague, said this week that it was investigating the matter, but declined further comment. The Kremlin did not immediately respond to a request for comment." With the barcode in their possession but hidden, they knew they were publishing a combination of disinformation and lies.

The disclosure of the barcode to the Austrians appears to have followed after they had requested it from Khalaf. She checked with her superiors in the newspaper management before handing it over. They believed they were doing so in secret.

It is not known if Motohiro Matsumoto , the Nikkei executive responsible for the London publishing company, was alerted and gave his authorization; he refuses to answer questions. Matsumoto, one of the five directors of Financial Times Ltd., is the general manager of Nikkei's global business division. He takes his running orders from Nikkei's chairman and a long-time media executive, Tsuneo Kita. Matsumoto replaced Hirotomo Nomura at the head of the Financial Times on March 25, 2020. When Nikkei bought the newspaper from Pearson Plc in 2015, Nikkei became its sole proprietor.

The Austrian press has yet to report how the barcode was obtained from the newspaper. Because the BVT and state prosecutors in Vienna are involved in their search for the "moles", it is likely they contacted their counterparts at MI5 and the Home Office, and that the newspaper agreed to hand over its copy of the OPCW file to the latter. The collaboration of the journalists with the secret services to falsify evidence against Moscow in the Novichok story remains a sensitive secret.

Source: https://m.oe24.at/

Khalaf has refused repeated requests for comment. Max Seddon, the newspaper's Moscow reporter, was also asked for additional information about the photograph of the cover-page. He will not answer.

[Aug 02, 2020] The Dems. are absolute champions of hypocrisy and hysterical obfuscations.

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Noirette , Aug 1 2020 18:21 utc | 129

The Dems. are absolute champions of hypocrisy and hysterical obfuscations. They are also rather primitive and short-sighted, which all added up means they perpetually accuse others of their own sins, in narcissistic manipulatory fashion. (Like the abusive husband - prove you wasn't unfaithful - the teen vicious girl bully - you are a slut - etc.)

"Trump won't accept the election results" is a meme that has been going around for ages. Now he hinted he might not accept, everyone is all agog. All it signals is that the Dems. are preparing the ground to contest the results and create serious mayhem. (See the prelude BLM.)

In 2016 they were taken up short, thru lack of attention, stupidity and hubris - typical of a small cadre or consigliere group imagining they control everything. They haven't exited that bubble because they can't - reform is impossible. Their choice of Biden as a possible placeholder (he might be 'retired' and replaced, or a VP slot might be the P pick, etc.) probably seems like a good strategy to them, canny and all. Well over 70, brain damaged, senile and with a reputation of sniffing up little girls, the very idea of 'a leader' is dead at the door.

All it evidences is that the whole 'primary process' and what one might generously dub 'will of the ppl' as the Dems institute it is a total sham (see Sanders), a transparent masquerade. Plus that the Dems have no viable, interesting candidate - the last stab was Obama, whom the Clintons loathed, and many in top spots opposed - but then the 'vote' still counted (even if manipulations were going on - imho only for under 5% of the vote and this was accepted by all parties) so Obama was a sure win. Then he was forced of course to nominate Killary this was seen as a temp. aberration to be dealt with.

Ok, the repubs. So is Trump their candidate or what? :) The democratic 'process' in the US was always an affair of convos in smoke-filled back rooms, and mucho corruption, dirty dealing. What is happening now is that the system is cracking fast and nobody knows if they want dikes to shore it up, to pretend this or that, or to profit from a or b, or to ally with x or y, or to check out, etc. The masks are coming off (oh wait) one thing is for sure is the US population will not move or do anything.

jack at 56 I agree, Skripals being 3-way spies is nonsense. Skripal senior was a washed-out guy who did get some 'kudos' grudgingly from the 'spy' community - ex. he came here (Switz.) and gave some weak talks etc. I reckon he did want to go back to Russia and may have made some feelers or requests to do so, but he would have been ignored or at best shoved to the back of the queue. The Brits never informed him of anything much (imho), etc. Plus, all this going down when his daughter was there makes no sense for a savvy person, etc. No, the unravelling of that story will turn out to be quite humdrum, with a lot of 'accidents' and 'mistakes' etc. (if we ever find out..) with the usual Brit. *Russia Russia Russia* crowd cashing in opportunistically.

[Aug 02, 2020] Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius.

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sunny Runny Burger , Aug 1 2020 0:42 utc | 41

News I noticed:

...Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius. It should only require minimal additions similar to when missiles are "containerized"/vertical on ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dytSOhfg1UM for the video.

· "W93/MK7 Navy Warhead -- Developing Modern Capabilities to Address Current and Future Threats" - Pentagon, Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), unclassified 5-page white paper, May 2020 is still not "leaked". Seems a dud: reading between the lines not written no one was convinced and instead complained about anyone saying there's any problems (how "exceptional").


Grieved , Aug 1 2020 0:54 utc | 43

@41 Sunny Runny Burger

That's a great little video clip. Missiles erupting out of the ground. Trying to guess where the next one's coming from. I'll call it genius.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 1:54 utc | 49

Millenium Challenge 2002

"Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected."

Iranians are not part of the rules based order it seems - not that the bad guys in the war game was played by Iranians.

Grieved , Aug 1 2020 4:29 utc | 69

@50 Peter AU1 & #55 Bemildred

In the 2002 war game, the US was defeated in 2 days - lost a massive part of its fleet or some such. So they stopped the game and changed the rules. I think that's when Van Riper quit the game in disgust, and of course ultimately went public. But even with the rules changed, the US still lost.

The point about these exercises is that they are real endeavors to create a playbook that will result in victory. Millennium cost about $200 million to stage, and even for the Pentagon that was war-fighting money spent to try to get somewhere. The next point even more crucial is that in EVERY exercise the Pentagon has undertaken since this game, the US is ALWAYS beaten by Iran.

This is the point I frequently try to hammer home here - the Pentagon has no map whatsoever that leads to victory in warfare against Iran. Any warfare will always result in defeat for the US - and we know how unpalatable a public defeat would be for the whole MIC stream of income. The fundamentals are stacked against the US. It's very similar to Israel's position right now against Hezbollah. For both the US and Israel, neither one can move forward along the path it wants to go because its foe simply cannot be beaten by any stratagem it can devise.

Sharmine Narwani talked about this extensively in her interview with Ross Ashcroft last year on Renegade, Inc. It's an excellent interview. She's expert on the geopolitics of the ME and laid out many of the fundamentals that create and support Iran's unwavering position in this theater and in the great game:

What's the real plan with Iran?

I keep this episode bookmarked largely to share it here from time to time. You will both enjoy the interview. The takeaway is that the US can bluster all it wants, but it dare not cross a red line with Iran - such as it already has, for example, with Soleimani's murder, and for which it has not yet suffered its full punishment, which is complete banishment from the ME (and which I am convinced Iran will ultimately achieve).

~~

When your generals tell you constantly, daily, that you can't go into battle in a certain theater, you are free to bluster all you want. In fact, it's all you have left, and you pour all your feeble energy into it. Thus, the US.

Sakineh Bagoom , Aug 1 2020 6:44 utc | 75

Peter AU1 50 & 55 Bemildred & Grieved 70
RE: Millenium Challenge 2002
And yet, I keep pointing out that, that was 18 long years ago, when Iran did NOT have the following:

Terminal guidance for it's ballistics
Armed drone technology
Satellite to map out the battlefield
Proximity to Israel (two countries sat between Iran and Israel)
Electronic surveillance and response, like spoofing a drone to land in Iran.
S300 and home built variations
Cyber
Experience watching coalition forces fighting in ME
Etc, etc,

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 84

Re Iran

US could not attack Iran conventionally but with Trump's earlier fixation on nuclear weapons I think he was going to give that a try. Putin must have thought so to as he very publicly laid Russia's nuclear umbrella over Iran and maintained the status quo.

It was after this meeting the Russian envoy made the point plain and public in the presser that Iran was an ally of Russia.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-iran-us-israel-drone-ally-1445802

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 9:55 utc | 86

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 88 US could not attack Iran conventionally

The US is perfectly capable of *attacking* Iran conventionally. The only thing to question is whether the US can *defeat* Iran in the sense that Iran "surrenders" officially to the US. *That* is in my view impossible short of the US actually killing thirty million Iranians by nuking Iran.

Which in turn I believe even Trump would not do. He really would get Pentagon pushback on that, as well as from every US ally and the UNSC, because no one wants to get the geopolitical hear from being the first country to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country (this isn't WWII any more, before anyone brings up Hiroshima.)

As for Putin declaring Iran an ally, that does *not* mean that Putin would risk a nuclear confrontation with the US over Iran. Not going to happen - even if the US nuked Tehran. Putin's charge is to take care of Russian interests - and having Iran as an "ally and partner" does qualify as an "interest". But it is *not* an *overriding* interest. Putin would not be authorized by the Russian people to risk their country being nuked over a bunch of Persians and if he did, they'd kick his butt out at the next election - and rightly so.

Current Russian military doctrine (discussed here specifies the following:


The section on use begins by repeating the formulation in the last two Russian military doctrines (translation from the Russian Embassy in the U.K.): "The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy." Like the doctrines, Foundations underlines that the president of the Russian Federation makes any decision to use nuclear weapons. However, unlike the doctrines, it then, in paragraph 19, outlines four conditions that could allow for (not require) nuclear use:

credible information that Russia is under ballistic missile attack (the missiles don't have to be nuclear -- this isn't specified -- but in many cases, it's hard to tell before they land);
the use of nuclear or other WMD by an adversary against Russian territory or that of its allies;
adversary actions against Russian critical government or military infrastructure that could undermine Russia's capacity for nuclear retaliation (so, for example, a cyber attack on Russia's command and control -- or perhaps one that targets Russian leadership could also qualify); and, finally,
conventional aggression against Russia that threatens the very existence of the state.

The primary requirement is the use of nukes or "WMDs" against Russia, or conventional weapons where their use is an "existential threat", i.e., Russia is about to be defeated on a conventional battlefield.

the phrase "and/or its allies" almost certainly does *not* include Iran. There are two "alliances" to which Russia is a party, according to Wikipedia:
1) Collective Security Treaty Organization: Military alliance with 6 former Soviet republics: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.
2) Union State: an alliance between Russia and Belarus (also already covered by 1).

Russia and Iran do not have any formal military or mutual-defense alliance agreements. Russia and Iran are "allied" only with regard to Syria and Islamic terrorism in general. Russia is willing to sell Iran arms, obviously. Equally obviously, that does not indicate a willingness to risk nuclear war.

Putin made the following statement in June of 2019:

After talks Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, Putin said that "relations between Russia and Iran are multifaceted, multilateral" and that "this concerns the economy, this concerns the issues of stability in the region, our joint efforts to combat terrorism, including in Syria."

Nothing in that statement indicates a willingness to use Russia's nuclear arsenal to threaten the US to prevent a US attack on Iran.

It is of course *possible* that some in the Pentagon, the Deep State, and/or Congress, may interpret that to be the case. But I think the primary restraint on any President would be the heat for a first use of nukes on a non-nuclear country - even if the alleged "reason" was that Iran was developing nukes.
Even severe damage to US Navy assets in the region would not be sufficient to justify the use of nukes against Iran, in particular because the only viable target for nukes would Tehran or some other major Iranian city.

It is just possible that a tactical nuke would be used against a heavily buried facility involved in nuclear weapons development (or more precisely, alleged to be so - because Iran won't be developing nukes regardless of any US attack.) But even that would likely produce more heat than the US would want - and if it was done, it would be done as covertly as possible and then denied by the US. And even in that case, Russia would not threaten a nuclear response over that.

Of course, if the US leadership were to become even more unhinged than Trump, or say, the Russian leadership after Putin were to become more hawkish, then all bets are off. But under current conditions, it's not going to happen.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 90

Putin's speech March 1 2018

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957
"In this connection, I would like to note the following. We are greatly concerned by certain provisions of the revised nuclear posture review, which expand the opportunities for reducing and reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. Behind closed doors, one may say anything to calm down anyone, but we read what is written. And what is written is that this strategy can be put into action in response to conventional arms attacks and even to a cyber-threat.

I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific.

As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences."

Patrushev from my link above.
"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats"


Patrushev went to the meeting as a presidential envoy. After Putin's 2018 speech, I wondered who Russia considered an ally as I had not seen Russia name any. I tend to think Patrushev had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 13:20 utc | 96

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 95 I tend to think Patrushev had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.

Nonetheless, the two statements do not constitute an official declaration that Iran is an ally in the sense of being under the Russian nuclear umbrella, as the countries in the list I quoted from Wikipedia are. The Collective Security Treaty Organization "charter reaffirmed the desire of all participating states to abstain from the use or threat of force. Signatories would not be able to join other military alliances or other groups of states,[3] while aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all."

That's a military alliance which specifically declares those countries as "allies" in the military sense and specifically states that an attack on any of them is an attack on all of them.

Putin nor anyone else in Russia has specifically stated that Iran is an ally in those same terms. Putin's reference to Iran as an ally applied to economic matters and the security of Syria.

There is an article at Stratfor which I cannot access, but the tagline says: "Nikolai Bordyuzha, secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), said Feb. 25 [2020] that Moscow's nuclear umbrella has been extended to other CSTO member countries..." In other words, the nuclear umbrella didn't even cover the former Soviet Union countries until this year, apparently. From another article I found, Russia extended the umbrella to Belarus in 2000. Another article I found says this:


Finally, Russia has created its own military alliance through the Collective Security Treaty (1992) or "Tashkent treaty". In 2002, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was created, with a view to parallel NATO. As of June 2009, the organization included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, which are implicitly covered by a Russian nuclear guarantee. Even though Russian officials refer sometimes to all Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) countries being protected by Moscow's nuclear forces, it is reasonable to assume that only CSTO countries are effectively under the Russian nuclear umbrella.

So I simply don't see any reference anywhere to Russia explicitly extending its nuclear umbrella outside of the former Soviet Bloc countries. Again, all of the references made by Russians - Putin or otherwise - to Iran as an "ally" do not reference a military dimension. Of course, it's always *possible* that Putin or some future Russian leader *would* extend that umbrella to Iran, depending on future circumstances. But it seems highly unlikely.

I repeat: There is no chance that Russia will go to nuclear war over Iran. Or even conventional war against US military assets engaged in an attack on Iran because that would risk escalation to a nuclear level. The most Russia will do is supply arms and intelligence to Iran.

[Aug 02, 2020] Skripal might be the true "primary sub-source" for Steele's "dirty dossier"

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Aug 1 2020 2:36 utc | 55

juliania @Aug1 1:58 #51

the Skripals being triple spies

Well, I actually disagree with this part.

John Helmer thinks Skripal was going to bring back to Russia info related to Porton Down and military secrets.

But I suspect that Skripal was actually the true "primary sub-source" for Steele's "dirty dossier" (I've voiced this suspicion several times now at moa). I think Skripal knew that that material in the dossier was false and that it was MEANT to be false. Because it was intended to throw shade on Russia without actually tarnishing Trump.

Why would Hillary and the Democrats want a dossier that wasn't true? Trick question! CIA wanted to elect Trump as a nationalist President that would counter Russia and China. Hillary was almost certainly in on it - along with other top US officials (each of whom feel it was the patriotic thing to do).

IMO Skripal was probably trying to run back to Russia. Not necessary to bring British secrets but because he didn't feel safe because he knew too much about the operation to elect Trump.

That's my conspiracy theory -story and I'm stickin' to it! LOL. Until/unless there's info that disproves it.

!!

[Aug 01, 2020] This withdrawal of American troops and personnel from Germany points to the direction of European long-term decline in importance, as it seems the USA is opting for a more aggressive model against the Russian Federation. Either it believes the Russian Federation will fall soon (after Putin's death) or it is giving up Europe altogether

Aug 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Jul 31 2020 18:08 utc | 16

AFRICOM confirms HQ is leaving Stuttgart, German defense minister says US withdrawal is 'regrettable'

USA's shift to the Western Pacific (Australia) is taking shape. This withdrawal of American troops and personnel from Germany points to the direction of European long-term decline in importance, as it seems the USA is opting for a more aggressive, less in-depth model against the Russian Federation. Either it believes the Russian Federation will fall soon (after Putin's death) or it is giving up Europe altogether. Both scenarios imply in Germany's (the EU) decline.

[Jul 31, 2020] Crazy Nancy want to be new Senator McCarthy

Abusing prescription drugs at such an advanced age greatly increases probability of hallucinations
Jul 31, 2020 | www.msn.com

Pelosi upbraids counterintel chief in private briefing over Russian meddling

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top House Democrats admonished the country's top counterintelligence official during a classified election security briefing Friday, accusing him of keeping Americans in the dark about the details of Russia's continued interference in the 2020 campaign. Pelosi hinted at the conflict upon emerging from the briefing Friday morning, saying she thought the administration was "withholding" evidence of foreign election meddling.

[Jul 31, 2020] John Helmer continues his superb reporting and commentary on Skripals false flag

Jul 31, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Jul 31 2020 14:39 utc | 3

John Helmer continues his superb reporting and commentary. He is truly amazing.


!!

[Jul 30, 2020] U.S. Officials Disseminate Disinformation About 'Virus Disinformation'

Notable quotes:
"... Associated Press ..."
"... OneWorld.press ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jul 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

U.S. Officials Disseminate Disinformation About 'Virus Disinformation' Getald , Jul 29 2020 17:44 utc | 1

In another round of their anti-Russian disinformation campaign 'U.S. government officials' claim that some websites loosely connected to Russia are spreading 'virus disinformation'.

However, no 'virus disinformation' can be found on those sites.

The Associated Press as well as the New York Times were briefed by the 'officials' and provided write ups.

AP : US officials: Russia behind spread of virus disinformation

Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service known as the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to reach American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link between the sites and Russian intelligence.

Between late May and early July, one of the officials said, the websites singled out Tuesday published about 150 articles about the pandemic response, including coverage aimed either at propping up Russia or denigrating the U.S.

Among the headlines that caught the attention of U.S. officials were "Russia's Counter COVID-19 Aid to America Advances Case for Détente," which suggested that Russia had given urgent and substantial aid to the U.S. to fight the pandemic, and "Beijing Believes COVID-19 is a Biological Weapon," which amplified statements by the Chinese.

The first mentioned piece, Russia's Counter-COVID Aid To America Advances The Case For A New Detente , is by the well known author Andrew Korybko, a U.S. political analyst living in Moscow. It was published at OneWorld.press . The essay discussed the Russian Coronavirus aid flown in early April from Russia to the U.S. The analyst concludes that such aid can be seen as the beginning of a new détente between the U.S. and Russia.

There is zero 'virus disinformation' in the Korybko piece. The aid flight did happen and was widely reported. In a response to the allegations the proprietors of O neWorld point out that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent Q&A also alluded to a new détente with Russia. Was that also 'virus disinformation'?

The second piece the 'officials' pointed out, Beijing believes COVID-19 is a biological weapon , was written In March by Lucas Leiroz, a "research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro". It is an exaggerating analysis of the comments and questions a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry had made about the possible sources of the Coronavirus.

The original spokesperson quote is in the piece. Referring to additional sources the author's interpretation may go a bit beyond the quote's meaning. But it is certainly not 'virus disinformation' to raise the same speculative question about the potential sources of the virus which at that time many others were also asking.

The piece was published by InfoBRICS.org, a "BRICS information portal" which publishes in the languages of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). It is presumably financed by some or all of those countries.

Another website the 'U.S. officials' have pointed out is InfoRos.ru which publishes in Russian and English. The AP notes of it:

A headline Tuesday on InfoRos.ru about the unrest roiling American cities read "Chaos in the Blue Cities," accompanying a story that lamented how New Yorkers who grew up under the tough-on-crime approach of former Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg "and have zero street smarts" must now "adapt to life in high-crime urban areas."

Another story carried the headline of "Ukrainian Trap for Biden," and claimed that "Ukrainegate" -- a reference to stories surrounding Biden's son Hunter's former ties to a Ukraine gas company -- "keeps unfolding with renewed vigor."

U.S. officials have identified two of the people believed to be behind the sites' operations. The men, Denis Valeryevich Tyurin and Aleksandr Gennadyevich Starunskiy, have previously held leadership roles at InfoRos but have also served in a GRU unit specializing in military psychological intelligence and maintain deep contacts there, the officials said.

InfoRos calls itself a 'news agency' and has some rather boring general interest stuff on its site. But how is its writing in FOX News style about unrest in U.S. cities and about Biden's escapades in the Ukraine 'virus disinformation'? I fail to find any on that site.

In 2018 some "western intelligence agency" told the Washington Post , without providing any evidence, that InfoRos is related to the Russian military intelligence service GU (formerly GRU):

Unit 54777 has several front organizations that are financed through government grants as public diplomacy organizations but are covertly run by the GRU and aimed at Russian expatriates, the intelligence officer said. Two of the most significant are InfoRos and the Institute of the Russian Diaspora.

So InfoRos is getting some public grants and was allegedly previously run by two people who before that worked for the GU. What does that say about the current state and the content it provides? Nothing.

The NYT adds that hardly anyone is reading the websites the 'U.S. officials' pointed out but that their content is at times copied by more prominent aggregator sites:

"What we have seen from G.R.U. operations is oftentimes the social media component is a flop, but the narrative content that they write is shared more broadly through the niche media ecosystem," said Renee DiResta, a research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, who has studied the G.R.U. and InfoRos ties and propaganda work.

There are plenty of sites who copy content from various outlets and reproduce it under their name. But that does not turn whatever they publish into disinformation.

All the pieces mentioned by AP and NYT and attributed to the 'Russian' sites are basically factual and carry no 'virus disinformation'. That makes the 'U.S.officials' claims that they do such the real disinformation campaign.

And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.

People being prepared for Russia having the worlds first covid19 vaccine, the US will of course say it was stolen from them. Infantile politicians create infantile press to feed infantile articles to adult children. Critical thinking skills do not exist in the US population.

vk , Jul 29 2020 17:44 utc | 2

There's a corporativist aspect to all of this.

The development of propagation of information/disinformation through the internet eroded the power of the old newspapers/news agencies. It's not that this or that particular website is getting more views, but that the web of communications - the the imperialistic blunders + decline of capitalism post-2008 -, as a whole, weakened what seemed to be an unshakeable trust on the MSM (the very fact that this term exists already is historical evidence of their loss of power).

And this process manifests itself not only in loss of power, but also loss of money: this is particularly evident in the social media, where Facebook (Whatsapp + Facebook proper) and Google are beginning to siphon advertisement money from both TV and the traditional newspapers (printed press). When those traditional printed newspapers went digital, they behaved badly, by using paywalls - this marketing blunder only accelerated their decline in readership and thus further advertisement money, generating a vicious cycle for them.

The loss of influence of public opinion for the MSM also inaugurated another very important societal shift: the middle class' loss of monopoly over opinion and formation of opinion. Historically, it was the role of the middle class to be highly educated, to go to academia (college) and, most importantly, to daily read the newspapers while eating the breakfast. The middle class was the class of the intellectuals by definition, thus served as the clerical class of the capitalist class, the priests of capitalism. With the popularization of the internet, the smartphone and social media, this sanctity was broken or, at least, begun to deteriorate. We can attest this class conflict phenomenon by studying the rise of the term "expert" as a pejorative one. In the West's case, this shift begun through the far-right side of the political spectrum, but the shift is there.

The popularization of what was once a privilege is nothing new in capitalism. The problem here is that capitalism depends on infinite growth to merely exist (i.e. it can't survive on zero growth, it is mathematically impossible), so it has to "monetize" what still isn't monetize in order to find/create more vital space (Lebensraum - a term coined by the hyper-capitalist Nazis) for its expansion and thus survival. Hence the popularization of college education in the USA (then in Europe). Hence the popularization of daily news through the internet/social media. This process, of course, has its positives and negatives (as is the case with every dialectical process) - the fall of the MSM is one of the positives.

So, in fact, when the likes of AP, Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Fox, CNN spread disinformation against "alt-media", they are really just protecting their market share - the fact that it implies in suppression of freedom of speech and to mass disinformation and, ultimately, to war and destruction, is merely collateral damage of the business they operate in. They are, after all, capitalist enterprises above all.

bevin , Jul 29 2020 18:16 utc | 3
Excellent analysis, as always, by b. And vk's points are very pertinent too. One tiny quibble: I doubt that the Nazis coined, though they certainly popularised, the term lebensraum.
There is an air of desperation about these campaigns against "Russian" "disinformation" massive changes are occurring, and, because they are so vast, they are moving relatively slowly.
The old media model, now totally outdated, was the first thing to fall. Now capitalism itself is collapsing as a result of the primary contradiction that, left to itself, the marketplace will solve all problems.
As Washington, where magical thinking is sovereign, is demonstrating, left to itself the hidden hand will bring only misery, famine, death and the Apocalypse. This was once very well understood, as a brief look at the history of the founding of the UN will show, now it is the subject of frantic denial by capitalism's priesthood who have grown to enjoy the glitter and sensuality of life in a brothel. It is a sign of their mental decay that they can do no better than to blame Russians.
jayc , Jul 29 2020 18:23 utc | 4
One should presume the anonymous officials responsible for this ground-breaking report (sarc) are close to the various "combatting Russian disinformation" NGOs. They are merely living up to the mission statements of their benefactors. AP and NYTimes are being unprofessional and spreading fake news by failing to reveal their sources. It's mind-numbing - the BS one must wade through.
donkeytale , Jul 29 2020 18:42 utc | 5
VK @ 2

Good point however with one glaring contradiction in your thinking.

You make valid a very criticism of capitalism yet you tend to applaud Chinese capitalist growth (although you tend to deny Chinese capitalist growth is capitalist, a feat of breathtaking magical thinking).

The great Chinese wealth is fully 75% invested in bubblicious real estate valuations of non-commercial real estate built on a mountain of construction debt. Sound familiar?

The irony is Chinese growth since 2008 has been goosed along entirely by the very same financialized hyper capitalist traits as US: great gobs of debt creating supply-side "growth", huge amounts of middle wealth tied to asset inflated bubbles, and of course the resulting income and wealth inequality that rivals US inequality and continues to increase over time.

I snorted coffee out my nose when Gruff tried to totally excuse Chinese income inequality for being only slightly less than US level....how about the truth? Chinese inequality is heinous, only slightly less than the also heinous US level.

The diseased working class in China only has an an arm and two legs hacked off while the diseased US working class is fully quadriplegic. Much, much better to be a fucked over by globalization Chinese citizen! Lmao

psychohistorian , Jul 29 2020 19:19 utc | 6
@ b who ended his posting with
"
And the AP and NYT are willingly falling for it.
"

Sorry b, but AP and NYT are active participants in the disinformation campaign of failing empire and are not falling for anything

The folks that are falling for it are the American public that has lost its ability to discriminate with the fire hose volume of lies told to them on a daily basis.

Empire is in the process of defeating itself which is the only safe way of ending the tyranny of global private finance. I commend China and Russia for having the patience and fortitude to hold the safe space for the dysfunctional social contract having private control of the lifeblood of human commerce to self destruct.

JohnH , Jul 29 2020 19:21 utc | 7
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC, which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!

Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.

JohnH , Jul 29 2020 19:21 utc | 8
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC, which spent months discrediting the effectiveness of face masks!!!

Theses propagandists need to get real jobs dealing with real world problems.

jason , Jul 29 2020 19:25 utc | 9
there has been no national response to coronavirus but there must be a national acceptance that this national non-response is China's fault. and any sources reporting truthfully about the US or disseminating statements easily found elsewhere, as long as they are Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan, Cuban, Iranian, etc., is pure disinformation. How brittle and weak the US is. Where's the Pericles to say to the Spartans, "enter our city and inspect our defenses"? The US is a nation of heavily-armed mice and sheep.

btw, the China love on display around here is pretty funny. in that the Chinese government has mounted a national response to a very serious threat, China is a nation in a way that the US is not. There is no US or we would not have 50 states doing different things in response to the corona outbreak. the US is already dead. But China is a thoroughly authoritarian capitalist state. they are who they are in a dialectic competition with the US and other capitalist powers, not because of some Maoist-Confucian amalgam that inspires such wisdom in their brilliant leaders, who are just as quick to destroy their environment for capitalist gain as anyone on this planet is. The decline of the US will not make China or Russia or any "emerging" power less authoritarian or violent. au quite the contraire. They are Shylocks who will try to better instruction.

However, none of this is of concern to people in the US, whose only concern is the Nazi spawn who've been running "the West" for much longer than the last 75 years. but it's time to kill the bitch, not let it keep screwing us and breeding.

div> Russia's rush to have the first COVID vaccine will be viewed by the propagandists as just another evil attempt by Putin to embarrass the US. Should it prove safe and effective, you can bet that it will be banned in USA, because anything Russian is by definition bad.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-hopes-register-worlds-first-covid-19-vaccine-aug-12

Posted by: JohnH , Jul 29 2020 19:30 utc | 10

Russia's rush to have the first COVID vaccine will be viewed by the propagandists as just another evil attempt by Putin to embarrass the US. Should it prove safe and effective, you can bet that it will be banned in USA, because anything Russian is by definition bad.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-hopes-register-worlds-first-covid-19-vaccine-aug-12

Posted by: JohnH | Jul 29 2020 19:30 utc | 10

Clueless Joe , Jul 29 2020 19:46 utc | 11
As others already said, this is a bit rich, considering that virus disinformation comes from Trump himself, both live and on Twitter, quoting genuine hacks and megalomaniac doctors, depending on the week.
Reality check: Russians will be able to travel across the world way before Americans, for obvious healthcare reasons.
dh , Jul 29 2020 19:50 utc | 12
@2 I would think adblocking has a lot to do with it too. I'm always surprised that it has been allowed to continue.
moon , Jul 29 2020 20:13 utc | 13
Posted by: bevin | Jul 29 2020 18:16 utc | 3

Bevin, I agree, I once had a short exchange on Mondoweiss about the term Lebensraum, it had been used in some type of marketing by my favorite Swizz supermarket. Which then, apparently caused an uproar. The term Lebensraum on its own is rather innocent. Leben (life) Raum (space), a noun compound. Context matters. And I am sure I checked it, and Micros definitively did not use it in any type of world conquering settler context. I haven't stumbled yet across a Micros supermarket anywhere outside Switzerland, ;)

Here is link to the German Wiki entry via Google translate:
https://tinyurl.com/Wikipedia-Lebensraum

vk , Jul 29 2020 20:24 utc | 14
@ Posted by: donkeytale | Jul 29 2020 18:42 utc | 5; Posted by: jason | Jul 29 2020 19:25 utc | 9

Err... this post is not about China.

I think you are the rabid ideologues seeing ghosts, not me.

Perimetr , Jul 29 2020 20:34 utc | 15
AGREE with psychohistorian @ 6

The NTT no longer qualifies as "the paper of record". More like toilet paper if nothing better can be found.

Perimetr , Jul 29 2020 20:35 utc | 16
apologies, meant NYT, i.e. New York Times
barovsky , Jul 29 2020 20:38 utc | 17
I'm under the impression that Info Ros is a Russian government-funded, supported, backed, site, it certainly looks like it and its reportage is decidedly 'neutral'.
donkeytale , Jul 29 2020 20:40 utc | 18
VK @ 14

Actually my comment illustrated the inconsistency of your critique of capitalism post-2008 but nice slide away. Two thumbs up. Way up.

blum , Jul 29 2020 20:41 utc | 19
This is SO hilarious! The propagandists are worried about Russian virus dis-information when most dis-information has come from the US government in the person of Trump and from the CDC, which spent months discrediting ...
Posted by: JohnH | Jul 29 2020 19:21 utc | 8

This is close to my overall take on matters. But I wouldn't put so much emphasis on face masks but on something along the lines of Covid is notthing but a flu. Face masks were initially discussed quite controversially everywhere.

For Georgio Agamben too, strictly a favorite of mine, it was simply another State of Exception too. Suppressive biopolitics:
https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/

************

Were it gets interesting is here:
A report published last month by a second, nongovernmental organization, Brussels-based EU DisinfoLab, examined links between InfoRos and One World to Russian military intelligence. The researchers identified technical clues tying their websites to Russia and identified some financial connections between InfoRos and the government.

Gotta add that institution to my link list collection on matters.
EU disinfo Lab
https://www.disinfo.eu/publications/how-two-information-portals-hide-their-ties-to-the-russian-news-agency-inforos

They have a competitor which seems Bruxelles based too, Patrick Armstrong alerted me to a while ago:
https://euvsdisinfo.eu/
EUvsDisinfo is the flagship project of the European External Action Service's East StratCom Task Force

************

But yes, on first sight InfoRos seems to be neatly aligned with US alt-Right-Media in basic outlook. More than with the US MSM.

And now I first have to read what has been on Andrew Korybko's mind lately. ;)

blum , Jul 29 2020 20:42 utc | 20

sorry didn't close html tag.
uncle tungsten , Jul 29 2020 21:20 utc | 21
Integrity Initiative strikes again. AP and NYT rush faithfully to print. Journalist gets an extra dime.
Rutherford82 , Jul 29 2020 22:13 utc | 22
Many Americans of all walks of life do not trust their own government, yet most people here seem to have faith that their media outlets are telling the truth. How do you break through to the public that has utter faith in whatever newspaper or television channel they prefer and highlight the lies in a way which gains real traction?

I believe it takes leadership, which, for Americans, mean celebrities have to endorse the idea or it likely won't be taken seriously. This cult of celebrity is mirrored on social media platforms, where millions flock to be a part of some beautiful person's beautiful photograph or some known personalities acceptable opinion du jour.

There is a great bond gripping the minds of American media consumers. They have trained their entire lives to worship at the cult of celebrity and this is the key to breaking the entire media landscape down for them.

This also is the key to unlocking the voices of those who know better with regards to media lies, but keep silent out of fear.

Will a Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson be able to break the spell? I think it will never happen based on how Hollywood gatekeeps celebrity and based on how hopelessly apathetic most are to Julian Assange.

Ben Barbour , Jul 29 2020 22:36 utc | 23
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told what to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their policy of backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes anybody tow any specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in Yemen because I didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be critical of Russia.

If it's a GRU outfit then it's a bad one.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 29 2020 23:14 utc | 24
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told what to write.
...
Posted by: Ben Barbour | Jul 29 2020 22:36 utc | 23

Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your own :-)

Jen , Jul 29 2020 23:29 utc | 25
"... Two Russians who have held senior roles in Moscow's military intelligence service known as the GRU have been identified as responsible for a disinformation effort meant to reach American and Western audiences, U.S. government officials said. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly ..."

Of course GRU agents always work in pairs, guided only by the mysterious telepathic powers of the Russian President and no-one or nothing else, as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov did in Salisbury in March 2018 when they supposedly tried to assassinate or send a warning to Sergei Skripal, and as Dmitri Kovtun and Andrei Lugovoy did in London in November 2006 when they apparently put polonium in a pot of tea served to Alexander Litvinenko in full view of patrons and staff at a hotel restaurant. It's as if each agent carries only half a brain and each half is connected to its complement by the corpus callosum that is Lord Vlademort Putin's thoughts beaming oing-yoing-yoing-like through the atmosphere until they find their targets.

And of course US government officials always speak on condition of anonymity.

As Agence Presse News puts it:

"... The information had previously been classified, but officials said it had been downgraded so they could more freely discuss it. Officials said they were doing so now to sound the alarm about the particular websites and to expose what they say is a clear link between the sites and Russian intelligence ..."

So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist on being anonymous? This would be the sort of news announced at a US national press club meeting with Matt Lee in the front row asking awkward and discomfiting questions.

norecovery , Jul 29 2020 23:35 utc | 26
The malicious cultivation (including Gain of Function research) and implantation of this biowarfare agent (and other ones such as Swine Fever) by the U.S. Intelligence services in various places around the world (especially in China and Iran), the intentional faulty responses and deceptive statistics administered by the monopoly-controlled medical establishment, the feigned inability to provide adequate testing, care, and treatment, along with planned economic destruction as a means of restoring investor losses and control of populations through stifling of dissent, are at the heart of the deflection and projection of blame. That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as 9/11 and the '08 financial crisis.
Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 29 2020 23:48 utc | 27
...
So if US government officials can now freely discuss declassified news, why do they insist on being anonymous?
...
Posted by: Jen | Jul 29 2020 23:29 utc | 25

Precisely.
My guess is that they don't know when to quit.
and/or
They embrace the Mythbusters motto...
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."

Benson Barbour , Jul 29 2020 23:54 utc | 28
"Is it possible that you're just the in-house joke at OW?
If they don't care that you'd write "tow" instead of "toe" or that you're too lazy/thoughtless to reproduce the full name of the entity for which STC is an acronym, before using the acronym, then it suggests that One World's Editorial Standards are as lax as your own :-)"

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 29 2020 23:14 utc | 24

Fair point on tow vs toe. That's why editing exists when writing articles. As for the STC part, that is common knowledge if you follow basic geopolitics. When making a post in a comment thread, should I write out "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" before using the acronym ISIS? If I am posting in a comment thread about Iran, do I need to write out "Mujahedin-e Khalq" instead of just using MEK?

It just displays a massive level of ignorance on your part. Nice try though.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jul 30 2020 0:29 utc | 29
...
It just displays a massive level of ignorance on your part. Nice try though.
Posted by: Benson Barbour | Jul 29 2020 23:54 utc | 28

Thanks. Do you realise that you've just wasted 50+ words explaining why BB didn't bother writing the 3 words that STC stands for?

VietnamVet , Jul 30 2020 0:59 utc | 30
Global media moguls are blaming the 1,000 American deaths per day from the Wuhan coronavirus on Donald Trump to finally get him out of the way. But they are silent on their and the Democrats complicity in the death toll due to the lack of a national public health system or the funding to pay for it.

The USA is going to hell. A scapegoat is needed. For the media and Democrats, Russia is to blame. Anybody else rather than themselves, the true culprits. Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are made. Blaming China is globalist heresy.

Jackrabbit , Jul 30 2020 1:03 utc | 31
norecovery @Jul29 23:35 #26

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that this is what has occurred.

And, if true, it is covered up by sly suggestions that nCov-19 was man-made with hints or a smug attitude that convey the message that China created the virus. As well as a virtual black-out in Western media of Chinese suggestions that the virus may have started in USA or been planted in Wuhan.

But then, I already stand accused of attributing magical powers of self-interested foresight and boldness to US Deep-State due to my belief that Trump was their choice to lead USA in 2016. And so I expect you're theory will receive the same derision. Yet Empires have not been shy about killing millions when it was in their interest to do so.

In any case, I've written many times that USA/West's unwillingness to fight the virus has been dressed up as innocent mistakes. Even if the West wasn't the source of the virus they have much to answer for. Yet very few have taken note of the way that USA/West have played the pandemic to advance their interests - from lining the pockets of Big Pharma to blaming China for their own "incompetence" (a misnomer: the power-elite are very competent at advancing their interests!).

Inconvenient Truths:


!!
Kay Fabe , Jul 30 2020 1:29 utc | 32
It seems disinformation has been redefined to mean information that counters someone else's (yours) belief. We pretend to be in an Age of Reason but really, we have just replaced religious beliefs with secular beliefs. Science has been taken over by pseudoscientists that have replaced priests. The conflict of interest by the science/priests who profit from their deceptions is beyond criminal.

To know what is the truth you just have to look at whats being censored. Nobody being censored for supporting mask mandates, claiming vaccines are safe, and not questioning the blatant data manipulation of COVID cases that anyone with an open mind and IQ of 100 , and who reads the data, definitions and studies can see through.

It seems people on both sides of the fence have replaced their brains with their chosen ideology. Its like watching a Christian, Jew and Muslim arguing which is the best or true religion. No point in it.

james , Jul 30 2020 1:33 utc | 33
thanks b!

so, lets say GRU agents are feeding russian propaganda sites... how does that compare to all the CIA-FBI agents and has been hacks working for the western msm?? seems a bit rich for the pot to be calling a kettle black, even if they are lying thru their teeth! i am sure if someone did a story on how many CIA - m16 people are presently working with the western msm, they would have a story with some legs... this shite from anonymous usa gov't officials is just that - shite..

@ Ben, or Benson Barbour .. thanks for your comments!

Prof K , Jul 30 2020 1:50 utc | 34
Anyone notice that the Democrats still haven't presented any plan whatsoever to flatten the curve in the US? They are just as bad as Trump.
Seer , Jul 30 2020 1:55 utc | 35
Ben Barbou @ 23
Lol I write for One World. I'm an American who has never had a piece edited or been told what to write. I was allowed to write a piece about Russia where I was critical of their policy of backing the STC in Yemen (I thought it was bad to divide Yemen). No one makes anybody tow any specific line. I decided not to publish my piece on Russia and the STC in Yemen because I didn't find the topic interesting enough, but I was 100% allowed to be critical of Russia.

There's such a thing as self-censorship. Mainstream US news has effectively brought up folks to be this way: stay in line or become unemployed- doesn't need to be stated. Not aimed at you, but it needs to be said (und understood).

Ben Barbour , Jul 30 2020 3:14 utc | 36
@35 That's a very good point. I completely agree. Self-censorship and group think are two of the biggest problems in modern journalism/analysis. One World consistently publishes pro-Pakistan and pro-China articles. When I was first sending them submissions, I did a piece on US vs China in Sudan and South Sudan. I considered omitting China's culpability in escalating the conflicts, and instead focus on laying the blame squarely at the feet of the US. In the end I told the truth about both countries' imperialist escalations (to the best of my ability).

There is a lot of incentive to self-censor at just about any outlet. It's more comfortable to fit in with a site's brand.

In the case of the Russia-STC article, I really just found the subject matter to be thin. Russia's support of the STC is mostly just diplomatic. Not a lot to write about.

AntiSpin , Jul 30 2020 3:55 utc | 37
Think you can't possibly be more outraged than you already are?

Try this --
The Government's Weapon Against Reality Winner: COVID-19
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
27 July 20
https://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/64239-the-governments-weapon-against-reality-winner-covid-19

One Too Many , Jul 30 2020 4:09 utc | 38
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 30 2020 0:29 utc | 29

Google or duckduckgo "STC in Yemen". First hit, it's not that hard.

J W , Jul 30 2020 5:39 utc | 39
Posted by: james | Jul 30 2020 1:33 utc | 33

Small wonder that food from Anglozionists is so bad, they love being in the kitchen but they can't stand the heat.

ak74 , Jul 30 2020 5:40 utc | 40
The Americans are increasingly unhinged in their spittle-flecked accusations against not only Russia, but also China, Iran, Venezuela, etc.

It's so pathetic as to be humorous.

Underlying the USA's Two Minutes of Hate campaigns, however, is a deeper disease that defines Americans as a nation and as a people.

Namely, Americans have an inbred fundamentalist belief in their own Moral Superiority as the Beacon of Liberty, Land of the Free, blah, blah, blah--no matter how many nations they have bombed back to the Stone Age, invaded, colonized, regime changed, sanctioned, or economically raped in the name of Freedom and Democracy™.

Donald Trump is half correct.

The United States of America is truly a great nation alright--but great only in terms of its deceit, great in terms of its delusions, and great in terms of the horrors that it has inflicted on much of the world.

Comparing America to the Nazis would be a high insult ... to Nazi Germany, as the Third Reich only lasted about 12 years, while the American Reich has unfortunately lasted well over 200 years and gotten away with its crimes against humanity by possessing what are likely the greatest propaganda machine and political deception in human history: the American Free Press and the world historic lie called "American Freedom."

Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Literature Prize speech briefly but powerfully exposes this heart of American darkness:

"The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner."

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2005/pinter/25621-harold-pinter-nobel-lecture-2005/

Blue Dotterel , Jul 30 2020 6:23 utc | 41
And the disinformation in the USA continues.
https://www.rt.com/usa/496578-fauci-coronavirus-eye-protection/

"Top US immunologist Dr Anthony Fauci is now saying citizens are not "complete" in protecting themselves from the Covid-19 pandemic unless they go beyond wearing a mask and add in eye protection like goggles, too."

More provocation from the oligarchy. Now, that masks are becoming less controversial, time to step up the provocation, division and control.

Fauci is also behind the anti-hydroxychloroquine propaganda, as well, that even b has swallowed. This, despite it being used effectively in other countries. All of this simply because Trump supports it (ergo, it must be bad) and Big Pharma (who control Fauci,
CDC abd WHO) can't profit significantly from its use.

Of course vacines are still an issue:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/kennedy-jr-warns-parents-about-danger-using-largely-untested-covid-vaccines-kids/5719566

"During the course of the debate, Kennedy also talked about the regular vaccines most people take, from Hepatitis B to the flu shot, emphasizing that no proper testing had ever been done, which is mandatory for any other medication. Vaccines "are the only medical product that does not have to be safety-tested against a placebo," he explained."

Kennedy said

"it's not hypothetical that vaccines cause injury, and that injuries are not rare. The vaccine courts have paid out four billion dollars" over the past three decades, "and the threshold for getting back into a vaccine court and getting a judgment – [the Department of Health and Human Services] admits that fewer than one percent of people who are injured ever even get to court."

So, how well has the Russian vaccine been tested? Does anyone know?


Blue Dotterel , Jul 30 2020 6:40 utc | 42
It is interesting how USAians are being played by the oligarchy.

On foreign policy, the dems and reps are in basic agreement and the propaganda is to bring the masses together to hate Russia, Chaina and anyone else who the Western (US) oligarchy has targeted.

Domestically, unity is the enemy of the oligarchy. The masses must be controlled through division and diversion, so the dems and reps play good cop, bad cop (bad and good being relative to the supporter) to ensure the masses are diverted from important oligarch issues to issues of irrelevance to the oligarchs, but easily manipulated emotionnally by the oligarchs for the beast.

It seems so obvious, and yet, works so well.

vato , Jul 30 2020 7:31 utc | 43
Posted by: VietnamVet | Jul 30 2020 0:59 utc | 30

"[...]Donald Trump blames China for the pandemic if he acknowledges it at all but that is where all of Tim Cook's iPhones are made. Blaming China is globalist heresy."


Then why do you phrase it the "Wuhan coronavius" yourself?

Jams O'Donnell , Jul 30 2020 7:59 utc | 44
Posted by: ak74 | Jul 30 2020 5:40 utc | 40

Thanks for that link.

Mark2 , Jul 30 2020 9:32 utc | 45
For those interested in corona virus truth,
I am interested in the question -- - was it spread by negligence or deliberately?
That question must be relivant to this debate on MOA.
I ask this now becouse -- --
Tonight on bbc 'panorama' there investigating the spread of the virus from Hospital to care homes !! I'm told there is some pretty shocking information exposed.
Some may wish to catch that prog. Heads up.

I just add an obversation. -- western psychopathic disinformation and projection has led to a confused public. A public deciding to disengage with politics. To the gain of the psychopaths.

H.Schmatz , Jul 30 2020 10:41 utc | 46
A new candidate to the demonization and disinfo operations has been added...Germany...which has been labeled "delinquent" by the POTUS...in a clear exercise of projection...

https://www.rt.com/news/496584-germany-withdrawl-troops-gas/

Of course, to not be insulted or labeled delinquent, you must act as these other countries enumerated by Southcom commander, to work for the US ( not your country...) and moreover pay for it....Typical mafia extortion, isn´t it?

https://twitter.com/kopamaros/status/1285292016885215237

uncle tungsten , Jul 30 2020 10:49 utc | 47
norecovery #26
That broadly-based subject is barely discussed in alternative media and is totally obfuscated in MSM, because the "denier-debunkers" dispute the possibility of such extreme malice existing in our institutions, in spite of previous experience with events such as 9/11 and the '08 financial crisis.

YES to that and thank you for that post. That the institutions of state and private sectors are the incubators and propagators of extreme malice is axiomatic in the UKUSAI and its five eyed running dogs is beyond doubt. They attack and scorn any critic or unbeliever. They assault and pillory truth speakers and those who might question 'their narrative'.

Then if all that fails the hunt them down and make preposterous claims about them being anti semitic of anti religion or anti their nation.

Mendacity is the currency of the permanent state and its minions and they need to be outed and shamed and challenged at every opportunity.

uncle tungsten , Jul 30 2020 11:00 utc | 48
VietnamVet #30

Wuhan coronavirus you say?

Fort Detrick coronavirus would be on the mark and as you most likely know, you cannot trust the USA lying eyes once you have served them in their killing fields.

Even that right wing ex special forces advocate Steve Pieczenic testifies to the fact of a deadly virus in USA in November/December plus his beloved bloggers say way earlier than that around Maryland etc. Then there is the small problem of the 'vaping' illness that generated lots of pneumonia like fatalities in June/July. And then the instant closure of Fort Detrick due to its leaking all over the place through a totally inadequate waste water treatment plant that couldn't scrub a turd let alone a virus.

Fort Detrick Virus is closer to the reality imo.

William Gruff , Jul 30 2020 11:00 utc | 49
The problem with presstitutes, possibly including Ben Barbour , (disclaimer: I've never read any media products that particular individual generated) goes beyond the point made by Seer @35 . To be sure, there is no chance that a presstitute would bite the hand that feeds it, but there is more depth to the problem of why they all suck so badly, at least the ones in the US. While journalism degrees are the university equivalent of Special Education (nowadays referred to as "Exceptional Student Education" , which is very fitting for students from such an "exceptional" nation), they still prepare the future presstitute to understand that their capitalist employers have interests beyond their immediately apparent ones. That is, more important to a capitalist employer than tomorrow's sales and profits is the preservation of capitalism itself.

But the problem is deeper still. The presstitute that is successfully employed by a capitalist enterprise will invariably be one that knows not to criticize the employer's business, the capitalist system it depends upon, and the empire that improves that employer's profitability. More importantly, that successful hireling will additionally have been brainwashed from infancy that all of these things are good and necessary aspects of the modern world that need to be ideologically defended. The prospective presstitute will be one that not only voluntarily, but eagerly serves its capitalist masters varied interests. After all, when there are plenty of whores to choose from, would you hire one that requires explicit instructions on every last thing you expect from them and just follows those instructions mechanically or the the one that puts effort into figuring out what would please you and delivers that with enthusiasm? Keeping this dynamic in mind will allow one to better understand the capitalist mass media's products.

Steve , Jul 30 2020 11:24 utc | 50
The contempt at which the American ruling class hold their citizens is galling. The US corporate media operates as if their targeted audience are all morons.
moon , Jul 30 2020 11:37 utc | 51
you cannot trust the USA lying eyes once you have served them in their killing fields. ...
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jul 30 2020 11:00 utc | 48

that's not a good argument, uncle t. But yes I wondered to to what extent VV or good old VietnamVet has been won over to the Trump diction.

blum , Jul 30 2020 11:39 utc | 52
I wondered to to
I wondered too to what extent VV seemingly has been ...
William Gruff , Jul 30 2020 12:00 utc | 53
Mark2 @45: "...was it [ novel coronavirus] spread by negligence or deliberately?"

Most likely both.

There is evidence to suggest that the virus was circulating in the US prior to it being discovered in China. While it is possible this could have been the results of testing the transmissibility of the virus, it seems more probable that it was an accidental release from Fort Detrick. This would explain the facility being shut down last year. Military facilities are never shut down simply for breaking a few rules but because those rule violations led to something unpleasant.

An accidental release, coupled with the fact that the synthetic origin of the virus would become apparent to scientists worldwide, resulted in a need to quickly establish an alternate explanation for the virus. Since the US was losing its trade war with China, and use of a bioweapon to turn the tide was already gamed out and on the table anyway, the virus (or possibly a very similar strain that had been pre-selected for the attack) was deliberately sprayed around a market in Wuhan.

The CDC and CIA probably thought that the virus was contained in the West and that since it was a surprise to the Chinese it would run rampant there and result in their economy shutting down and their borders being closed, decoupling China from the world. With the Chinese treating the virus as a bio attack and defeating its spread, followed by the virus rampaging through the West, the dynamic changed. Now in order for the virus to decouple China it must become endemic in the West. The Chinese must be made to close their borders in fear of becoming infected from the rest of the world. To make this backup plan a reality, and to get the economies moving again as fast as possible, some western leaders have decided to accelerate the spread in the hopes of quickly developing "herd immunity" . Taking out some retirees whom the capitalists view as a burden on the economy is just some nice icing on the cake.

Mark2 , Jul 30 2020 12:04 utc | 54
@ 51 & @ 52
I'd say not ! I'm confided Vietnam Vet is doing 'balenced' Reporting ! The subject of this post. Take another look at both this post and his comment. A lesson in how to be unbiased but truthfull.
Soooo any one got a definition of fake news.
Mine would be Truth before personal agenda.
oldhippie , Jul 30 2020 12:18 utc | 55
Self censorship works well.

Straight cash payoffs work well too.

CIA has had total control of media for 70 years now. It was a priority when they set up shop.

Mark2 , Jul 30 2020 12:19 utc | 56
William Gruff @ 53
I think yours is just about the most clear and concise summary of this whole virus catastrophe that I have seen so far. And that's a hell of a statement !
Unrelated I wonder what would have happened if the Chinese whistle blower had not blown the whistle ? Now that's one to ponder ? As bad as this all is world wide, where would be right now ? Dose not bare thinking about.
vig , Jul 30 2020 12:21 utc | 57
Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:04 utc | 54

What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the WHO?

There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump or his relevant admin was informed early enough.

Mark2 , Jul 30 2020 12:27 utc | 58
Big @ 57
What ?
jadan , Jul 30 2020 12:35 utc | 59
We've been acquainted with this virus about 7 months or so and it is difficult to separate reliable information from disinformation. We know very little about it, eg, we don't know whether those who recover can be reinfected. Is it like the common cold, against which there is no immunity? We just have to assume that the Trump virus has infected every level of the administration so that there is ignorance and unadulterated stupidity from the lowest level in the ministry of propaganda to the secretary of state and, of course, the president himself currently celebrating the wisdom of an animist/Christian hybrid doctor from Africa spewing the foulest disinformation one can imagine.
vig , Jul 30 2020 12:46 utc | 60
Big @ 57
What ?
Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:27 utc | 58

babbling: look if this is the good old VV from SST, I wouldn't want to nail him on the usage of Wuhan virus. But on the larger content of his comment, I am wondering.

Full discovery: I entered the US conspiracy universe shortly after 9/11. I'll probably never forget there was this one commenter that completely out of then current preoccupations within the diverse theories, you recall?, suggested that the Chinese were approaching via the Southern borders.

There surely should be a way how the US and Russia

vig , Jul 30 2020 12:48 utc | 61
There surely should be a way how the US and Russia

There surely should be a way how the US and Russia repartition their claims. After all historically the Russian had some type of partly real Yellow threat too ... :)

Mark2 , Jul 30 2020 12:54 utc | 62
Vig @ 60
Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers
Hannibal , Jul 30 2020 12:56 utc | 63
Can probably trace this back to the "integrity initiative" and/ or the Atlantic Council. That's a web worth untangling with transparency.

Spot on James @ 33

One Too Many , Jul 30 2020 13:05 utc | 64
Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:19 utc | 56

Except the "whistle blower" was not a whistle blower since local, provincial, and nations institutions were already advised or in the process of being advised. Dr Wenliang posted his information in a private chatroom with other medical professionals on December 30th. Timeline of events:

Dec 27 -- Dr. Zhang Jixian, director of the respiratory and critical care medicine department of Hubei Provincial Hospital, files a report to the hospital stating that an unknown pneumonia has developed in three patients and they are not responding to influenza treatment.

Dec 29 -- Hubei Provincial Hospital convened a panel of 10 experts to discuss the now seven cases. Their conclusion that the situation was extraordinary, plus information of two similar cases in other hospitals, prompted the hospital to report directly to the municipal and provincial health authorities.

Dec 30 -- The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued an urgent notification to medical institutions under its jurisdiction, ordering efforts to appropriately treat patients with pneumonia of unknown cause.

Dec 31 -- The National Health Commission (NHC) made arrangements in the wee hours, sending a working group and an expert team to Wuhan to guide epidemic response and conduct on-site investigations. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released a briefing on its website about the pneumonia outbreak in the city, confirming 27 cases and telling the public not to go to enclosed public places or gather. It suggested wearing face masks when going out. The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released briefings on the pneumonia outbreak in accordance with the law. WHO's Country Office in the PRC relayed the information to the WHO Western Pacific Regional Office, then to the international level headquarters.

Jan 1 -- The NHC set up a leading group to determine the emergency response to the epidemic. The group convened meetings on a daily basis since then.

Jan 2 -- The Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) received the first batch of samples of four patients from Hubei Province and began pathogen identification. The NHC came up with a set of guidelines on early discovery, early diagnosis and early quarantine for the prevention and control of the viral pneumonia of unknown cause.

Jan 3 -- Dr. Wenliang signs a statement not to post unsubstantiated rumors.

There's no "whistle blowing" as the information of the cases were already going up the chain of command. These are facts that can be sourced by multiple media outlets. I can't believe this fallacy keeps floating and doesn't flush.

Lurk , Jul 30 2020 13:52 utc | 65
In retrospective analyses, SARS-COV-2 was found in routinely collected samples of European sewage water dating back to at least december 2019. A french doctor reviewed archived medical samples and imagery from patients who had fallen mysteriously ill in the latter half of 2019 and also found that some had been early cases of COVID-19.

The real coronavirus whistle-blower is a doctor in Washington state USA who tested for the virus in Januari 2020 and was silenced by USA medical and federal authorities.

I am afraid that there will never be a sincere investigation into the real cause of the "vaping disease" that caused many deaths from sudden respiratory failure in the USA in the summer of 2019. Tell me again when Ft. Detrick labs was shut down exactly?

Lurk , Jul 30 2020 13:59 utc | 66
@ Hannibal | Jul 30 2020 12:56 utc | 63

Don't forget to mention Mark2's employer, the 77th brigade . We're in an information war , after all.

Piotr Berman , Jul 30 2020 14:00 utc | 67
What are you trying to tell me? Anyone that does not acknowledge the virus originated in China and that China didn't respond as fast as it could have? And more polemically: there is some kind of African Marxist heading WHO who obfuscated China's late information to the WHO?

There is a dot of truth in everything. There is also a dot of truth in the fact that Trump or his relevant admin was informed early enough.

Posted by: vig | Jul 30 2020 12:21 utc | 57

vig repeats widely spread arguments, basically, the "official propaganda" from offices related to an orange-American (excessive time spend on golf courses changes skin color, perhaps in combination with sunscreen, without sunscreen you would get a "redneck look").

1. Origin: somewhat debatable, but any virus has to originate somewhere. Every country was on receiving end of pathogens from other countries.

2. China did not respond as fast as it could have. Now, how fast and effective was USA? One has to note that clusters of fatal lung infections happen regularly, but this is because of mutations that increase impact on health, while separate mutations increase (or decrease) the transmission. Draconian measures are necessary if you get both, but you do not lock cities, provinces, introduce massive quarantine programs until you know that they are necessary. For the same reasons, the response in Western Europe and USA was not as fast as it could have.

3. "African Marxist heading WHO mislead poor naive Americans". What is the budget of American intelligence, and American disease control? Do they collect information, do they have experts? In particular, American authorities knew pretty much what Chinese authorities knew, and they had benefit of several weeks of extra time to devise wise strategy. Giving this benefit to people with limited mental capacities has a limited value. Perhaps China is at fault here too, Pompeo reported about pernicious impact of Chinese Communist Party on PPT meeting in USA, that could have deleterious impact on education and thus on mental capacities.

Pompeo himself may be a victim. He excelled as a West Point student, but if the content of education was crappy, diligence impacted his brain deeper and not for the better. But nobody attempts to blame CCP for that.

vk , Jul 30 2020 14:17 utc | 68
@ Posted by: Mark2 | Jul 30 2020 12:19 utc | 56

It would've changed nothing.

For starters, the "whistleblower" wasn't a whistleblower at all: he thought he had found a resurgence of SARS, not a new pandemic. Secondly, the head of respiratory diseases at the region already was investigating some cases of a "mysterious pneumonia" since end of November or mid-December - so the investigation already was well under way.

Discovering a new disease is not magic: a doctor cannot simply go the market, see a random person, and claim he/she discovered a new virus. Doctors are not gods: they can only diagnose the patients under their care.

The point of discord that the Western MSM capitalized upon was the fact that some random officer from the local police intercepted his private social media and made him sign a letter of reprimand. No Law is ever perfect, and these episodes of false triggers do happen even in Western Democracies.

Little known fact (one which the Western MSM censored) is that the so-called "whistleblower" was a member of the CCP. After knowing the details of the situation (including that the disease was already being investigated), he quickly realized the state-of-the-art and went to the frontlines to fight the pandemic - as any member of the CCP would've done. Revolutionary communist parties have this tradition that comes since the Bolshevik Party, where the leadership always leads by example. The Bolsheviks themselves lost the vast majority of their elite in the Civil War, as they always led in the front (vanguard). Fidel Castro himself led his army in the front when the invasion of the Bay of Pigs begun. So, it is not surprising this doctor, once having the facts on the field, quickly shut up and went to the frontline as a vanguard soldier.

After the whole truth came to the forefront, the Western MSM quickly begun to meltdown over the fake story they fantasized, and the Taiwanese MSM invented a story of some another whistleblower who had discovered the virus "at the end of November". That one never truly gained traction, and silently died out.

But all of this is moot point for the West, because Trump and the other European liberal powers refused to believe either that the virus was real or that it could reach them until February the next year.

But all of this

Den lille abe , Jul 30 2020 14:17 utc | 69
I think it is OK that b nails the US makes yet another display of stupidity.... on the other hand I presume that b also has other things to care about, I mean exposing the US as a "fake" nation is a full time job!
Americans have at least the last 50 years been known for fails, even Churchill commented something like "the Americans will fail numerous times, but eventually they will get it right" well that was back then! Today it is fail upon fail. I know that there must be bright people over there, but it is my sincere impression, that they are a very small minority. Maybe their schooling system has all gone bonkers ?
"3% of all Americans believe the Earth is flat! WTF!!!
America is on a steep slope downward.
Den lille abe , Jul 30 2020 14:31 utc | 70
I am personally not worried much about Covid 19, although I am 63 and live in Sweden, the "black Sheep" in Europe because of our rather lax restrictions, the Swedes themselves are rather good at keeping distance and using common sense.
I am much more worried that the American culture of ignorance, brain farts, stupidity and low IQ media will infest my country further and maybe completely ruin it.
Especially by the junk that comes out of Hollywood, pure Sh*t served nice and hot!
I am happy I know, I have not got to endure further 30 years of this.
Prof K , Jul 30 2020 14:52 utc | 71
A few months ago, b posted a link to a Canadian vlogger who lives in Nanning, China. The vlogger took us on a tour of a so called Wet Market. Here, the vlogger takes us to another Wet Market tour. He does a good job dispelling racist stereotypes and showing real life in China.

https://youtu.be/ppIbzX8JfEw

Mark2 , Jul 30 2020 14:56 utc | 72
One to many @ 64
Thanks ! So there was a group of whistle blowers then. It's down to definitions again. Perhaps mine is a little more loose. But it's of no concern.
For the sake of this excellent thread, perhaps we could all be a little less pedantic. VK ?
cirsium , Jul 30 2020 15:19 utc | 73
@uncle tungsten, 11:00 Jul 30

Also relevant - Crimson Contagion - the pandemic simulation run by the US government from January to August 2019 and was based on an infectious coronavirus coming from a food market in China

PleaseBeleafMe , Jul 30 2020 15:23 utc | 74
@Dla 69,70

Everywhere u go in this world you'll find some version or an "murican" in every country. Even a country like modern first world Switzerland has its "mountain folk".
In my personal experience with Americans I'm most often pleasantly surprised at their levels of sophistication and introspection over their American experiences. An enjoyable and as pleasant a people as anywhere. This may be clouded by mostly meeting these people outside of the US where unless tourists are well educated and travelled and by default more aware of a negative view of their homeland that exists outside of the US. For some reason most of these Americans I've met abroad are decidedly non republican in nature and are mostly
from California and North and North Eastern States. Fellow future Canadians I would call them.
The other side of the coin is when I've travelled to the states. Texas, Florida, Arizona. Whew! What a difference. I've learned that talking politics is impossible and the natives are almost entirely ignorant of anything outside their bubble. Outside of talking points there is no information behind their arguments. Their knowledge of the outside world is incredibly lacking and the view of the US in it is overwhelmingly positive.
It isn't Americans its America and its leadership, its influences, systems and all the other shit that make the US the salad it is. The people r redeemable.

William Gruff , Jul 30 2020 15:34 utc | 75
Calling the professionals doing their jobs in China "whistleblowers" is inaccurate. "Whistleblower" implies revealing information that others are trying to hide. In this case the suggestion is that the Chinese government was trying to hide the outbreak. This is nonsense as the Chinese government was unaware of an outbreak until after the relevant professionals had determined that there was an outbreak. There is no way the Chinese government could have known about an outbreak before the outbreak was identified by the professionals tasked with identifying outbreaks. The only ones who knew about the outbreak before the outbreak occurred were the US "intelligence community" .

[Jul 30, 2020] un gusano sin verg enza

Jul 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

dimitrov , Jul 30 2020 22:04 utc | 26

Roberto is what folks in Latin America would deem is "un gusano sin vergüenza'. A willing neo-colonial lapdog for the ghoulish intelligence agencies. You can disregard this sad waste of matter. The governments of Brasil & Ecuador are willingly allowing their countries to succumb to COVID-19. Bio-genocide, in other words. It's a nightmare.

[Jul 30, 2020] It s Official: Pompeo Has Declared Cold War With China It s Official- Pompeo Has Declared Cold War With China - The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Jul 29, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.

...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality the speech was.

... ... ...

The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism." Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.

... ... ...

Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But, of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S. has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help. Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.

Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...


Fred Bowmana day ago • edited

I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word "China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".

daveyl123 Fred Bowmana day ago

I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and Pelosi..) out of their minds government.

We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.

It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions to benefit our citizens.

KennesawJacka day ago • edited

Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the Korean Conflict as I recall...

kouroi BobPM a day ago

The main purpose of TPP was to force the Chinese to privatize the State Owned Enterprises, likely via Wall Street.

L RNYa day ago

The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...

daveyl123 John Achterhof2 hours ago

You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.

rayray L RNYa day ago

All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.

Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy - this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.

The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign. Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten rid of soon enough.

daveyl123 L RNYa day ago • edited

I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads. Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...

L RNY daveyl123 21 hours ago

Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the Navy or superiority in space yet.

Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.

Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest risk possible.

That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US. Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.

kouroia day ago

Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.

The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob voting for re-distribution...

The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing economic war that ruins them.

Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.

It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation and input is halted.

And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!

Jeff Dickey kouroi 2 hours ago

Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.

daveyl123a day ago

Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold. Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.

I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.

Adriana Penaa day ago

Because we did not have enough problems already.

"Eramos pocos y pario la abuela"

hoolya day ago

New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism, Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?

During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II, is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke political correctness run amok up to the task?

While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions of the Han Chinese.

Myron Hudsona day ago

We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have been better than this.

Anton20 hours ago

On point analysis.

Ho Hum14 hours ago

I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?

A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China. He is just that stupid and evil.

peter mcloughlinan hour ago

President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion: today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...

[Jul 30, 2020] Donald Trump is 'willing to accept more risk' to counter Beijing aggression, says US official - South China Morning Post

Notable quotes:
"... Join the Singapore Property Festival - a virtual exhibition organised by the South China Morning Post on August 1 to explore a wide range of affordable luxury residential and commercial real estate assets in Singapore, perfect as relocation and investment options. Get property project highlights and market insights from Info Session webinars and LIVE 1-on-1 chats with property taxation, immigration and investment experts. Register for your FREE PASS now. ..."
Jul 30, 2020 | www.scmp.com

Curtis also stuck close to the main theme of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's high-profile China policy speech last week by arguing that the India border clash and sovereign debt financing used for Belt and Road Initiative projects "fits with a larger pattern of PRC aggression in other parts of the world". Pompeo called for "a new grouping of like-minded nations" to counter China.

Accusing Beijing of "selling cheap armaments and building a base for the 1970s-era submarines that it sold to the Bangladesh Navy in 2016", Curtis also committed to stronger relations with Dhaka.

"We're committed to Bangladesh's long-term success because US interests in the Indo-Pacific depends on a Bangladesh that is peaceful, secure, prosperous healthy and democratic," Curtis said. "We continue to encourage the Bangladeshi government to renew its commitment to democratic values as it prepares to celebrate its 50th anniversary of independence, next year." Big Tech tangles with US lawmakers in antitrust showdown 30 Jul 2020

While the India-China border clash, pressing of maritime claims in the South China Sea, and increasing military and economic pressure on Taiwan may have helped to push countries in the region to cooperate more, Washington will not necessarily benefit, said Ali Wyne, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a non-resident fellow at the Modern War Institute.

"China's actions in recent months have compelled many of its neighbours to try and bolster their military capabilities on an accelerated timeline and to intensify their security cooperation with one another," Wyne said.

"For at least two reasons, though, it is unclear that those neighbours would be full participants in a US-led effort to counterbalance China.

"First, geographical proximity and economic dependence constrain the extent to which they can push back against Beijing's assertiveness without undercutting their own national interests," he said. "Second, many of them are reluctant to make common cause with the United States in view of the transactional diplomacy that it has pursued in recent years." China's foreign minister calls on other nations to resist US and stop a new cold war 29 Jul 2020

China's embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Tuesday called Washington's increasingly hard line against the Chinese government "naked power politics". In a phone call with his French counterpart Jean-Yves Le Drian on Tuesday, Wang said the Trump administration's strategy was to "constantly provoke China's core interests, attack the social system chosen by the Chinese people and slander the ruling party that is closely connected with the Chinese people," according to state news agency Xinhua.

"These actions have lost the most basic etiquette for state-to-state exchanges and have broken through the most basic bottom line of international norms," he said, warning that "the world will fall into a crisis of division, and the future and destiny of mankind will also be in danger".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/c3uzkXgW4yY?rel=0&mute=1&playsinline=1&frameborder=0&autoplay=0&embed_config=%7B%22relatedChannels%22%3A%5B%22UC4SUWizzKc1tptprBkWjX2Q%22%5D%2C%22adsConfig%22%3A%7B%22adTagParameters%22%3A%7B%22iu%22%3A%22%2F8134%2Fscmp%2Fweb%2Fchina_policiespolitics%2Farticle%2Finstream1%22%2C%22cust_params%22%3A%7B%22paid%22%3A1%2C%22scnid%22%3A%223095250%22%2C%22sctid%22%3A%22326745%22%2C%22scsid%22%3A%5B%2291%22%2C%224%22%2C%22318198%22%5D%2C%22articletype%22%3A%22DEFAULT%22%7D%7D%2C%22nonPersonalizedAd%22%3Atrue%7D%7D&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com&widgetid=2 US House of Representatives sends Uygur Human Rights Policy Act to Trump's desk for approval

US House of Representatives sends Uygur Human Rights Policy Act to Trump's desk for approval

Curtis was less sanguine about how much Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and other Central Asian republics were resisting China's influence, citing an emphasis by governments in the region on the economic consequences of strained ties with Beijing by protesting the treatment of Muslim minorities in China's far northwest.

China's internment of Muslim Uygurs in the Xinjiang region has drawn international condemnation. The UN has estimated that more than a million Muslims have been detained in camps there for political re-education, but Beijing claims they are vocational training centres aimed at countering religious extremism.

"With regard to the Central Asian countries, I think they're concerned about China's economic influence in their countries, and therefore they very much hedge their comments about the repression of Muslims in Xinjiang province," Curtis said, but added that she expected public condemnation of China in Pakistan and Bangladesh to mount over the issue.

"There has been reticence, which has been disheartening, but I think as these countries see China trying to trying to increase disinformation campaigns you'll start to see pushback from the South Central Asian countries and more speaking out about the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang," she said. Join the Singapore Property Festival - a virtual exhibition organised by the South China Morning Post on August 1 to explore a wide range of affordable luxury residential and commercial real estate assets in Singapore, perfect as relocation and investment options. Get property project highlights and market insights from Info Session webinars and LIVE 1-on-1 chats with property taxation, immigration and investment experts. Register for your FREE PASS now.

[Jul 30, 2020] Presumptuous Pompeo Pushes Preposterous 'Peking' Policy - Antiwar.com Original

Jul 30, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

Presumptuous Pompeo Pushes Preposterous 'Peking' Policy

by Ray McGovern Posted on July 30, 2020

Quick. Somebody tell Mike Pompeo. The secretary of state is not supposed to play the role of court jester – the laughing stock to the world. There was no sign that any of those listening to his "major China policy statement" last Thursday at the Nixon Library turned to their neighbor and said, "He's kidding, right? Richard Nixon meant well but failed miserably to change China's behavior? And now Pompeo is going to put them in their place?"

Yes, that was Pompeo's message. The torch has now fallen to him and the free world. Here's a sample of his rhetoric:

"Changing the behavior of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom.

"Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them (sic). Look, I reject the notion that CCP supremacy is the future the free world is still winning. It's time for free nations to act Every nation must protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party. If we bend the knee now, our children's children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.

"We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is 'our spirit willing but our flesh weak?' Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable. And it's our government's job to secure those rights. It's a simple and powerful truth. It's made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.

"Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that "the world cannot be safe until China changes." Now it's up to us to heed his words. Today the free world must respond. "

Trying to Make Sense of It

Over the weekend an informal colloquium-by-email took pace, spurred initially by an op-ed article by Richard Haass critiquing Pompeo's speech. Haass has the dubious distinction of having been director of policy planning for the State Department from 2001 to 2003, during the lead-up to the attack on Iraq. Four months after the invasion he became president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a position he still holds. Despite that pedigree, the points Haass makes in "What Mike Pompeo doesn't understand about China, Richard Nixon and U.S. foreign policy" are, for the most part, well taken.

Haass's views served as a springboard over the weekend to an unusual discussion of Sino-Soviet and Sino-Russian relations I had with Ambassador Chas Freeman, the main interpreter for Nixon during his 1972 visit to China and who then served as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992.

As a first-hand witness to much of this history, Freeman provided highly interesting and not so well-known detail mostly from the Chinese side. I chipped in with observations from my experience as CIA's principal analyst for Sino-Soviet and broader Soviet foreign policy issues during the 1960s and early 1970s.

Ambassador Freeman:

As a participant in that venture: Nixon responded to an apparently serious threat to China by the USSR that followed the Sino-Soviet split. He recognized the damage a Soviet attack or humiliation of China would do to the geopolitical balance and determined to prevent the instability this would produce. He offered China the status of ( what I call ) a "protected state" -- a country whose independent existence is so important strategically that it is something we would risk war over.

Mao was sufficiently concerned about the prospect of a Soviet attack that he held his nose and welcomed this change in Sino-American relations, thereby accepting this American abandonment of the sort of hostility we are again establishing as outlined in Pompeo's psychotic rant of last Thursday. Nixon had absolutely zero interest in changing anything but China's external orientation and consolidating its opposition to the USSR in return for the US propping it up. He also wanted to get out of Vietnam, which he inherited from LBJ, in a way that was minimally destabilizing and thought a relationship with China might help accomplish that. It didn't.

Overall, the maneuver was brilliant. It bolstered the global balance and helped keep the peace. Seven years later, when the Soviets invaded and occupied Afghanistan, the Sino-American relationship immediately became an entente -- a limited partnership for limited purposes.

In addition to its own assistance to the mujahideen , China supplied the United States with the weapons we transferred to anti-Soviet forces ($630 million worth in 1987), supplied us with hundreds or millions of dollars worth of made-to-order Chinese-produced Soviet-designed equipment (e.g. MiG21s) and training on how to use this equipment so that we could learn how best to defeat it, and established joint listening posts on its soil to more than replace the intelligence on Soviet military R&D and deployments that we had just lost to the Islamic revolution in Iran. Sino-American cooperation played a major role in bringing the Soviet Union down.

Apparently, Americans who don't see this are so nostalgic for the Cold War that they want to replicate it, this time with China, a very much more formidable adversary than the USSR ever was.

Those who don't understand what that engagement achieved argue that it failed to change the Chinese political system, something it was never intended to do. They insist that we would be better off returning to 1950s-style enmity with China. Engagement was also not intended to change China's economic system either but it did.

China is now an integral and irreplaceable part of global capitalism. We apparently find this so unsatisfactory that, rather than addressing our own competitive weaknesses, we are attempting to knock China back into government-managed trade and underdevelopment, imagining that "decoupling" will somehow restore the economic strengths our own ill-conceived policies have enfeebled.

A final note. Nixon finessed the unfinished Chinese civil war, taking advantage of Beijing's inability to overwhelm Taipei militarily. Now that Beijing can do that, we are unaccountably un-finessing the Taiwan issue and risking war with China -- a nuclear power -- over what remains a struggle among Chinese -- some delightfully democratic and most not. Go figure.

Ray McGovern:

This seems a useful discussion – perhaps especially for folks with decades-less experience in the day-to-day rough and tumble of Sino-Soviet relations. During the 1960s, I was CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations and in the early 1970s, as chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and Presidential Daily Brief writer for Nixon, I had a catbird seat watching the constant buildup of hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Henry Kissinger saw it clearly and were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage.

I am what we used to be called an "old Russian hand" (like over 50 years worth if you include academe). So, my not being an "old China hand" except for the important Sino-Soviet issue, it should come as no surprise that my vantage point will color my views – especially given my responsibilities for intelligence support for the SALT delegation and ultimately Kissinger and Nixon – during the early 1970s.

I had been searching for a word to apply to Pompeo's speech on China. Preposterous came to mind, assuming it still means "contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous." Chas's "psychotic rant" may be a better way to describe it. And it is particularly good that Chas includes several not widely known facts about the very real benefits that accrued to the US in the late 70's and 80's from the Sino-U.S. limited partnership.

Having closely watched the Sino-Soviet hostility rise to the point where, in 1969, the two started fighting along the border on the Ussuri River, we were able to convince top policy makers that this struggle was very real – and, by implication, exploitable.

Moscow's unenthusiastic behavior on the Vietnam War showed that, while it felt obliged to give rhetorical support, and an occasional surface-to-air missile battery, to a fraternal communist country under attack, it had decided to give highest priority to not letting Moscow's involvement put relations with the US into a state of complete disrepair. And, specifically, not letting China, or North Vietnam, mousetrap or goad the Soviets into doing lasting harm to the relationship with the US

At the same time, the bizarre notion prevailing in Averell Harriman's mind at the time as head of the US delegation to the Paris peace talks, was that the Soviets could be persuaded to "use their influence in Hanoi" to pull US chestnuts out of the fire. It was not only risible but also mischievous.

Believe it or not, that notion prevailed among the very smart people in the Office of National Estimates as well as other players downtown. Frustrated, I went public, publishing an article , "Moscow and Hanoi," in Problems of Communism in May 1967.

After Kissinger went to Beijing (July 1971) – followed in February 1972 by Nixon – we Soviet analysts began to see very tangible signs that Moscow's priority was to prevent the Chinese from creating a closer relationship with Washington than the Soviets could achieve.

In short, we saw new Soviet flexibility in the SALT negotiations (and, in the end, I was privileged to be there in Moscow in May 1972 for the signing of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and the Interim Agreement on Offensive Arms). Even earlier, we saw some new flexibility in Moscow's position on Berlin. To some of us who had almost given up that a Quadripartite Agreement could ever be reached, well, we saw it happen in September 1971. I believe the opening to China was a factor.

So, in sum, in my experience, Chas is quite right in saying, "Overall, the maneuver was brilliant." Again, the Soviets were not about to let the Chinese steal a march in developing better ties with the US And I was able to watch Soviet behavior very closely in the immediate aftermath of the US opening to China.

As for the future of Sino-Soviet relations, we were pretty much convinced that, to paraphrase that "great" student of Russian history, James Clapper, the Russians and Chinese were "almost genetically driven" to hate each other forever. In the 1980s, though, we detected signs of a thaw in ties between Moscow and Beijing.

To his credit, Secretary of State George Shultz was very interested in being kept up to date on this, which I was able to do, even after my tour briefing him on the PDB ran out in 1985. (I was acting chief of the Analysis Group at the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) for two years (an outstanding outfit later banned by Robert Gates.)

Some Observations

1 – Unless Pompeo had someone else take the exams for him at West Point, he has to be a pretty smart fellow. In other words, I don't think he can claim "Invincible ignorance", (a frame of mind that can let us Catholics off the hook for serious transgressions or ineptitude). The only thing that makes sense to me is that he is a MICIMATTer. MICIMATT for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MEDIA is all caps because it is the sine quo non, the linchpin) For example: Item: "Officials cite 'keeping up with China' as they award a $22.2 billion contract to General Dynamics to build Virginia-class submarines." December 4, 2019

2 – I sometimes wonder what China, or Russia, or anyone thinks of a would-be statesman with the puerile attitude of a US secretary of state who brags: "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment."

3 – If memory serves, annual bilateral trade between China and Russia was between $200 and 400 MILLION during the 1960's. It was $107 BILLION in 2018.

4 – The Chinese no longer wear Mao suits; and they no longer issue 178 "SERIOUS WARNINGS" a year. I can visualize, though, just one authentically serious warning about US naval operations in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait. Despite the fact that there is no formal military alliance with Russia, I suspect the Russians might decide to do something troublesome – perhaps even provocative -- in Syria, in Ukraine, or even in some faraway place like the Caribbean – if only to show a modicum of solidarity with their Chinese friends who at that point would be in direct confrontation with US ships far from home. That, I think, is how far we have come in Pompeo's benighted attempt to throw his weight around at both countries.

Three years ago, I published here an article titled "Russia-China Tandem Shifts Global Power." Here are some excerpts:

"Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to US actions that have pushed the two countries closer together.

But there is little sign that today's US policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for US freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air.

Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.

But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to "US interests" in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.

A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the US arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built.

Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage.

The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" [they were unequal] dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides.

In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the US

Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the following February. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington.

Triangular Diplomacy

Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the US and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.

It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the US approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was.

Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon.

Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the US moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the US

The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the US bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time.

We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler heads. The US, under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the US, China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening.

Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington.

A New Reality

Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached "unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves.

A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to US hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia."

The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev. [Surprisingly, China decided not to criticize the annexation of Crimea.]

On the global stage, Putin fleshed out the earlier energy deal with China, including a massive 30-year natural gas contract valued at $400 billion. The move helped Putin demonstrate that the West's post-Ukraine economic sanctions posed little threat to Russia's financial survival.

As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the US government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the US than with each other. "

Good luck with that Secretary Pompeo.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This originally appeared at Consortium News .

[Jul 29, 2020] The UK government didn't find evidence because it didn't look for it, and backs increased powers for intelligence agencies and media censorship as a result

Jul 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

WARREN July 27, 2020 at 10:07 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/NG17cgS2-sU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

UK 'Russia report' fear-mongers about meddling yet finds no evidence
10,974 views•25 Jul 2020

The Grayzone
111K subscribers
Pushback with Aaron Maté

A long-awaited UK government report finds no evidence of Russian meddling in British domestic politics, including the 2016 Brexit vote. But that hasn't stopped the fear-mongering: the report claims the UK government didn't find evidence because it didn't look for it, and backs increased powers for intelligence agencies and media censorship as a result. Afshin Rattansi, a British journalist and host of RT's "Going Underground", responds.

Guest: Afshin Rattansi, British journalist and host of RT's "Going Underground."

[Jul 27, 2020] Germany Rejects Trump Bid To Let Russia Back Into G7- 'No Chance Due To Ukraine'

So Merkel and Obama staged the coup and Russia is guilty of consequences.
Jul 27, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

For much of the past year Trump has caused angst among allies by maintaining a consistent position that Russia should be invited back into the Group of Seven (G7), making it as it was prior to 2014, the G-8.

Russia had been essentially booted from the summit as relations with the Obama White House broke down over the Ukraine crisis and the Crimea issue. Trump said in August 2019 that Obama had been "outsmarted" by Putin.

But as recently as May when Germany followed by other countries rebuffed Trump's plans to host the G7 at Camp David, Trump blasted the "very outdated group of countries" and expressed that he planned to invite four additional non-member nations, mostly notably Russia .

... per Reuters :

Germany has rejected a proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin back into the Group of Seven (G7) most advanced economies , German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in a newspaper interview published on Monday.

Interestingly enough the Ukraine and Crimea issues were raised in the interview: "But Maas told Rheinische Post that he did not see any chance for allowing Russia back into the G7 as long as there was no meaningful progress in solving the conflict in Crimea as well as in eastern Ukraine," according to the report.

[Jul 27, 2020] The narratives are breaking down: The entire media class will now spend years leading the public on a wild goose chase for Russian collusion and then act like it's no big deal when the whole thing turned out to be completely baseless by Caitlin Johnstone

Jul 27, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

People's old ways of understanding what's going on in the world just aren't holding together anymore.

... ... ...

New Cold War escalations between the U.S.-centralized empire and the unabsorbed governments of China and Russia are going to cause the media airwaves around the planet to become saturated in ever-intensifying propaganda narratives which favor one side or the other and have no interest in honestly telling people the truth about what's going on.

[Jul 27, 2020] Why it is so difficult to understand what's going on in the world

Jul 27, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

It's difficult to understand what's going on in the world because powerful people actively manipulate public understanding of what's going on in the world.

Powerful people actively manipulate public understanding of what's going on in the world because if the public understood what's going on in the world, they would rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful.

The public would rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful if they understood what's going on in their world because then they would understand that the powerful have been exploiting, oppressing, robbing, cheating and deceiving them while destroying the ecosystem, stockpiling weapons of Armageddon and waging endless wars, for no other reason than so that they can maintain and expand their power.

The public do not rise up and use their strength of numbers to overthrow the powerful because they have been successfully manipulated into not wanting to.

[Jul 26, 2020] Cold Wars Profit -

Jul 26, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Cold Wars & Profit


by Tyler Durden Fri, 07/24/2020 - 02:00 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Craig Murray via ConsortiumNews.com,

If an asteroid runs into the earth, any surviving press will blame it on Russia...

The Guardian a few days ago carried a very strange piece [which has since been removed] under the heading "Stamps celebrating Ukrainian resistance in pictures." The first image displayed a stamp bearing the name of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).

me title=

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_400746718

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_29180504 NOW PLAYING

Russian envoy dismisses claims Moscow tried to steal virus vaccine research

Matt Hancock: British police are not like American police

Labour agrees to pay 'substantial damages' to Panorama whistleblowers

Second Cummings lockdown trip 'not true', says Grant Shapps

Ministers will make decisions on easing two-metre rule, says Sunak

Labour under Starmer is politically competitive again, says Blair

Minister defends Government's 'stay alert' message

Tliab In Trouble In Re-Election Bid

The UPA was, without any shadow of a doubt, responsible for the slaughter of at least 200,000 Polish civilians; they liquidated whole Polish communities in Volhynia and Galicia, including the women and children. The current Polish government, which is as anti-Russian and pro-NATO as they come, nevertheless has declared this a genocide.

It certainly was an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing. There is no doubt either that at times between 1942 and 1944 the UPA collaborated with the Nazis and collaborated in the destruction of Jews and Gypsies. It is simplistic to describe the UPA as fascist or an extension of the Nazi regime; at times they fought the Nazis, though they collaborated more often.

There is a real sense in which they operated at the level of medieval peasants, simply seizing local opportunities to exterminate rural populations and seize their land and assets, be they Polish, Jew or Gypsy. But on balance any reasonable person would have to conclude that the UPA was an utterly deplorable phenomenon. To publish a celebration of it, disguised as a graphic art piece, without any of this context, is no more defensible than a display of Nazi art with no context.

In fact, The Guardian's very brief text was still worse than no context.

"Ukrainian photographer Oleksandr Kosmach collects 20th-century stamps issued by Ukrainian groups in exile during the Soviet era.

Artists and exiles around the world would use stamps to communicate the horrors of Soviet oppression. "These stamps show us the ideas and values of these people, who they really were and what they were fighting for," Kosmach says."

about:blank

about:blank

me title=

That is so misleadingly partial as a description of the art glorifying the UPA movement as to be deeply reprehensible. It does however fit with the anything- goes stoking of Russophobia, which is the mainstay of government and media discourse at the moment. Even at the height of the Cold War, we never saw such a barrage of unprovable accusations leveled at Russia through the media by "security service sources."

Attack on UK Vaccine Research

A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The latest is the accusation that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination research. This is another totally evidence-free accusation. But it misses the point anyway.

Andrew Marr, center, in 2014. (Financial Times, Flickr)

The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that there was an effort to obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community.

As I have reported before , the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common research and common vaccine solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and disadvantage the global poor).

What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the fact that Russia had just bought the very research specified. You don't steal things you already own.

Evidence of CIA Hacks

If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with certainty the whereabouts of hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to India, Australia or South Africa depending on where I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging broadcasting restrictions.

More pertinently, WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release of CIA material showed the specific programs for the CIA in how to leave clues to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable evidence that the CIA do computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the mainstream media knows to be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.

Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that former Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen by an evil Russian who left his name of Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this narrative. Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking Corbyn.

Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared to open up the NHS "market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on pharmaceutical prices, I should be very grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who leaked evidence of just how systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.

But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted insider, and I very much suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted insider.

When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the whistle.

Crowdstrike's Quiet Admission

If you can delay even the most startling truth for several years, it loses much of its political bite. If you can announce it during a health crisis, it loses still more. The world therefore did not shudder to a halt when the CEO of Crowdstrike admitted there had never been any evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC servers.

Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry presenting at the International Security Forum in Vancouver, 2009.
(Hubert K, Flickr)

You will recall the near incredible fact that, even through the Mueller investigation, the FBI never inspected the DNC servers themselves but simply relied on a technical report from Crowdstrike, the Hillary Clinton-related IT security consultant for the DNC.

It is now known for sure that Crowdstrike had been peddling fake news for Hillary. In fact, Crowdstrike had no record of any internet hack at all. There was no evidence of the email material being exported over the internet. What they claimed did exist was evidence that the files had been organized preparatory to export.

Remember the entire "Russian hacking" story was based ONLY on Crowdstrike's say so. There is literally no other evidence of Russian involvement in the DNC emails, which is unsurprising as I have been telling you for four years from my own direct sources that Russia was not involved. Yet finally declassified congressional testimony revealed that Shawn Henry stated on oath that "we did not have concrete evidence" and "There's circumstantial evidence , but no evidence they were actually exfiltrated."

This testimony fits with what I was told by Bill Binney, a former technical director of the National Security Agency (NSA), who told me that it was impossible that any large amount of data should be moved across the internet from the USA, without the NSA both seeing it happen in real time and recording it. If there really had been a Russian hack, the NSA would have been able to give the time of it to a millisecond.

That the NSA did not have that information was proof the transfer had never happened, according to Binney. What had happened, Binney deduced, was that the files had been downloaded locally, probably to a thumb drive.

Bill Binney. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)

So arguably the biggest news story of the past four years -- the claim that Putin effectively interfered to have Donald Trump elected U.S. president -- turns out indeed to be utterly baseless. Has the mainstream media, acting on security service behest, done anything to row back from the false impression it created? No it has doubled down.

Anti-Russia Theme

The "Russian hacking" theme keeps being brought back related to whatever is the big story of the day.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Then we have those continual security service briefings. Two weeks ago we had unnamed security service sources telling The New York Times that Russia had offered the Taliban a bounty for killing American soldiers. This information had allegedly come from interrogation of captured Taliban in Afghanistan, which would almost certainly mean it was obtained under torture.

It is a wildly improbable tale. The Afghans have never needed that kind of incentivization to kill foreign invaders on their soil. It is also a fascinating throwback of an accusation – the British did indeed offer Afghans money for, quite literally, the heads of Afghan resistance leaders during the first Afghan War in 1841, as I detail in my book "Sikunder Burnes."

Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, 2001. (Wikipedia)

You do not have to look back that far to realize the gross hypocrisy of the accusation. In the 1980s the West was quite openly paying, arming and training the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden – to kill Russian and other Soviet conscripts in their thousands. That is just one example of the hypocrisy.

The U.S. and U.K. security services both cultivate and bribe senior political and other figures abroad in order to influence policy all of the time. We work to manipulate the result of elections -- I have done it personally in my former role as a U.K. diplomat. A great deal of the behavior over which Western governments and media are creating this new McCarthyite anti-Russian witch hunt, is standard diplomatic practice.

My own view is that there are malign Russian forces attempting to act on government in the U.K. and the USA, but they are not nearly as powerful as the malign British and American forces acting on their own governments.

The truth is that the world is under the increasing control of a global elite of billionaires, to whom nationality is irrelevant and national governments are tools to be manipulated. Russia is not attempting to buy corrupt political influence on behalf of the Russian people, who are decent folk every bit as exploited by the ultra-wealthy as you or I. Russian billionaires are, just like billionaires everywhere, attempting to game global political, commercial and social structures in their personal interest.

The other extreme point of hypocrisy lies in human rights. So many Western media commentators are suddenly interested in China and the Uighurs or in restrictions on the LBGT community in Russia, yet turn a completely blind eye to the abuse committed by Western "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

As somebody who was campaigning about the human rights of both the Uighurs and of gay people in Russia a good decade before it became fashionable, I am disgusted by how the term "human rights" has become weaponized for deployment only against those countries designated as enemy by the Western elite.

Finally, do not forget that there is a massive armaments industry and a massive security industry all dependent on having an "enemy." Powerful people make money from this Russophobia. Expect much more of it. There is money in a Cold War. Sign in to comment Viewing Options arrow_drop_down

jmNZ , 2 hours ago

Most of this can be traced to a group of fanatical Dr Strangeloves in the UK, known as the "The Integrity Initiative" (sic) , now continuing under a new name since its cover was blown by ukcolumnnews.

This group is handsomely funded from the public purse by the Foreign Office and its influence is spread by the BBC and a corps of "disinformation officers" known as the 77th brigade and 13 Signals, all under the control of the British cabinet office.

They are the ones trying to destabilize America via the Democratic (sic) Party.

And their cover is weekly Russia-bashing stories.

bumboo , 6 hours ago

Craig Murray sounds a reasonable voice. He quit or was fired from his Ambassador job in Uzbekistan on Iraq war issue. Compare him with our Gen. Collin Powell, Mr. Clean, who lied about Iraqi WMD in UN, covered up My Lia massacre for a lousy promotion. Now writing books, public speaking for money and appearing on TVs as a wiseman. Wow.

Thutmoses , 7 hours ago

I think it wont be Russia, it will be China.

If an asteroid runs into the earth, any surviving press will blame it on China

Scipio Africanuz , 8 hours ago

Thanks Craig..

Any renewed cold War will freeze the instigators, and should it get hot, then they burn as well..

Unfortunately, in the hot version, mankind gets roasted as well and not just by bombs, but by..

As for the cold version however, the script had flipped thus..

As Sólómọ́nì Wise averred wisely, the borrower is slave to the lender, and it doesn't matter if the duplicitous borrower tries to stiff the lender..

The debts will be paid one way or another..

As for those bamboozled into unsustainable liabilities, there's always the merciful jubilee, but first things first, lessons must be learned, thinking rejuvenated, lifestyle changed, recalibration engaged, and vigilance imbibed..

To ensure serfdom culs de sac are avoided once the deceived by delusions are salvaged..

And thus Craig, the necessity of experience that's bitter, so folks may learn by necessity, what they chose not to learn via humility..

Cheers...

Really_Brit , 8 hours ago

The fundamental problem with this kind of revisionist narrative - that the Russian leadership has been wildly misinterpreted as hostile to the west - is actually the existence, in full sight, of Russia's most obvious propaganda tool - RT. What was called Russia Today until someone in Moscow twigged that almost nothing being broadcast was about Russia that was at all likely to upset Putin and his oligarchy or hint at the countries inferiority complex viz a viz the West. So not what would be seen as free press and free broadcasting.
Nothing remotely like the programs RT / Russia Today has put together (or bought) that describe civil unrest in the developed world. Or civil unrest in the developing world but caused by the machinations of the developed world.

The closure or restrictions on Western NGO's in Russia intentionally stops any attempt to replicate RT / Russia Today. So we will never see the Russian equivalents of recognisable US ex-TV anchors or ex-CIA sounding off, within Russia , about corruption and criminality in their motherland. Even sounding off about Russia outside in the developed world carries a heavy price - just remind ourselves of poisoned ex-spies and Salisbury door knobs!

Tarjan , 2 hours ago

"Salisbury door knobs!"

You're chitting me, right?

~

jmNZ , 51 minutes ago

Ha! Ha!

You're as unreal a Brit as can be imagined.

No one believes the Skripal pantomime. Nor the MH17 'narrative'. Nor the farce where a supposedly democratic country like the UK supports one of the richest and most arbitrary regimes, Sadist Barbaria, in the wanton destruction of one of the poorest, the Yemen. And how many times have the US/UK been caught out cooperating with fanatical jihadis terrorizing Syria, the only parliamentary, secular state in the ME?

We wouldn't know any of this from the BBC.

desertboy , 8 hours ago

" It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community."

Assumes the intent is to make people healthier.

capital101 , 9 hours ago

War is a racket , from Smedley Butler, should be mandatory reading in school.

Don't be a tool, wake the **** up and stop mesuring your wealth using toilet paper

mike_1010 , 9 hours ago

I think there is a positive side to this western animosity against Russia and China too. Because Russia and China now have no good reason to respect western imperialism in the rest of the world.

During the last Cold War, Russia and China helped many countries in Africa and Asia throw off their yoke of western imperialism and have some alternatives for their trade and development. And now we are getting a similar situation.

Russia and China are developing financial tools for international trade independent of the US dollar. Which in the future will limit US power to impose sanctions and interfere with trade between other countries. And of course, both Russia and China have goods and technologies that rival those of western countries. They can provide a complete alternative for countries that the West is trying to isolate and subjugate.

Perhaps western animosity isn't good for world peace or for the people in Russia and China. But there is some benefit in this for many less developed countries who need an alternative to the West for their trade and development.

We have some real competition now, where the competitors aren't colluding with each other. Which is good for developing countries that need some real alternatives for their trade and development.

PT , 9 hours ago

"...First they were our enemies. Then they were our friends. Then they were our enemies again. Then they were our friends again..." - Mad Magazine was pointing this out in the 1970s ... or was it the 1960s?

Judging by the wording and the artwork, probably the '60s.

Fun side note: Compare Mad Magazines from each decade. Which ones had the higher quality writers? Which ones had the higher quality art work? The answer is clearly visible. The older, the better.

[Jul 26, 2020] How to Make a Brick from Straw and Bullshit: The UK and US have accused Russia of launching a weapon-like projectile from a satellite in space.

Jul 26, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE July 23, 2020 at 10:50 am

J'accuse! Again!

One hour ago, BBC:

UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53518238

The UK and US have accused Russia of launching a weapon-like projectile from a satellite in space.
In a statement, the head of the UK's space directorate said: "We are concerned by the manner in which Russia tested one of its satellites by launching a projectile with the characteristics of a weapon."
The statement said actions like this "threaten the peaceful use of space".

Those Russians!

Now they're even weaponizing weapons!!!

MARK CHAPMAN July 23, 2020 at 11:48 am

But of course the USA's anti-satellite weapons do not 'threaten the peaceful use of space'. Like its 'Bold Onion' project 60 years ago.

https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2019/03/27/history-anti-satellite-weapon-us-asat-missile.html

The USA and UK's constant, unremitting "Putin stole my baby's candy" stories that nobody expects them to prove are merely making the pair of them look ridiculous. If you're trying to get Code-Red support for war, step up to the mark and take your shot, instead of constantly sniveling and making it sound like nobody can draw a peaceful breath until the Russians have been eliminated from the planet. But I promise you if you do, you are going to be so sorry. Russia is not Grenada. Time again to trot out my favourite maxim – 'experience keeps a hard school, but fools will learn at no other'.

ET AL July 23, 2020 at 12:57 pm

Or the US's recently stood up Space Force(skin) USSF – spaceforce.mil (.mil = as in military). Maybe that is why the UK is whining about it, i.e. to put space between the US? Oh, and the Brits don't have a capability, having given up launchers in the 1960s.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/21/790492010/trump-created-the-space-force-heres-what-it-will-do?t=1595537367261

"Space is the world's newest war-fighting domain," President Trump said during the signing ceremony. "Amid grave threats to our national security, American superiority in space is absolutely vital. And we're leading, but we're not leading by enough. But very shortly we'll be leading by a lot."

"This is not a farce. This is nationally critical," Gen. John Raymond, who will lead the Space Force, told reporters on Friday. "We are elevating space commensurate with its importance to our national security and the security of our allies and partners."

About 16,000 Air Force active duty and civilian personnel are being assigned to the Space Force. There's still a lot to figure out, including the force's uniform, logo, and even its official song.

The Space Force will fall within the Department of the Air Force, but after one year it will have its own representation on the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

The new service branch essentially repackages and elevates existing military missions in space from the Air Force, Army and Navy, said Todd Harrison, who directs the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

"It's about, you know, all the different types of missions our military already does in space -- just making sure that we're doing them more effectively, more efficiently," said Harrison.

"It will create a centralized, unified chain of command that is responsible for space, because ultimately when responsibility is fragmented, no one's responsible," he added.
####

The most interesting bit about the article above is the ommission, i.e. it doesn't mention offensive space capabilities, even though we know about the robotic Boing X57* winged spaceplane that swans about for up to a year.

No. Everyone should wait for the US to deploy its weapon systems and then follow! That would be fair and just because the US is a Democracy and it has earned the right and more importantly, the benefit of the doubt ad infinitum. Or is the X-37 just there to sprinkle calming holy water on America's adversaries? ODFO!

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

[Jul 26, 2020] Russian hatefest was over the top. It was a classic case of accusing Russia of what we do. Russia (aka United States) nihilistically creates trouble and by amplifying discord in other countries in order to deflect from their own domestic problems and foreign adventurism in places like Syria and Ukraine.

Jul 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J. Chuba , Jul 26 2020 15:54 utc | 7

Made the mistake of watching Fareed Zakaria show

The good , a 5 minute segment where a guest picked winner / loser countries post covid19 world.
Winners: Germany, Taiwan, and Russia, Loser: United States.
It was amusing to watch Zakaria's face contort at the mention of Russia being named a winner, 'wha-whaaaaaaat?' The guest had to reassure Zakaria that Russia is a crap country and only benefits because of Putin's Fortress Russia campaign and low debt making it capable of weathering storms. Zakaria's face still frozen in a mask of horror.

The bad a rather long segment on Russia, China, and Iran's meddling campaign for our next election. This was more painful to me then when I had appendicitis and had to wait several hours before anyone could drive me to the emergency room.
1. Two experts, a China hater and a Russia hater from different 'Institutes'

2. The gratuitous adding of Iran to the list without explanation. Pro-Iranian views are invisible.

3. Russian hatefest was over the top. It was a classic case of accusing Russia of what we do. Russia (aka United States) nihilistically creates trouble and by amplifying discord in other countries in order to deflect from their own domestic problems and foreign adventurism in places like Syria and Ukraine.

Nihilistic spoilers? We the U.S. lost in Syria but are now trying to create a quagmire for Russia and are pulling out all of the stops to make Syrians brutally suffer with a full scale trade embargo and partition of their country.

[Jul 25, 2020] Propaganda for kids- UK govt-backed 'news' site teaches children about 'ruthless' Putin 'shameless' Russia -- RT UK News

Jul 25, 2020 | www.rt.com

Propaganda for kids: UK govt-backed 'news' site teaches children about 'ruthless' Putin & 'shameless' Russia 24 Jul, 2020 19:09 / Updated 1 day ago Get short URL © Getty Images / Robert Daly 98 32 Follow RT on RT Is Vladimir Putin "the most dangerous man in the world?" If you trust the same news sources that some British schoolchildren's teachers do, then yes. Perhaps it's a good thing that the kids aren't listening.

When schools in Britain eventually reopen in September, children filling into the classrooms won't just be learning their reading, writing and arithmetic. On top of these fundamentals, their teachers will spoon-feed them blatant propaganda that would make Herr Goebbels blush.

The propaganda source in question is The Day, a news site founded by a team of established journalists and directed at teens. Designed for use in the classroom, each of The Day's stories is presented alongside a range of thought-provoking questions and exercises to help young people learn to "think for themselves and engage with the world."

Though UK-focused, The Day is used in classrooms around the world as a teaching aid.

ALSO ON RT.COM Madonna LIES about getting fined A MILLION DOLLARS in Russia for speaking up about gay rights – what else is new?

A recent article describes Russian President Vladimir Putin as "the most dangerous man in the world" and suggests "nothing can be done to bring this rogue state [Russia] to heel." Moscow's entire foreign policy is "shameless" and Putin is described as a man who delights in stoking unrest in the West. The widely-debunked accusations of Russian interference into the 2016 US election are treated as fact, as are the rumors that Putin meddled in the UK's Brexit referendum and in last year's general election.

The children are also offered Bill Browder's opinion that Russia is a "mafia state running a mafia operation." Browder, the site omits, is a magnate and fraudster who made billions of dollars in Russia during the privatization rush of the 1990s and reinvented himself as an anti-Putin activist once his revenue stream was cut off.

Below the article, kids are asked to answer a number of questions, such as "Should Russia be expelled from the United Nations?" and even to write a creative story about what it would be like to meet Putin during his KGB days. For good measure, the New York Times' recent evidence-free and widely criticized story claiming Russia paid bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan is suggested as further reading to help kids become an "expert" on all things Putin.

ALSO ON RT.COM The Russians are coming, again! Poorly understood cybercrimes play perfectly into political agendas

The Day does not bill itself as an anti-Russia think tank for kids. Quite the opposite. Ironically, its founder, Richard Addis, wanted to set up the site to fight deceptive journalism, hoaxes, "slanted reporting" and "stories where the truth is contentious" -- fake news in other words.

He was supported in this quest by the British government's Commission on Fake News and the Teaching of Critical Literacy Skills in Schools, which partnered with The Day to compile a damning report in 2018, revealing that only two percent of British youngsters have the critical thinking skills to spot phony news.

"It is clear that our schools are absolutely vital in encouraging children to burrow through the rubbish and rootle out the truth," Addis said at the time. Stories on the site with titles like 'Putin the terrible' and 'Toxic Putin on mission to poison the West' are clearly what Addis considers balanced journalism.

ALSO ON RT.COM George Galloway: Labour's demand for Ofcom review of RT licence is apostasy against democratic principles

Balance, however, is not a common trait among British Russia-watchers. Parliament's long-awaited 'Russia report' relies almost wholesale on "allegations" to back up its claim that Moscow "poses a significant threat to the UK." The report even relies on articles by BuzzFeed to substantiate its shaky claims.

As slanted as its coverage is, The Day's message may fall on deaf ears. According to the same government report, only a quarter of older children actually trust the news they read online. As such, The Day's propagandizing might all be in vain.

[Jul 25, 2020] Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results

Jul 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Zalamander

One by one the so-called Russiagate "evidence" have collapsed. The fake Steele Dossier, "Russian spy" Joseph Mifsud who is actually a self-admitted member of the Clinton Foundation, Roger Stone's non-existant Wikileaks contacts, Russian Afgan bounties, etc. But the neoliberal mainstream media still presents these as "facts" with no retractions.

This is not journalism, its disinformation designed to distract the American public from the failures of capitalism.

[Jul 24, 2020] Greater Russia -- Is Moscow out to subvert the West by Richard Sakwa

There some interesting parts of this analysis. But as soon as a Professor shows that he believes that The Internet Research Agency (IRA) troll factory influence 2016 elections his credibility falls to zero. The same is true about believing that Gussifer 2.0 was not a false play operation by some US actors.
The key problem in the USA foreign policy toward Russia is the concept of "Full Spectrum Dominance" cherished by Washington Neocons and foreign policy establishment (which are of ten the same people). Add to this a crown of greedy and unprincipled chickenhawks (the Blob) who play the anti-Russian for their own advancement, obtaining lucrative positions and enrichment (Fiona Hill, Victoria Nuland and company) and you see the problem. \
Destruction of the UN attempted by the USA after the dissolution of the USSR is a really tragic event, which probably will backfire for the USA sooner of later
Notable quotes:
"... The Putin elite had earlier welcomed Trump's election, but in practice relations deteriorated further. The foreign policy establishment is deeply sceptical that the EU will be able to act with 'strategic autonomy'. Above all, Russo-Western relations have entered into a statecraft 'security dilemma': ..."
"... Currently, we are again faced with a situation in which mutual intentions are assessed by Washington and Moscow as subversive, while each side considers the statecraft employed by the other side as effective enough to achieve its malign goals. At the same time, each side is more sceptical about its own statecraft and appears (or pretends) to be scrambling to catch up (Troitskiy 2019 ). ..."
Jul 15, 2020 | springer.com
Abstract

Russia today is presented as out to subvert the West. The chosen means are meddling in elections and sowing discord in Western societies. Russia in this imaginary looms over an unsuspecting West, undermining democracy and supporting disruptive forces. No longer couched in terms of the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism, this is a reversion to great power politics of the rawest sort. However, is this analysis correct? Is Vladimir Putin out to undermine the West to achieve his alleged goal of re-establishing some sort of post-Soviet 'greater Russia' imperial union in Russia's neighbourhood, to weaken the Atlantic power system and to undermine the liberal international order? The paper challenges the view that Russia is trying to reconstitute a Soviet-type challenge to the West, and provides an analytical framework to examine the dynamics of Russian foreign policy and on that basis assesses Russia's real rather than imaginary aspirations.

It has become orthodoxy that Russia under an embittered and alienated Vladimir Putin is out to subvert the West. The chosen means are taken to be meddling in elections and sowing discord in Western societies. The various special operations include propelling Donald J. Trump to the White House and fixing the Brexit vote in 2016 (Snyder 2018 ). Putin's Russia in this imaginary looms over an unsuspecting West, undermining democracy and supporting disruptive forces (Shekhovtsov 2017 ; Umland 2017 ). From this perspective, post-communist Russia is up to its old tricks, with the image of the Russian bear threatening the honour of a defenceless Europe dusted off from the Crimean War and the era of the great game in the late nineteenth century. No longer couched in terms of the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism, this is a reversion to great power politics of the imperial sort. It also represents the application of the weapons of the weak, since Russia by any definition is but a shadow of the former Soviet Union, with less than half the population and an economy at most one-tenth the size of that of the USA. Is this analysis correct? Is Putin out to undermine the West to achieve his alleged goal of re-establishing some sort of post-Soviet union in Russia's neighbourhood and to weaken the Atlantic power system so that the liberal international order is eroded from within? In other words, is Russia today a revisionist power out to create a greater Russia?

Before attempting an answer we need to define our terms. What does it mean to be a revisionist power today, and how can a strategy designed to 'subvert' be analysed and measured? Some fundamental methodological problems render study of the question inherently difficult. How can revisionism and subversion be measured? How can the specific actors involved in such actions be identified and disaggregated? At what point do normal policy differences between states become an existential challenge to an existing order? The answer will take four forms, each of which further defines the question. First, an assessment of the charge of Russian subversion and the various approaches that can be used to examine the simple but endlessly complex question: is there a new quality to Russia actions that build on Soviet era 'active measures' to denigrate and ultimately to destroy an opponent. This requires an examination of the logic of Russian motives and policy-making, including examination of the structure of the international system and the dynamics of Russian international politics, which will be presented in the second section. Third, an assessment of some of the Kremlin's subversive behaviour in recent years, examined in the light of the earlier sections. Fourth, analysis of the character of Russia's challenge assesses whether Russia today really is an insurgent and revisionist power.

Active measures and the subversion of American democracy

Is Russia really out to subvert the West? Much of the American political establishment believe that this is the case. A comprehensive list of Russian sins is presented by Biden and Carpenter ( 2018 ), including tyranny at home, the violation of the sovereignty of neighbours, meddling in the affairs of countries on the road to NATO membership, 'soft subversion' through electoral interference in the USA and France, the manipulation of energy markets and the 'weaponisation' of corruption. In his warning not to overreact to the Chinese challenge, Zakaria ( 2020 , p. 64) notes that its actions, such as stealing military secrets and cyber-warfare, 'are attempts to preserve what China views as its sovereignty'. However, these actions are 'nothing like Moscow's systematic efforts to disrupt and delegitimize Western democracy in Canada, the United States and Europe'. Why do Russia's actions in his view fall into an entirely different category?

One answer is that it is a question of political culture. The study of Moscow Rules by Giles ( 2019a , p. 23) argues that Russia's 'instinctive rejection of cooperative solutions is reinforced by the belief that all great nations achieve security through the creation and assertion of raw power', and this in turn means that Russia believes 'that the insecurity of others makes Russia itself more secure', predicated 'on the dubious principle that there is only a finite amount of security in the world'. Elsewhere (Giles 2019b ) sums up the policy implications in ten key points, which together do not leave much room for diplomatic manoeuvre or even engagement with such a wily adversary who 'takes a very expansive view of what constitutes Russian territory'. Treating it as an equal by normalising relations, as during Barack Obama's reset, 'delivered entirely the wrong messages to Moscow' (Giles 2019a , p. 25). There can be no common ground with such an existential foe, and any substantive engagement smacks of appeasement.

A second perspective focuses on Russophobia, which builds on the political culture notion of some inalienable and ineradicable essence to Russian behaviour. The concept of Russophobia is often used to discount what may well be legitimate criticism of Kremlin policies, but it nevertheless accurately conveys an approach that denigrates not only Russia's leaders but the people as a whole (Mettan 2017 ; Tsygankov 2009 ). In an interview in May 2017 former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper argued that Russians 'are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique' (Koenig 2017 ). The work of Smith ( 2019 ) complements that of Foglesong ( 2007 ) on long-standing American anxieties about Russia. Smith argues that recurrent bouts of Russophobia are prompted by what he calls the 'Russia anxiety', a long-term pattern of thinking and sentiments about Russia that alternate between fear, contempt and disregard for the country. The cycle began in the sixteenth century when Russia joined the nascent European international society. Anxiety that Russia threatens Western civilisation was accompanied by various versions of 'fake history', as in the publication in nineteenth-century France of Russia's 14-point plan for world domination -- the Testament of Peter the Great. This forgery is just one example of what Smith calls the 'black legend' of Russian history: the idea that aggression, expansionism and authoritarianism are inherent features of Russia's national character. Smith aims to demonstrate that Russia is far from exceptional, and instead its behaviour is predictable and in conformity with traditional patterns of a country defending its national interests, or as Zakaria argues with reference to China, its sovereignty. The major exception was the Soviet period, but this in many ways ran against Russia's national identity and represented an imposition based on chance and contingency. In his view, Russia today is doing no more than any other state, and its external actions are no more egregiously malevolent than any other.

A third approach looks at Soviet legacies and systemic characteristics. From this perspective, Russia has undergone an 'unfinished revolution' (McFaul 2001 ), allowing the Soviet era anti-Western and anti-democratic forces to regroup after the fall of communism. This particularly concerns the so-called siloviki (the security apparatus and its acolytes), as well as the transformed Soviet apparatchiks who became the core of Putin's model of statist oligarchic capitalism. This 'crony capitalism' spreads its subversion by abusing Western legal and financial institutions for their own malign purposes (Belton 2020 ; Dawisha 2014 ). Despite the change of regime and the end of old-style ideological confrontation, the Soviet system in certain fundamental respects has reproduced itself. This is why the repertoire of tactics is sometimes described as a continuation of Soviet era 'active measures' ( aktivnye meropriyatiya ) (Rid 2020 ). These are designed to undermine 'support in the United States and overseas for policies viewed as threatening to Moscow, discrediting US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, weakening US alliances and US relations with partners, and increasing Soviet power and influence across the globe' (Jones 2019 , p. 2). The term is now used indiscriminately to encompass disinformation and cyber activities as elements of a sustained strategy undertaken by the Soviet and now the Russian security services to undermine an enemy by exploiting divisions and the vulnerabilities of competitive and open democratic societies.

The Communist International (Comintern) was established in March 1919 to spread the revolution globally and prompted the Palmer raids in November of that year in the USA as part of the first Red Scare. During the Cold War there were plenty of times when Moscow tried to influence US politics (Haslam 2012 ). In 1948 the Soviet Union backed the Progressive Party's Henry Wallace, who had been Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice president but split with the Democratic Party over President Harry Truman's hawkish Cold War stance. In 1964 Soviet and Czechoslovak agencies smeared the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, as a racist and Ku Klux Klan supporter. In 1968 the Soviet Union offered an unprecedented level of support for the Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey, including financial aid (which naturally was refused). In 1976 the KGB adopted 'active measures' against Democratic Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson, a virulent anti-Soviet hawk. In 1980 and again in 1984 it appears that Senator Edward Kennedy sought Soviet support for his presidential campaign (Kengor 2018 ). In 1983 KGB agents were instructed to help defeat Reagan in his bid for re-election. The Soviet goals outlined above hold to this day in conditions of renewed Cold War, and this is why the term has regained currency (Abrams 2016 ). This is understandable, given the long history of Cold War conflict and renewed confrontation.

What is striking, however, is that most Soviet actions were inept and remarkably ineffective (Robinson 2019 ). We can also add that today such actions are also intensely counterproductive, arousing the hostility of the authorities against which they are directed and discrediting what may be legitimate policy differences with these countries. Political opponents are tarred with the brush of 'collusion' with an external enemy, as was the case during the second Red Scare in the post-war years overseen by Senator Joseph McCarthy. This is also the case, as we shall discuss below, in the 'Russiagate' collusion allegations, asserting that Trump worked with Moscow in 2016 to get himself elected (Sakwa 2021 ). The question then becomes: why does Russia do it? Is it part of a single and coordinated strategy of subversion using covert means, reflecting an overarching doctrine?

This is where the fourth approach, the ideational, comes in. From this perspective, the struggle between communism and capitalism has given way to the conflict between democracies and autocracies, with the latter developing a repertoire of techniques to keep democracy at bay (Hall and Ambrosio 2017 ). Each tries to subvert the other using a range of instruments, while advancing soft power agendas (Sherr 2013 ). Since at least 2004 Russia has been concerned with preventing what it calls 'colour revolutions', in which civil society is mobilised by Western agencies to achieve regime change (Horvath 2011 , 2013 ). This was the issue addressed by Valerii Gerasimov ( 2013 ), the Chief of the Russian General Staff, in his landmark article. The lesson of the Arab spring, he argued, was that the rules of war had changed. Viable states could quickly descend into armed conflict and become victims of foreign intervention and sink into an abyss of state collapse, civil conflict and humanitarian catastrophe. The article was a response to what was perceived to be new forms of Western 'hybrid warfare'. He noted that 'Frontal engagements of large formations of forces at the strategic and operational level are gradually becoming a thing of the past. Long-distance, contactless actions against the enemy are becoming the main means of achieving combat and operational goals'. He identified eight features of modern hybrid warfare that were applied to subvert states and to gain control of territory without resorting to conventional arms. Regime change could be achieved by the use of civil methods such as propaganda, funding and training of protest groups, and information campaigns aimed at discrediting the opponent. He stressed that the 'very rules of war have changed', arguing that non-military means such as the 'use of political, economic and informational, humanitarian, and other non-military measures -- applied in coordination with the protest potential of the population', can exceed 'the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness, and 'that the open use of forces -- often under the guise of peace-keeping and crisis regulation -- is resorted to only at a certain stage, primarily for the achievement of final success in the conflict'.

Gerasimov discounted the element of popular protest against corrupt and authoritarian systems in the Middle East, North Africa and post-Soviet Eurasia and instead framed these events as part of the radicalised West's regime change strategies. Following the Russian actions in Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, the term 'hybrid warfare' was applied to Russia's use of mixed methods (propaganda, disinformation, information warfare and special forces) to achieve what came to be known as a 'nonlinear' military operations (Fridman 2018 ). What Gerasimov had identified as the Western strategy against Russia was now interpreted as the blueprint for the Kremlin's attempts to destabilise its neighbours and Western democracies.

As for motivation, this is where a fifth approach comes in, focusing on questions of identity and Russia's search for status in a competitive international environment. From this perspective, the idealism of Mikhail Gorbachev's 'new political thinking' in international relations in the late 1980s 'offered a global mission that would enhance Soviet international status while preserving a distinctive national identity'. In this way, the Soviet Union could forge a 'shortcut to greatness' by winning great power status not through economic might and military power but through normative innovation and the transformation of international politics (Larson and Shevchenko 2003 ). This instrumental view of ideational innovation is challenged by English ( 2000 ), who stresses the long-term maturation of an intellectual revolution in Soviet thinking, which then carried over into Russian debates. As we shall see, there are many layers to Russia's foreign policy identity, although there is a clear evolution away from an initial enthusiasm for all things European and alignment with the West towards the stronger articulation of a great power version of Russian national interests. These great power aspirations have been interpreted as a type of aspirational constructivism directed towards the identity needs of domestic audiences rather than the expression of an aggressive policy towards the historic West (Clunan 2009 ). Status issues are important (Krickovic and Weber 2018 ), but they have to be understood as part of a larger ensemble of motivations within the structure of international relations.

The final approach focuses on the structural characteristics of international politics, whose specific post-Cold War manifestation will be examined below. Briefly put, defensive neorealism argues that in an anarchic international environment states typically seek to preserve the status quo to maintain their security by preserving the balance of power (Waltz 1979 , p. 121). Offensive realists focus on the maintenance of hegemony in the international system and the struggle to prevent usurpation (Mearsheimer 2001 , p. 21). Revisionism assumes that the balance of power does not adequately guarantee a state's security, hence it seeks to change the balance of power; or that is assumes that the balance of power has changed enough to mount a challenge to the status quo. In Russia's case, classical neorealism of either type would accept regional hegemony, with offshore balancing an adequate mechanism to ensure that it did not mount a global challenge. However, the liberal internationalism that predominated after 1989 makes no provision for regional hegemony of any sort, hence Russia was unable to exert the sort of influence to which it felt entitled, and hence its revisionist challenge was manifested in attacks on Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. This, at least, is the liberal structural perspective, and even the defensive realist position has guarded against any reassertion of Russia's great power ambitions, hence the concern to ensure that Ukraine was distanced as far as possible from any putative Russian 'sphere of influence' (Brzezinski 1994 , 1997 ).

How are we to adjudicate between these six different presentations of Russian interests and concerns? What is the standard against which we can measure the dynamics of Russian identity formation and foreign policy? Is Putin really trying to create a 'greater Russia' by not only challenging the established powers but also by waging a covert war to shape electoral outcomes while destroying the foundations of democracy itself? Undoubtedly, certain Cold War practices of propaganda and covert influence campaigns have been revived, while some (such as deep espionage operations) never stopped, accompanied now by 'black cash' flows (untraceable and illicit payments) to sympathetic movements, cyber-enhanced intelligence operations and outright cyber-warfare. Some of this predates the Cold War and is part of traditional statecraft, some is part of revived Cold War confrontation, while some is new and takes advantage of developing social media and communication technologies. Together they reflect the logic of conflict stopping short of kinetic military action.

Post-Cold War reconstruction of the West and the international system

What is the character of the conflict? We argue here that this is a structural feature of post-Cold War international politics. Two very different and incommensurate models of post-Cold War order were advanced after 1989 (Sakwa 2017a , pp. 12–19). The logic of expansion made perfect sense from the perspective of what came to be seen as the 'victors' at the end of the Cold War. The long-term adversary had not only renounced the ideology in whose name the struggle against capitalist democracy had been waged, but the country itself disintegrated. This really did look like 'the end of history', with no sustained ideological alternative to capitalist modernity on offer. From the first, the logic of expansion was opposed by Russia, the continuer state to the Soviet Union. From Moscow's perspective, the end of the Cold War was a mutual victory -- the triumph of the new political thinking that had matured in various academic institutes and think tanks (Bisley 2004 ; English 2000 ). This is why the logic of expansion was countered by the logic of transformation , the view that the end of the Cold War offered a unique opportunity to move beyond ideological confrontation between and within states. The idea of revolutionary socialism and class war would give way to a politics of reconciliation and all-class development. This is more than a 'shortcut to greatness' or a strategy for status advancement (although it is both of these), but a proposal for a structural transformation of the conduct of international politics. This demand lies at the base of normative developments in international law over the last century as well as in various peace and environmental movements today. There are plenty of credible realist arguments to dismiss such transformative approaches as hopelessly idealistic, but repeated financial and pathogenic shocks and the enduring threats of environmental catastrophe and nuclear annihilation provide the continuing impulse for transformative thinking (Lieven 2020 ).

This relates to a key point at the heart of Russian post-communist self-identity -- the ambition to join not the West as it exists within the accustomed binaries but a transformed West where Cold War antagonisms are structurally transcended. After 1989 the stated Russian ambition was to join the political West as it existed at the time, defined as the embodiment of the democratic ideal, the rule of law, defensible property rights, and above all the realm of freedom and independent associational life. However, because of the way that the political West evolved during the Cold War, when the larger political civilisation, termed after the Cold War the liberal international order, melded with the Atlantic power system, for a large part (but not all) of the Russia elite this became impossible. The power system at the heart of the liberal normative order endows US power with a unique character. The hegemonic aspect provided a range of international public goods, including the framework for economic globalisation. However, this was accompanied by the practices of primacy, which we can credibly describe as dominion, an ascendancy that has spawned a vast literature describing the USA as an empire (indicatively, Bacevich 2003 ; Johnson 2002 ; Mann 2005 ).

Russian leaders from Gorbachev to Putin insisted that the Cold War West -- what in Russian parlance became known as the 'historic West' -- would have to change with the end of the Cold War to become a 'greater West'. This was effectively the condition for Russia to join the expanded community, but in the end it turned out impossible for both sides to make the necessary adjustments. The greater West would not have to repudiate hegemony -- that was too much even for a demandeur state such as Russia to ask -- but Moscow's leaders did seek a change in the terms of dominion through the creation of what it insisted should be a mutually inclusive security order. Hegemony was to a degree acceptable as long as it was constrained by the system of international law grounded in the post-1945 international system, represented above all by the United Nations. Russian neo-revisionism challenges dominance in its various manifestations (empire, primacy, exceptionalism or greatness), but can live with constrained hegemony.

In sum, the fundamental post-Cold War process in the Russian view was to be mutual transformation , whereas the Western view envisaged a straightforward process of enlargement . In the context in which the main antagonist had itself repudiated the ideology on which it had based its opposition to the historical West since 1917, and which in 1991 disintegrated as a state, the Atlanticist pursuit of expansion and its accompanying logic of dominion was understandable (Wohlforth and Zubok 2017 ). Victory in the Cold War and the disintegration of the historic enemy (the Soviet Union) not only inhibited transformative processes in the historic West but in the absence of a counter-ideology or an opposing power system, encouraged the radicalisation of its key features (Sakwa 2018a ). The original liberal world order after 1945 developed as one of the major pillars (the Soviet Union was the other) within a bipolar system and was initially a relatively modest affair, based on the UN Charter defending the territorial integrity of states (although also committed to anti-colonial national self-determination), multilateral institutions, open markets that was later formulated as the 'four freedoms' of labour, capital, goods and services, accompanied by a prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence. After 1989 the liberal world order, as the only surviving system with genuinely universal aspirations, assumed more ambitious characteristics, including a radical version of globalisation, democracy promotion and regime change.

The framing of the 'historic West' against a putative 'greater West' repeats the recurring Russian cultural trope of contrasting 'good' and 'bad' Europes or Wests, 'with which Russians can seek to make common cause in domestic power struggles' (Hahn 2020 ; see also Neumann 2016 ). As the historic West radicalised, it also enlarged. On the global scale its normative system, the liberal international order, made universalist claims, while its power system (dominion) in Europe brought NATO to Russia's western borders and drove the European Union deep into what had traditionally been Russia's economic and cultural sphere. This would be disruptive in the best of circumstances, but when it became part of the expansion of an Atlantic power system accompanied by the universalising practices of the liberal international order, it provoked a confrontation over Ukraine and the onset of a renewed period of confrontation that some call a New Cold War (Legvold 2016 ; Mastanduno 2019 ; Monaghan 2015 ). In the absence of ideational or institutional modification, let alone innovation, after 1989, there was 'no place for Russia' (Hill 2018 , p. 8 and passim ) in this new order.

Does this mean that Russia has become a revisionist power, out to destroy the historic West? Russia's ambition has in fact been rather different, but in the end no less challenging: to change the practices of the power system at the core of the historic West. Once mutual transformation was no longer an option and the idea of a greater West receded (although it remains a residual feature of Russian thinking), Russia turned to neo-revisionism, a rather more modest ambition to change practices rather than systems (Sakwa 2019 ). This was the culmination of an extended thirty-year period of experimentation. Contrary to the view of the Russian power system as some immutable and unchangeable malign force (Lucas 2008 , 2013 ), the first and second models outlined above, foreign policy and more broadly Russia's engagement with the historic West since the end of the Cold War has evolved through four distinct periods. Periodisation is an important heuristic device and in methodological terms repudiates the view that there is some enduring essence to Russian foreign policy behaviour, with 'active measures' seamlessly transferred from the Soviet Union to post-communist Russia. It is important to note that the periodisation outlined here is layered . In other words, each phase does not simply give way to the next, but builds on and incorporates the earlier one, while changing the emphasis and introducing new elements.

The first period in the early 1990s was characterised by an enthusiastic Westernism and embrace of liberal Atlanticism (Kozyrev 2019 ). In conditions of catastrophic social and economic conditions at home and assertions of US hegemony and dominion abroad (although exercised rather reluctantly in Bosnia and elsewhere at this time), this gave way to a more assertive neo-Soviet era of competitive coexistence, masterminded by the foreign minister from January 1996, Yevgeny Primakov, who between September 1998 and May 1999 was prime minister. His assertion of multipolarity, alignment with India and China (the beginning of the RIC's grouping) and foreign policy activism received a harsh rebuff in the NATO bombing of Serbia from March 1999. Putin came to power in 2000 in the belief that the two earlier strategies were excessive in different directions, and through his policy of 'new realism' tried to find a middle way between acquiescence and assertion. Gorbachev-era ideas of 'normality' were revived, and Putin insisted that Russia would be a 'normal' great power, seeking neither favours from the West nor a privileged position for itself (Sakwa 2008 ). This strategy of positive engagement was thrown off course by the expansive dynamic of the Atlantic power system, including the war in Iraq in 2003, NATO enlargement and the Libyan crisis of 2011. As for Russia, the commodities boom of the 2000s fuelled an unprecedented period of economic growth, accompanied by remarkably successful reforms that transformed the Russian armed forces (Renz 2018 ). These fed ideas of Russian resurgence and appeared to provide the material base for a more assertive politics of resistance.

When Putin returned to the Kremlin in May 2012 the new realism gave way to the fourth phase of post-communist Russian foreign policy, the strategy of neo-revisionism. Already in his infamous Munich speech in February 2007, Putin ( 2007 ) objected to the behaviour of the US-led Atlantic power system, but in substance the fundamentals of the new realist strategy continued. Now, however, neo-revisionism challenged the universal claims of the US-led liberal international order and resisted the advance of the Atlantic power system by intensifying alternative integration projects in Eurasia and accelerating the long-term 'pivot to Asia'. By now Moscow was convinced that the normative hegemonic claims of the liberal international order were only the velvet manifestation of the iron fist of American dominion at its core. Russia, and its increasingly close Chinese partner, stressed the autonomy of international governance institutions, insisting that they were not synonymous with the universal claims of the liberal international order. This, in essence, is the fundamental principle of neo-revisionism: a defence of sovereign internationalism and the autonomy of the international system bequeathed by the Yalta and Potsdam conferences of 1945. This is accompanied by a rejection of the disciplinary practices of the US-led hegemonic constellation, including democracy promotion, regime change, humanitarian intervention and nation building (what Gerasimov identified as Western hybrid warfare) (Cunliffe 2020 ). In effect, this means a rejection of the practices of US-led international order, but not of the system in which it operates.

Putin defends a model of conservative (or sovereign) internationalism that maps on to a ternary understanding of the international system. On the top floor are the multilateral institutions of global governance, above all the UN (in which Russia has a privileged position as permanent member (P5) of the Security Council); on the middle floor states compete and global orders (like the US-led liberal international order) seek to impose their hegemony; while on the ground floor civil society groups and civil associations try to shape the cultural landscape of politics (such as groups trying to push responses to the climate catastrophe and nuclear threats up the global agenda). Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, condemn the liberal order for not living up to its own standards. As Lavrov ( 2019 ) argued, 'How do you reconcile the imperative of defending human rights with the bombardment of sovereign states, and the deliberate effort to destroy their statehood, which leads to the death of hundreds of thousands of people?'.

This is the neo-revisionist framework, which exposes the gulf between hegemonic principles and practices of dominion. It is revisionist to the degree that it repudiates the application of US dominion to itself, but is willing to work with that hegemony on major international issues as long as Russia's status as an autonomous diplomatic interlocutor is recognised (Lo 2015 ). Neo-revisionism is the natural culmination of a policy stance torn by two contradictory positions. The revisionist impulse seeks to reassert Russia into an international system in which great power diplomacy after the end of the Cold War in 1989 had given way to a hegemonic universalism that by definition repudiated the traditional instruments of great power diplomacy, such as spheres of influence, great power summitry and grand bargains. On the other side, Russia remains a conservative status quo power intent on maintaining the post-1945 international system, which grants it the supreme privilege of P5 membership as well as providing a benign framework to advance its model of sovereign internationalism. This is a model of world order favoured by China, India and many other states, wary not so much of the hegemonic implications of the liberal international order but of the power hierarchy associated with the practices of dominion. This is the framework in which Russia (and China) can engage in globalisation but repudiate the universalist ambitions of the power system with which it is associated.

With the USA under Trump withdrawing from multilateral commitments to focus on bolstering its ascendancy in the world of states (the second level), Russia (and China) inevitably stood up in defence of multilateralism, in which they have such a major stake. This is far from a revisionist position, and instead neo-revisionism defends the present international system but critiques the historical claim of the liberal international order to be identical with the multilateral order itself (Sakwa 2017a ). Of course, the US-led liberal order has indelibly marked international society, but this does not entail a proprietary relationship to that society (Dunne and Reut-Smith ( 2017 ). Russia emerges as the defender of the international system as it is presently constituted, but at the same time advances an alternative (non-hierarchical) idea of how it should operate. On occasion this may entail revisionist acts, such as the annexation of Crimea, which from Moscow's perspective was a defensive reaction to a Western-supported putsch against the legitimate authorities in Kiev (Treisman 2016 ), but they are not part of a consistent revisionist strategy. Both at home and abroad Russia is a status quo power. Putin railed against the West's perceived revisionism in both aspects, but the main point of resistance is the element of dominion at the heart of the Atlantic power system. In both respects there is no evidence that Russia seeks to destroy the international system as presently constituted.

This structural interpretation, in which incompatible models of international politics contest, is overwhelmingly rejected by the partisans of what can be called post-Cold War monism. From this perspective, there is only one viable order, the one generated by the USA and its allies. There can be pluralism within that order, but not between orders. This monist perspective is challenged by some recent international relations literature (Acharya 2017 ; Flockhart 2016 ) and of course by states defending a more pluralist understanding of the international system (for example, English School approaches, Buzan 2014 ). In practical terms the monist imperative, when couched in liberal order terms but rather less so when applied in the language of Trumpian 'greatness', renders Russia the structural equivalent of the Soviet Union, or even the dreaded image of Tsarist Russia.

This leads to a fundamental category error. Russia is not a 'revolutionary power' in the sense defined by Henry Kissinger ( 2013 , p 2), a country that can never be reassured of its security and consequently seeks absolute security at the expense of others. Napoleonic France or Hitlerite Germany were determined to overthrow the international systems of their times to create one more suited to their needs.

Russia today is a conservative power, alarmed by the way that the international system that it had helped create at the end of the Second World War became radicalised after the end of the Cold War. Critics argue that this radicalised version of liberal hegemony was 'bound to fail', since its ambitions were so expansive as to classify as delusional, and which in the end provoked domestic and external resistance (Mearsheimer 2018 , 2019 ). Russia's neo-revisionism after 2012 sought to defend the autonomy of the multilateralism inaugurated by the victorious powers after 1945 and was ready to embrace the 'hegemonic' goals of the liberal order as presented in the Cold War years, but came to fear the revisionism implicit in the 'exceptionalist' ideology of the post-Cold War version of the liberal order, especially when it was accompanied by what was perceived as the aggressive expansion of the dominion of the unipolar Atlantic power system.

The Kremlin and subversion

In the context of the distinction between the hegemony of the liberal international order and the dominion of the Atlantic power system, both Russia and China reaffirm their commitment to the normative principles underlying the international system as it developed after the Second World War. These include the primacy of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, the significance of international law and the centrality of the United Nations (Wilson 2019 ). However, both are challenger powers in two respects: first, in questioning the assertive universalism that was radicalised at the end of the Cold War, including various practices of humanitarian intervention and democracy promotion, accompanied by regime change strategies; and second, dissatisfaction with the existing distribution of power in the international system, hence challenge American primacy and hegemonic practices. This combination of commitment to the international system but challenges to the pre-eminence of a particular order in that system is what renders the two states neo-revisionist rather than outright revisionist powers. To label them as such is a category error, with grave and dangerous policy consequences.

This error has now become enshrined doctrinally. The US National Security Strategy ( 2015 ) already warned that Washington 'will continue to impose significant costs on Russia through sanctions' and would 'deter Russian aggression'. Trump's proclaimed intention of improving relations with Russia provoked a storm of hostility in which Republican neo-conservatives and Democrat liberal internationalists united to stymie moves in that direction. This is why the US National Security Strategy ( 2017 , p. 25), at the end of Trump's first year in power, warned against the 'revisionist powers of China and Russia', ranked alongside the 'rogue powers of Iran and North Korea' and the 'transnational threat organisations, particularly jihadist groups'. The National Defense Strategy ( 2018 , p. 2) also identified Russia and China as revisionist states, seeking 'to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model -- gaining veto authority over other nation's economic, diplomatic and security decisions'. The emergence of challengers undoubtedly came as a shock for a power and normative system that had enjoyed largely unquestioned pre-eminence. Responses to that shock range from intensified neo-conservative militarism, democratic internationalist intensification of ideological struggle to delegitimise Russia's aspirations, as well as an increasingly vocal 'realist' call for a return to the diplomatic practices of pre-Cold War sovereign internationalism.

The first two responses make common cause against Russia's perceived revisionist challenge and have mobilised a network of think tanks and strategies against Russia's instruments of subversion. The far from exhaustive list presented here indicates the scope of Moscow's armoury of subversion, as well as the methodological and practical problems in assessing their scale, motivation and effect. The first is support for insurgent populist movements in the West. Russia rides the wave of populist and nationalist insurgency, but it does not mean either that Russia is the main instigator or beneficiary. The Russian leadership has long complained about the 'hermetic' character of the Atlantic power system and thus welcomes the breach in the impregnable walls of rectitude created from within by the various national populisms of left and right. In other words, Moscow perceives national populist insurgency as a struggle for ideational pluralism within the liberal international order, but above all as allies in the struggle for geostrategic pluralism against the monism of the Atlantic power system. Russia supports some of these movements, but not to the extent of jeopardising the existing structures of the international system. Once again, the tempered challenge of neo-revisionism predominates over the insurrectionary behaviour that would characterise a genuinely revisionist power.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy identified at least 60 instances of Russia funding political campaigns beyond its borders, although many of the cases are circumstantial (Foer 2020 ). In his notorious interview with the Financial Times on the eve of the Osaka G20 summit in June 2019, Putin asserted that 'the liberal idea' has 'outlived its purpose' as publics turned against immigration, open borders and multiculturalism, but he immediately brought in the structural context: '[Liberals] cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over recent decades' (Barber and Foy 2019 , p. 1). The Kremlin has gone out of its way to identify with right wing (and occasionally left wing) 'populists' who argue for a revision of the EU's relations with Russia, including a dismantling of the sanctions regime. Thus, in the 2017 French presidential election Putin welcomed the head of National Rally (formerly the Front National) Marine Le Pen to Moscow, a move that still attracts widespread condemnation in France. Earlier, a Russian bank had made a €9.4 million loan to her party. Even this needs to be seen in context. Putin's favoured candidate in the 2017 French presidential election was not Le Pen but the more conventional social conservative François Fillon. When the latter's campaign as the nominee of the traditional Gaullist party imploded, Moscow was left bereft of a mainstream candidate calling for a revision of the post-Cold War dominion strategy. As for the funding for Le Pen, the loan was called in prematurely, and the bank was closed down as part of the Central Bank of Russia's attempt to clean up the financial sector.

As for Italy, the leader of the Lega (formerly Lega Nord) party, Matteo Salvini, was one of the strongest advocates of resetting relations with Russia as he entered government following the March 2018 elections as part of the coalition with the Five Star Movement. The relationship was no more than a 'marriage of convenience', with Moscow only engaged to the extent that it could advance the goal of weakening the EU's sanctions regime (Makarychev and Terry 2020 ). In a subsequent scandal, one of Salvini's closest associates and the president of Lombardy Russia, Gianluca Savoini, was taped talking in the Metropol Hotel in Moscow about an illicit scheme to funnel funds through oil sales to support the League's electoral campaigns (Nardelli 2019 ).

On his visit to the Vatican in July 2019 Putin met with the national populists, or otherwise put, the geopolitical revisionists. This was his third meeting with Pope Francis, and Putin sounded more Catholic than the Pope: 'Sometimes I get the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use certain elements and problems of the Catholic Church as a tool for destroying the Church itself' (Horowitz 2019 ).

The substantive issue remains. National populists in the West repudiate much of the social liberalism that has now become mainstream, but most also reject the geopolitical orthodoxy that in their view has provoked the Second Cold War with Russia. On that basis there is clearly common cause between the populist insurgency in Europe and the Kremlin. For defenders of the liberal order, this commonality turns the populists into a Moscow-inspired fifth column. The old division between capitalist democracy and communism after the Cold War has given way to a new binary, between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. The fundamental divide shifts on to new ground, which can variously be seen as one between patriotism and cosmopolitanism, which is a variant of the tension between revived nationalist movements opposed to the erosion of state efficacy by neoliberalism within the framework of globalisation. Many share concerns about the influx of refugees and fear even greater flows of migrants in the future, which in their view will erode the civic and cultural bonds of Western societies. National populists challenge cosmopolitan liberalism (Eatwell and Goodwin 2018 ) and thus align with the cultural conservatism that characterises the neo-revisionist period in Russian foreign policy (Robinson 2017 ). In this new political spectrum, Russia emerges as an ally of the patriots and the anti-globalisers and is condemned for funding and variously supporting the anti-liberal insurgency in the West. Whole institutes (such as the Political Capital Institute in Hungary headed by Péter Krekó and the Henry Jackson Society in London) are devoted to exposing these links and the various alleged illicit cash flows and networks. There are certainly plenty of lurid tales and examples of European politicians who have been supported by factions in Russia without being transparent about these links.

However, the common anti-liberal platform with Moscow is only part of the story. The geopolitical factor is no less important, with both left and right populists rejecting elements of US dominion in the Atlantic security system, and question the wisdom of the inexorable drive to the East that inevitably alienates Russia. Here they make common cause with international relations realists as well as pragmatists like George Kennan, who in 1998 warned of the deleterious effects on European security of Moscow's inevitable response to NATO enlargement (Friedman 1998 ). Today these groups are in the vanguard in calling for an end to the sanctions regime, which in their view misses the point -- that Russia's actions in Ukraine and elsewhere after 2014 was a response to the provocative actions of the Atlantic power system in the first place. In other words, anti-liberalism is only one dimension of the putative alliance between national populism in Europe and Moscow. Geopolitical revisionism is perhaps the most important one, and thus national populist movements incur the wrath of the national security establishments. In the UK this led to the creation of the Integrity Initiative and its various European and American affiliates, sponsored by the shadowy so-called Institute of Statecraft, funded by the British state.

There is a third dimension -- in addition to geopolitical revisionism and anti-cosmopolitanism -- in the putative alignment of national populism with Moscow, and that is the question of pluralism. Post-Cold War liberalism entered a paradoxical turn that in the end forswore the fundamental principles on which it is based -- tolerance and pluralism (Horsfield 2017 ). In a situation where the liberal idea faced no serious domestic or geopolitical opposition, it became radicalised and thus eroded its own values. The US-led liberal international order, as suggested above, posed as synonymous with order itself. There could be no legitimate outside to its own expansive ambitions. The counterpart to universalism is monism, which eroded the coherence of liberalism in domestic and foreign policy (Sakwa 2017b , 2018b ). This helps explain why relations with the EU deteriorated so drastically after 2004.

The influx of East European countries accentuated monism by embracing the security guarantees offered by American dominion. Extreme partisans of this view have little time for the hegemonic normative agenda and view the EU as just part of the Atlantic alliance system, and not necessarily the most important one. They radically repudiate Gorbachevian ideas about a common European home or a greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok and condemn those who suggest rapprochement with Moscow as 'Trojan horses' (Orenstein and Keleman 2017 ), the name of a series of Atlantic Council reports exposing Russian contacts in the West. For them, security guarantees from Washington are the priority. Thus, pan-continental ideas gave way to an intensified Atlanticism, and dominion prevailed over hegemony. One manifestation of this was the Polish-inspired Eastern Partnership, which in the end became an instrument for the expansion of the EU's geopolitical influence in its neighbourhood, provoking the Ukraine crisis in 2014 (Mearsheimer 2014 ). The European Neighbourhood Policy thereafter became more differentiated and thus accepted the pluralism that it had earlier been in danger of repudiating.

In short, geopolitical revisionist forces are at play in Europe and the USA, and Russian neo-revisionism makes common cause with them to the degree that they offer more pluralist perspectives on international politics and challenge the monist dominion of the Atlantic power system, but the degree to which Moscow supports let alone sponsors this challenge to the post-Cold War order is questionable. This links to a second form of Russian subversion, namely collusion with anti-establishment figures. The most spectacular case of this is the charge that Moscow colluded with Trump to steal the 2016 presidential election.

After nearly two years of work, in March 2019 the Robert Mueller Special Counsel Report into Russiagate boldly asserted that 'The Russian government interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systematic fashion' (Mueller 2019 , Vol. 1, p. 1). However, it then rather lamely conceded that 'the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities' (Mueller 2019 , Vol. 1, pp. 5 and 173). Once again reinforcing the geopolitical concerns underlying charges of Russian subversion, the instigators of Russiagate became the heart of the 'resistance' to the president. Alongside credible concerns about his impact on American democratic institutions, they also opposed the rapprochement with Russia that Trump had proclaimed as one of his campaign goals.

In his major foreign policy speech delivered at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington on 27 April 2016, Trump argued that 'I believe an easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia -- from a position of strength -- is possible. Common sense says this cycle of hostility must end. Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out'. Trump promised that America would get 'out of the nation-building business and instead [focus] on creating stability in the world' (Transcript 2016 ). This represented a radical rethinking of foreign policy priorities, and although some of the themes had sounded before, together they challenged the foundations of the post-Cold War international order. They also suited Russia, since the expansive Atlantic system had increasingly become a matter of concern in the Kremlin. This geopolitical coincidence of interests intersected with domestic US political conflicts to create Russiagate, which stymied putative moves towards a new détente.

The third subversive strategy imputed to Russia is cyber-warfare in various forms. There are plenty of cases of Russian hacking, including the attack on the German parliament in 2015, which the German chancellor Angela Merkel condemned as 'outrageous', noting that it impeded her attempts 'to have a better relationship with Russia' (Bennhold 2020 ). She had been equally outraged when she discovered that her office had been bugged by the NSA. In France, 2 days before the second-round presidential vote on 7 May 2017 20,000 campaign emails from the Emmanuel Macron campaign were uploaded to Pastebin, a file-sharing site, and then posted on 4chan, an anonymous message board. The Macron team denounced Russia for a 'high level attack', but even the Atlantic Council reported that the relevant French security agency 'declared that no conclusive evidence pointed to Russian groups', and 'that the simplicity of the attacks pointed toward an actor with lower capabilities' (Galante and Ee 2018 , p. 12). The regulation of hostile cyber activity is crucial, especially when accurate attribution is so difficult and 'false flag' attacks so easy.

This applies to the key Russiagate charge that Russian military intelligence (the GRU) 'hacked' into the server of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee (DCCC) and released embarrassing materials to WikiLeaks, the web-based investigative site founded by Julian Assange in 2006. The publication of the emails was allegedly coordinated in some way with the Trump team. The material revealed that the DNC opposed the campaign of the independent left-leaning senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, to ensure Clinton's nomination. The hackers also gained access to the emails of Clinton's campaign director, John Podesta, following a successful spearphishing email sent on 19 March 2016. The 50,000 Podesta emails exposed Clinton's ties with Wall Street bankers, high speaking fees and apparent hypocrisy in condemning privilege while enjoying its benefits. The Russian hackers undoubtedly sought to mine political intelligence, but whether they intended specifically to help Trump is more questionable. The Mueller report detailed the specific GRU cyber-warfare units which hacked the Clinton campaign and the DNC and then released the emails through Russian-sponsored cut-outs, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, as well as WikiLeaks. These were 'designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election and undermine the Clinton Campaign' (Mueller 2019 , Vol. 1, p. 36).

Strikingly, the FBI or Mueller never conducted forensic examinations of their own and instead relied on CrowdStrike, a private contractor hired by the Democrats to examine their servers. The material was then published, according to the report, through DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, 'fictitious online personas' created by the GRU, and later through WikiLeaks. Mueller argues that Guccifer 2.0 was the source of the emails and that he was a persona managed by Russian operators (Mueller 2019 , Vol. 1, p. 47). Mueller alleges that Assange worked for or conspired with Russian agencies, but Assange states unequivocally that the Russian government was not the source of the emails, and (surprisingly), he was never questioned by Mueller. The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group argues that the DNC emails were physically downloaded and then transferred (by unknown persons) to WikiLeaks rather than being extruded via an electronic download (Binney and McGovern 2017 ). In Congressional testimony in December 2017 CrowdStrike president Shawn Henry ( 2017 ) admitted that he could not confirm that material had actually been exfiltrated from the DNC servers.

The fourth major subversive strategy is disinformation as well as media manipulation. The Internet Research Agency (IRA) based in St Petersburg deployed sock puppet accounts (trolls) and their automated versions (bots) to influence public debate by sharing accounts and voicing divisive opinions. These allegedly shaped voter preferences and depressed turnout among some key constituencies, above all people of colour, in the 2016 US election. The US Intelligence Community Assessment ( 2017 , p. 1) on 6 January 2017 accused Russia of trying to undermine American democracy and charged with 'high confidence' that Putin personally ordered 'an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency'. The ICA was issued in the name of 17 intelligence agencies, although later it became clear that it had been prepared by a 'hand-picked' group selected by Office of the DNI head, James Clapper (Full Transcript 2017 ). The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ( 2020 , Vol. 4, p. 6) in April 2020 issued its fourth report in its Russia investigation arguing that 'the ICA presents a coherent and well-constructed basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election', a view that is at odds with most commentary on what is usually considered a slipshod and poorly sourced document (for a summary of critiques, see McCarthy 2019 , 2020; Gessen 2017 ).

The coronavirus pandemic in 2020 prompted a new wave of criticism of Russia's disinformation efforts. The Strategic Communications and Analysis division of the European External Action Service, colloquially known as EUvsDisinfo, identified a 'trilateral convergence of disinformation narratives' being promoted by China, Iran and Russia (Jozwiak 2020 ). The work of EUvsDisinfo work was examined by the Reframing Russia group at the University of Manchester (Hutchings and Tolz 2020 ). They examined the specific stories that had been identified as disinformation, and took a broader look at reportage of the pandemic on Russian television, in particular on Channel 1. They found that 'there was little sign here of the coordinated pro-Kremlin "conspiracy theory propaganda" flagged by EUvsDisinfo'. They went further to note that its misrepresentation of Russian Covid-19 coverage was 'troubling' in two respects. First, through 'omission', with sentences taken out of context and 'rephrased in the form of summaries and headlines which make them sound particularly outrageous'. The second way is through 'blatant distortion'. For example, EUvsDisinfo claimed that Sputnik Latvia stated that 'Covid-19 had been designed specifically to kill elderly people', whereas in fact the article had ridiculed such conspiracy theories and highlighted 'their idiocy'. Reframing Russia questioned EUvsDisinfo's methodology, assuming that 'random websites without any traceable links to Russian state structures' were analogous to state-funded media agencies, and that all were part of a coordinated Kremlin-run campaign. It even included 'conspirological, far-right websites which are actually critical of Putin'. They conclude that 'EUvsDisinfo's headlines and summaries border on disinformation'. Examination of the source material 'cited by EUvsDisinfo demonstrates that the Russian state is, in fact, not targeting Western countries with an organised campaign around the current public health crisis'. They ask how a situation was created in which 'an EU-funded body set up to fight disinformation ends up producing it'. Reframing Russia advances two hypotheses to explain how things could be got so wrong. The first is 'a profound misunderstanding of how the media in neo-authoritarian systems such as Russia's work', with not everything managed by the Kremlin. Second, 'The outsourcing of services by state institutions to third parties without a proper assessment of their qualifications to do the required work', In the case of EUvsDisinfo, research is outsourced to some 400 volunteers, who are 'operating in a post-Soviet space saturated by anti-Russian attitudes'.

It is in this context that a burgeoning literature examines possible responses. An article in Foreign Policy in July 2019 argued that 'Moscow now acts regularly against US interests with impunity'. The question, in the view of the author, was how to rebuild deterrence -- 'how to get Putin to start fearing the United States again'. The problem was defined in broad terms: 'how to convince Putin that he can't afford to keep trying to disrupt the global order and undermine the United States, the West, and democracy itself'. The charge list was a long one:

Over the last decade, Putin has provoked Washington again and again: by invading Georgia, annexing Crimea, attacking Ukraine, assassinating opponents at home and abroad, and interfering in elections throughout the West. In each case the underwhelming US response helped convince Putin that he could get away with more such behaviour.

To 'get Putin to start respecting the United States again' such measures as toughening sanctions, strengthening military alliances, and conducting more assertive diplomacy were recommended (Geltser 2019 ). Simpson and Fritsch ( 2019 ), former Wall Street Journal writers who founded Fusion GPS, the agency that in 2016 hired Christopher Steele to prepare the infamous dossier on Trump's links with Russia, insisted that Britain needed its own Mueller report to investigate Russia's role in the Brexit vote. They argued that such an enquiry was 'essential to halt Russia's attack on Britain's democracy' (Simpson and Fritsch 2019 ). The Kremlin Watch Program ( 2019 ) of the Prague-based European Values Center for Security Policy suggested 20 measures to counter 'hostile Russian interference'.

A Pentagon assessment in June 2019 argued that the USA was ill-equipped to counter 'the increasingly brazen political warfare Russia is waging to undermine democracies' (Bender 2019 ). A 150-page study prepared for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that the USA was still underestimating the scope of Russia's aggression, including the use of propaganda and disinformation to sway public opinion in Europe and across the globe. The study also warned against the growing alignment of Russia and China, which were opposed to America's system of international alliances and shared a proclivity for 'authoritarian stability'. The authors argued that domestic disarray impeded the USA's ability to respond (Department of Defense 2019 ). Natalia Arno, the head of the Free Russia Foundation, agreed with the report's finding and argued that 'Russia is attacking Western institutions in ways more shrewd and strategically discreet than many realize' (Bender 2019 ). The Pentagon report recommended that the State Department should take the lead in devising more aggressive 'influence operations', including sowing division between Russia and China. The study analysed what it called 'gray zone' activities, the attempt by Putin's regime to undermine democratic nations, in particular those on Russia's periphery, through 'hybrid' measures, falling short of direct military action. However, although warning of Moscow's alignment with Beijing, the report recommended cooperation with Russia in key areas such as strategic nuclear weapons. One of the authors, John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School, argued that Ronald Reagan's offer in the 1980s to share research on ballistic missile defence (BMD) should be revisited. The report suggested that while elites and the people broadly supported Putin's foreign policy and the striving for great power status, this was liable to weaken when faced by socio-economic problems.

Inevitably, forces seeking to break the liberal hegemony at home will make common cause with an external power that is also interested in breaking that expansive hegemony. Russia looks for friends wherever it can find them, and seeks a way out of the impasse of the post-Cold War security order. However, it is important to stress the limits to that alignment. If Russia were a genuinely revisionist power, then it would make sense to ally with any force destructive of the old order; but as argued above, Russia is a neo-revisionist power -- concerned with changing the monist practices of post-Cold War liberalism, but not with changing the international system in its entirety. This means that Russia is quite happy to work within existing structures as long as monism can be kept in check. The struggle against 'fake news' and 'Russian disinformation' threatens the pluralism at the heart of traditional liberalism. That is why the investigation into the alleged collusion between the Trump camp and Russia in the 2016 presidential election was more damaging than the putative original offence. When policy differences and divergences in value preferences are delegitimated and couched in binary Cold War terms, then the Atlantic power system is in danger of becoming dangerously hermetic. Immunity to new ideas, even if they come from a traditional adversary, weakens resistance to domestic degradation.

Russia: challenger or insurrectionary?

We are now in a position to assess whether Putin really is out to subvert the West, as suggested by the US intelligence community, much recent commentary and numerous strategic and doctrinal statements. The 'black legend' charge underlies the Russiagate allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US and other elections. Such accusations are based on the view that a fundamental gulf has opened between the worldviews of the Russian leadership and the Western community. There are some grounds to argue that this is the case, although this needs to be placed into the broader framework of the evolution of Russian foreign policy since the end of the communist era and into the theoretical context of how Russia sees the international system, as described earlier. Above all, as the historic West moved into an era of expansive 'hegemonism', Russia (and China) were inevitably categorised as hostile nations. They had the motive and heft to fight back. Lavrov ( 2019 ) condemned the way that the 'rules-based order' substituted for international law, while the expanded institutions of dominion encircled both countries. Challengers to the radicalised liberal world order become subversive by definition.

Russia is a challenger power but it is not insurrectionary. In other words, it is far from the Soviet position of seeking to advance the ideology of revolutionary socialism, of which 'active measures' were one of the most specific manifestations. Further, Russia is not a revisionist power out to destroy the foundations of the international system as it has taken shape since 1945, but it is neo-revisionist, challenging the practices of the US-led Atlantic order within that system. As a conservative status quo Russia finds itself challenged by the radicalisation of the historic West that it had hoped to transform at the end of the Cold War. Concurrently, Russia's identity as a great power means that it resists the dominion element. It could live with the more modest liberal hegemony of the Cold War years (and in fact, one of the layers of Russia's foreign policy identity still wants to join it), but the combination of radicalised hegemonic universalism and the expansive logic of the power system rendered dominion unacceptable. Russia condemns the Atlantic system for its revolutionary radicalism, manifested in what is perceives to be Western revisionism. Russia thus finds itself divided from the historic West on a range of policy issues, but not ultimately by commitment to the post-1945 international system. This is why Moscow welcomed Trump's post-Atlanticist declarations, since he offered an alternative to the neo-conservative militarism and democratic interventionism of the post-Cold War era. Shackled by Russiagate, Trump was not able to deliver much and in fact the sanctions regime and other forms of neo-containment were intensified. In this context, six observations can help us examine the problem of greater Russia and subversion.

First, it is misleading to see direct continuity between the USSR and Russia. Russia no longer embodies an alternative ideology and is in fact a status quo power in both ideational and territorial terms. Russia is also comparatively far less powerful. If at its peak in the early 1970s Soviet GDP reached 58 per cent that of the USA, today Russia's at most is ten per cent of America's. Russia's defence spending in 2019 was the fourth largest in the world, but at $65 billion this is less than a tenth of the USA at $732 billion (38 per cent of total global military spending) and less than a quarter of China's $261 billion (SIPRI 2020 ). Cold War patterns have been restored, but the dynamics of this confrontation are very different even though some of the procedural rituals of mutual excoriation have returned (Monaghan 2015 ). However, Russia does claim to represent an alternative to the historical West in three ways: as the defender of conservative sovereign internationalism, where states interact on the basis of interests, although norms are far from repudiated; as a socially conservative civilisation state with societal dynamics of its own (Coker 2019 ; Tsygankov 2016 ); and as a European power with a stake in creating some pan-continental framework, while at the same time advocating the establishment of some sort of greater Eurasian unity.

All three open up lines of fracture that Russia seeks to exploit as a challenger but not as an insurrectionary power. In particular, at the civilisational level the identification of the West with the Atlantic system is challenged. This is a process that is advancing in any case within the Atlantic system, with the EU Global Strategy ( 2016 ) talking of 'strategic autonomy'. The election of Trump later that year prompted Merkel ( 2018 ), to argue that Europe could no longer rely on the USA to protect it. The French president Emmanuel Macron ( 2019 ) argued that the corollary of the growing Atlantic divide was rapprochement with Russia. Critics argue that Russia exploits this division and seeks to widen it, and in structural terms they are right. Any breach in the monist wall will be welcomed by any leader in Moscow. It is along this line that charges of Russian subversion lie.

Second, unlike the former Soviet Union where policy was coordinated by the Central Committee and Politburo, today Russia is far from monolithic. The layered phases mean that elements of at least four types of Russian engagement with the West coexist and operate at the same time, although with different intensity. As noted, these range from Atlanticist engagement, competitive coexistence, new realism to neo-revisionism. Commentary on contemporary Russia assumes that it behaves like a unitary actor, with Putin serving as the unique demi-urge with nothing better to do than ceaselessly monitor and manipulate global malign activities. This is indeed a manifestation of Western 'narcissism', and as Paul Robinson ( 2020 ) asks 'where does all this nonsense about Putin wanting to destroy democracy come from? It certainly doesn't come from anything he's ever said'. Russia is a vast and complex country with a vigorous public sphere with plenty of relatively autonomous interests and actors. Institutionalised political pluralism is constrained, but not all roads lead to the Kremlin (Sakwa 2020 ). For example, the national populist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the head of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has hosted six conferences of far-right politicians since 1992, many attracted by the anti-Western language deployed by much of the Russian elite. They provide an alternative narrative that often coincides with the Kremlin's positions, but this does mean that there is an unbreakable alliance between the two (Moldovanov 2019 ). As the Reframing Russia team argue, not every outlandish comment in Russia's public sphere can be attributed to the Kremlin's propaganda and disinformation department. Equally, we may add, not every oligarch is 'Putin's crony', bent on advancing the Kremlin's malign agenda. This attribution and alignment fallacy is why, among other reasons, sanctions against alleged regime-associated individuals will not achieve the desired effect of changing Russian policy, since they are based on a flawed understanding of how Russia works, as well as the category error noted above about the structural sources of Russian foreign policy.

Third, Russian behaviour is located in the matrix of the changing dynamics of the Atlantic power system, the liberal international order and global power shifts (Karaganov (ed.) 2020 ). Russia is certainly alienated from a particular system that claims to be universal, as well as concerned about the advance of a power system to its borders. The liberal international order may well have been 'doomed to fail' because the key policies on which it is based are deeply flawed (Mearsheimer 2019 ). Spreading liberal democracy around the globe was benign in intent but disastrous in consequence (Walt 2019 ). The illusions generated by exaggerated claims of exceptionalism meant that the US 'squandered' Cold War victory (Bacevich 2020 ). Russia's reaction is just one to an order whose response to the end of the Cold War was to exaggerate the dominion factor and thus undermined its normative hegemony.

Fourth, Russia has returned as a power critical not only of the Atlantic hegemony but also of the values on which it is based. At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) in June 2019 Putin talked of the failure of the 'Euro-Atlantic' economic model and argued that 'the existing model of economic relations is still in crisis and this crisis is of a comprehensive nature' (Putin 2019b ). Here and on other occasions he condemned the Atlantic powers' use of sanctions as a form of economic warfare. On the eve of SPIEF on 6 June, Putin and China's leader, Xi Jinping, announced the upgrade of their relationship to a 'Comprehensive Partnership of Coordination for a New Era', accompanied by a joint statement on global strategic stability (Xinhua 2019 ). There is a tension between the expansive liberal hegemony and countries and social movements who question the identification of liberalism with order itself. Liberalism ultimately generates antinomies, which are not mere correctible aberrations but systemic flaws of the liberal paradigm itself. These above all concern the question of taming the power of capital and dealing with inequality and citizen marginalisation. Moscow does not identify itself with these radical critiques, and its criticisms ultimately have a superficial and reversible character. Russia does not stand outside the contradictions of contemporary liberalism, having entered its own liberal era at the end of the Cold War in 1989. That layer in its identity is far from nugatory. Russia's experience of liberalism is distinctive, characterising the 1990s as a time of liberal excess, yet the Putin system is permeated with neoliberal ideas and even liberal aspirations. His critics in Russia from the left and right condemn the antinomies of the system, whereas Putin simply points out the power and cultural contradictions of post-Cold War liberalism.

Fifth, the struggle for geopolitical pluralism after the neo-revisionist turn in 2012 is accompanied by a programme of cultural conservatism, opening the door to alignment with Europe's national populists. In condemning what he took to be the rampant social liberalism, accompanied by Merkel's 'welcome culture' in 2015 vis-ŕ-vis the influx of refugees, Putin ( 2019a ) sought to bolster support among social conservatives in Europe. As political and social liberals united against Putinite Russia, it appeared that the impasse could only be broken by bolstering conservative (if not outright reactionary) movements in Europe. A European change of heart would allow a rapprochement without Russia having to change its domestic or foreign policies: 'It would be 1989 in reverse. This time it would not be Russia but Europe to go through a traumatic conversion to foreign ideas' (Maçăes 2019 ). Russia would be rescued from isolation and policy-makers could once again turn to the creation of a 'greater Europe', reducing Russia's dependence on China and strengthening its position vis-ŕ-vis the USA. This is the foundational argument about Russia being out to subvert the West, and there is some truth in it -- but not in the linear way it is usually interpreted. The alignment is situational and the geopolitics takes precedence over ideological alignment.

Sixth, as the Russiagate affair demonstrates, Russia acts as the scapegoat for problems generated by domestic contradictions. In that case, Russian 'meddling' helped explain how the most improbable of candidates was able to win against an experienced politician, Hillary Clinton, with a long record of public service, to pull off 'the greatest political upset in American history' (Green 2017 , p. 236). This impeded the Democratic Party from coming to terms with its own shortcomings, and the country from addressing its ills. This perhaps is the greatest subversive effect achieved by Russia. As far as we know, this was not achieved deliberately, although there is the view that Russia fed information 'to have the West believe what the Kremlin wants the West to believe' (McCarthy 2019 , p. 166). Even more cunningly, perhaps they were feeding misinformation to Steele to provoke a counter-intelligence investigation that would incapacitate the Trump presidency and set the Democrats off on a wild goose chase that prevented them from reforming and reconnecting with the real concerns of the American people. If the latter is the case, then the operation was a brilliant success. The struggle against presumed Russian 'active measures' does more damage to Western political institutions and the legitimacy of Western normative hegemony than the putative subversive activity itself. The security services and spy agencies of course continue to battle it out behind the scenes, but McCarthyism is as destructive today as it was in the 1950s.

Conclusion

Russia has returned as an international conservative power, but it is not a revisionist one, and even less is it out to subvert the West. Russia certainly looks for allies where it can find them, especially if they advocate the lifting of sanctions. When Macron ( 2019 ) argued that it was time to bring Russia out of the cold, arguing that 'We cannot rebuild Europe without rebuilding a connection with Russia', his comments were welcomed in Moscow, although tempered by a justifiable scepticism.

The Putin elite had earlier welcomed Trump's election, but in practice relations deteriorated further. The foreign policy establishment is deeply sceptical that the EU will be able to act with 'strategic autonomy'. Above all, Russo-Western relations have entered into a statecraft 'security dilemma':

Currently, we are again faced with a situation in which mutual intentions are assessed by Washington and Moscow as subversive, while each side considers the statecraft employed by the other side as effective enough to achieve its malign goals. At the same time, each side is more sceptical about its own statecraft and appears (or pretends) to be scrambling to catch up (Troitskiy 2019 ).

In the nineteenth century, Russia became the 'gendarme' of Europe, and while Putin repudiates the country assuming such a role again, Russia has undoubtedly returned as an international conservative power. Maintenance of a specifically historically determined definition of the status quo is the essence of its neo-revisionism: a defence of traditional ideas of state sovereignty and of an internationalism structured by commitment to the structures of the international system as it took shape after 1945. Russia resents its perceived exclusion from the institutions of Atlantic dominion (above all NATO); but is not out to destroy the international system in which this competition is waged. Thus, Anton Shekhovtsov ( 2017 ) is mistaken to argue that Russia's links to right-wing national populist movements are rooted in philosophical anti-Westernism and an instinct to subvert the liberal democratic consensus in the West. In fact, the alignment is situational and contingent on the impasse in Russo-Western relations and thus is susceptible to modification if the situation changes. Moscow's readiness to embrace Trump in 2016 when he repeatedly argued that it made sense to 'get on' with Russia indicates that Western overtures for improved relations would find the Kremlin ready to reciprocate. In 2017 the Kremlin sent Washington various ideas on how to move out of the impasse in US-Russian relations, but given the 'Russiagate' allegations, the White House was in no position to respond. The same applies when in 2019 Russia was invited to resume full voting rights in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which the Kremlin embraced even though powerful domestic neo-traditionalist and Eurasianist voices counselled against.

Russia is not out to subvert the West but seeks to change it. For the defenders of monist enlargement, this is just as bad. Resistance at home and abroad to the post-Cold War Western order has exposed unexpected fragilities and insecurities, hence the turn to the language of 'resilience' (for example, EU Global Strategy 2016 ). Given its strategy of resistance, Russia in turn becomes the object against which resilience is tested, becoming one of Federica Mogherini's 'five principles' ( 2016 ), creating yet another barrier to normal diplomatic relations. In fact, the structural model outlined in this paper suggests that Russia does not seek to create a greater Russia through subversion let alone physical enlargement, although all leaders since the end of the Cold have tried to make the country a great power. This raises the fundamental and still unresolved question: is Russia still interested in joining a transformed West? Or has it realised that the only way to retain great power status and sovereign decision-making is to remain outside the West? Joining the transformed West meant the attempt to create a 'greater Europe', what Gorbachev had earlier termed the common European home. For defenders of the existing West, this is perceived as threatening its existing values, norms and freedoms, and perhaps more importantly, also the existing hierarchy of international power; but for Russia, it is a way out of the perceived geopolitical impasse and offers a common developmental strategy.

The West is faced by a choice 'between containment and engagement on mutually agreed terms' (Trenin 2016 , p. 110). Incompatible understanding of the political character of the historical epoch provokes an intense barrage of propaganda from all sides, with mutual allegations of political subversion and interference. The interaction of hegemony and dominion on the one side and multiple layers of identity on the other provides fertile ground for incomprehension and the attribution of sinister motives, provoking the statecraft 'security dilemma' identified above. Russia maintains a neo-revisionist critique, but this does not mean repudiating improved relations with a post-dominion West. The country increasingly pivoted to the East and strengthened its alignment with China, but this does not mean that Russia seeks an irrevocable break with the West (Monaghan 2019 ). This is why it seeks improved relations with the EU and the USA if a satisfactory formula for restored contact can be found. Moscow's support for insurgent populist movements in Europe and disruptive forces in America will always be tempered by larger strategic concerns and are certainly not unequivocal. The greater Russia envisaged by the Kremlin elite is one whose sovereignty is defended and whose great power status is recognised, but it is not one that seeks more territory or to subvert the West and sow discord. The West can be trusted to do that without Russia's help. The West's response to Russia's neo-revisionism has been neo-containment and counter-subversion strategies, but if the analysis proposed in this article has any validity, then new forms of engagement may be a more productive course. References

  1. Abrams, S. 2016. Beyond Propaganda: Soviet Active Measures in Putin's Russia. Connections: The Quarterly Journal 15(1): 5–31.

    Google Scholar

  2. Acharya, A. 2017. After Liberal Hegemony: The Advent of a Multiplex World Order. Ethics and International Affairs , 8 September, https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/multiplex-world-order/ .

  3. Bacevich, A.J. 2003. The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar

  4. Bacevich, A.J. 2020. The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered its Cold War Victory . New York: Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar

  5. Barber, L., and H. Foy. 2019. Vladimir Putin: Exclusive Interview. Financial Times , 28 June, pp. 1 and 9.

  6. Belton, C. 2020. Putin's People: How the KGB took Back Russia and then Took on the West . London: William Collins.

    Google Scholar

  7. Bender, B. 2019. Russia Beating US in Race for Global Influence, Pentagon Study Says. Politico.com, 30 June, https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/30/pentagon-russia-influence-putin-trump-1535243 .

  8. Bennhold, K. 2020. Merkel is "Outraged" by Russian Hack but Struggling to Respond. New York Times , 13 May, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/world/europe/merkel-russia-cyberattack.html .

  9. Biden, J.R., and M. Carpenter. 2018. How to Stand up to the Kremlin. Foreign Affairs 97(1): 44–57.

    Google Scholar

  10. Binney, W., and R. McGovern. 2017. Intel Vets Challenge "Russian Hack" Evidence. Consortium News , 24 July, https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/ .

  11. Bisley, N. 2004. The End of the Cold War and the Causes of the Soviet Collapse . Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar

  12. Brzezinski, Z. 1994. The Premature Partnership. Foreign Affairs 73(2): 67–82.

    Google Scholar

  13. Brzezinski, Z. 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives . New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar

  14. Buzan, B. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations . Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar

  15. Clunan, A.L. 2009. The Social Construction of Russia's Resurgence: Aspirations, Identity, and Security Interests . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar

  16. Coker, C. 2019. The Rise of the Civilizational State . Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar

  17. Cunliffe, P. 2020. Cosmopolitan Dystopia: International Intervention and the Failure of the West . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar

  18. Dawisha, K. 2014. Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? . New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar

  19. Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff. 2019. Joint Staff Strategic Multilayer Assessment: Russian Strategic Intentions (May), 7 July, https://publicintelligence.net/sma-russian-strategic-intentions/ .

  20. Dunne, T., and C. Reut-Smith (eds.). 2017. The Globalization of International Society . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar

  21. Eatwell, R., and M. Goodwin. 2018. National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy . London: Pelican Books.

    Google Scholar

  22. English, R.D. 2000. Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals and the End of the Cold War . New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar

  23. EU Global Strategy. 2016. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy , June, https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/sites/globalstrategy/files/about/eugs_review_web_4.pdf .

  24. Flockhart, T. 2016. The Coming Multi-order World. Contemporary Security Policy 37(1): 3–30.

    Google Scholar

  25. Foer, F. 2020. Putin is Well on His Way to Stealing the Next Election: RIP Democracy. The Atlantic , June, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/06/putin-american-democracy/610570/ .

  26. Foglesong, D.S. 2007. The American Mission and the 'Evil Empire': The Crusade for a 'Free Russia' Since 1881 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  27. Friedman, T. 1998. Foreign Affairs; Now a Word from X. New York Times , 2 May.

  28. Fridman, O. 2018. Russian Hybrid Warfare: Resurgence and Politicisation . London: Hurst.

    Google Scholar

  29. Full Transcript: Sally Yates and James Clapper testify on Russian interference. 2017. Washington Post , 8 May 2017; also in Senate transcripts, 8 May 2017, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1705/08/cnr.06.html .

  30. Galante, L., and S. Ee. 2018. Defining Russian Election Interference: An Analysis of Select 2014 to 2018 Cyber Enabled Incidents , Issue Brief, Atlantic Council, September, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/defining-russian-election-interference-an-analysis-of-select-2014-to-2018-cyber-enabled-incidents/ .

  31. Geltser, J. 2019. The 2 Steps to Fix Relations with Russia. Foreign Policy , 29 July, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/29/the-2-steps-to-fix-relations-with-russia/ .

  32. Gerasimov, V. 2013. Tsennost' nauki i predvidenii. Voenno - promyshlennyi kur'er , No. 8, 27 February, http://vpk-news.ru/articles/14632 .

  33. Gessen, M. 2017. Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence. New York Review of Books , 9 January, https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/01/09/russia-trump-election-flawed-intelligence/ .

  34. Giles, K. 2019a. Moscow Rules: What Drives Russia to Confront the West . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press and Chatham House.

    Google Scholar

  35. Giles, K. 2019b. The "Moscow Rules": Ten Principles for Working with Russia. International Centre for Defence and Security, 29 July, https://icds.ee/the-moscow-rules-ten-principles-for-working-with-russia/ .

  36. Green, J. 2017. Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency . Melbourne and London: Scribe.

    Google Scholar

  37. Hahn, G.M. 2020. Religious Heresies in 14th–16th Century Russia: Prelude to the Inception of Russia's Security Culture and Vigilance Norm. 23 April, https://gordonhahn.com/2020/04/23/religious-heresies-in-14th-16th-century-russia-prelude-to-the-inception-of-russias-security-culture-and-vigilance-norm/ .

  38. Hall, S.G.F., and T. Ambrosio. 2017. Authoritarian Learning: A Conceptual Overview. East European Politics 33(2): 143–161.

    Google Scholar

  39. Haslam, J. 2012. Russia's Cold War: From the October Revolution to the Fall of the Wall . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar

  40. Henry, S. 2017. Interview of Shawn Henry. US House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 5 December, https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf .

  41. Hill, W.H. 2018. No Place for Russia: European Security Institutions since 1989 . New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar

  42. Horowitz, J. 2019. A Clash of World Views as Pope Francis and Putin Meet Again. New York Times , 4 July, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/04/world/europe/pope-francis-putin.html .

  43. Horsfield, D. 2017. Russia in the Wake of the Cold War: Perceptions and Prejudices . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar

  44. Horvath, R. 2011. Putin's "Preventive Counter-Revolution": Post-Soviet Authoritarianism and the Spectre of Velvet Revolution. Europe-Asia Studies 63(1): 1–25.

    Google Scholar

  45. Horvath, R. 2013. Putin's 'Preventative Counter-Revolution': Post-Soviet Authoritarianism and the Spectre of Velvet Revolution . London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  46. Hutchings, S., and V. Tolz. 2020. Covid-19 Disinformation: Two Short Reports on the Russian Dimension. 6 April, https://reframingrussia.com/2020/04/06/covid-19-disinformation-two-short-reports-on-the-russian-dimension/ .

  47. Intelligence Community Assessment. 2017. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections: Intelligence Community Assessment, ICA 2017 - 01D , 6 January, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf .

  48. Karaganov, S.A. (ed.). 2020. Zashchita mira, zemli, svobody vybora dlya vsekh stran: novye idei dlya vneshnei politiki Rossii . Moscow: Higher School of Economics.

    Google Scholar

  49. Johnson, C. 2002. Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire . London: Sphere.

    Google Scholar

  50. Jones, S. 2019. Russian Meddling in the United States: The Historical Context of the Mueller Report . Washington, DC: CSIS.

    Google Scholar

  51. Jozwiak, R. 2020. EU Monitors see Coordinated Covid-19 Disinformation Effort by Iran, Russia, China. RFE/RL, Russia Report , 22 April, https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-monitors-sees-coordinated-covid-19-disinformation-effort-by-iran-russia-china/30570938.html .

  52. Kengor, P. 2018. Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century . Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, reprint.

    Google Scholar

  53. Kissinger, H.A. 2013. A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812–1822 . Brattleboro, VT: Echo Point Books & Media.

    Google Scholar

  54. Koenig, K. 2017. James Clapper on Trump-Russia Ties: "My Dashboard Warning Light was Clearly On". NBC News, 28 May, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601 .

  55. Kozyrev, A. 2019. The Firebird: The Elusive Fate of Russian Democracy . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar

  56. Kremlin Watch Program. 2019. Kremlin Watch Strategy for Countering Hostile Russian Interference , European Values Center for Security Policy, https://www.europeanvalues.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Kremlin-Watch-Strategy.pdf . Accessed 13 July 2020.

  57. Krickovic, A., and Y. Weber. 2018. What Can Russia Teach Us about Change? Status-Seeking as a Catalyst for Transformation in International Politics. International Studies Review 20(2): 292–300.

    Google Scholar

  58. Larson, D.W., and A. Shevchenko. 2003. Shortcut to Greatness: The New Thinking and the Revolution in Soviet Foreign Policy. International Organization 57(1): 77–109.

    Google Scholar

  59. Lavrov, S. 2019. World at a Crossroads and a System of International Relations for the Future. Russia in Global Affairs , 20 September, https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/book/World-at-a-crossroads-The-future-system-of-international-relations-20199 .

  60. Legvold, R. 2016. Return to Cold War . Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar

  61. Lieven, A. 2020. Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case . London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar

  62. Lo, B. 2015. Russia and the New World Disorder . Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar

  63. Lucas, E. 2008. The New Cold War: How the Kremlin Menaces Both Russia and the West . London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar

  64. Lucas, E. 2013. Deception: Spies, Lies and How Russia Dupes the West . London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar

  65. Maçăes, B. 2019. Why Putin Wants to Believe in the Death of Liberalism. Moscow Times , 1 July, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/07/01/why-putin-wants-to-believe-in-the-death-of-liberalism-a66229 .

  66. McCarthy, A.C. 2019. Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency . New York: Encounter Books.

    Google Scholar

  67. McFaul, M. 2001. Russia's Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin . Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar

  68. Macron, E. 2019. Ambassador's Conference -- Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic', Paris, 27 August, https://lv.ambafrance.org/Ambassadors-conference-Speech-by-M-Emmanuel-Macron-President-of-the-Republic . Video of the speech available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOFCvf1AGvE&feature=youtu.be .

  69. Mann, M. 2005. Incoherent Empire . London: Verso.

    Google Scholar

  70. Makarychev, A., and G.S. Terry. 2020. An Estranged "Marriage of Convenience": Salvini, Putin, and the Intricacies of Italian-Russian Relations. Contemporary Italian Politics . https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2019.1706926 .

    Article Google Scholar

  71. Mastanduno, M. 2019. Partner Politics: Russia, China, and the Challenge of Extending US Hegemony after the Cold War. Security Studies 28(3): 479–504.

    Google Scholar

  72. Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics . New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar

  73. Mearsheimer, J.J. 2014. Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault: The Liberal Delusions that Provoked Putin. Foreign Affairs 93(5): 77–89.

    Google Scholar

  74. Mearsheimer, J.J. 2018. The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities . London New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar

  75. Mearsheimer, J.J. 2019. Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order. International Security 43(4): 7–50.

    Google Scholar

  76. Merkel. 2018. Europe Can no Longer Rely on US to "Protect" It. Euractiv , 11 May 2018, https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/merkel-europe-can-no-longer-rely-on-us-to-protect-it/ .

  77. Mettan, G. 2017. Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria . Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.

    Google Scholar

  78. Mogherini, F. 2016. EU reaches Agreement on Guiding Principles of its Policy Towards Russia. EU Neighbours East, 15 March, https://www.euneighbours.eu/en/east/stay-informed/news/eu-reaches-agreement-guiding-principles-its-policy-towards-russia .

  79. Moldovanov, R. 2019. Why Zhirinovsky is Hosting European Nationalists at the State Duma. Riddle , 26 August, https://www.ridl.io/en/why-zhirinovsky-is-hosting-european-nationalists-at-the-state-duma/ .

  80. Monaghan, A. 2015. A 'New Cold War'? Abusing History, Misunderstanding Russia . London: Chatham House Research Paper.

    Google Scholar

  81. Monaghan, A. 2019. Dealing with the Russians . Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar

  82. Mueller III, R.S. 2019. Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election , 2 vols. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar

  83. Nardelli, A. 2019. Revealed: The Explosive Secret Recording that Shows how Russia Tried to Funnel Millions to the "European Trump". BuzzFeed.News, 10 July, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/salvini-russia-oil-deal-secret-recording .

  84. National Security Strategy of the United States. 2015. February, www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf .

  85. National Security Strategy of the United States. 2017. December, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf .

  86. National Defense Strategy. 2018. Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf .

  87. Neumann, I.B. 2016. Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and International Relations . London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  88. Orenstein, M.A., and R.D. Keleman. 2017. Trojan Horses in EU Foreign Policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 55(1): 87–102.

    Google Scholar

  89. Putin, V. 2007. Russian President Vladimir Putin's Speech at the 2007 Munich Conference on Security Policy, 10 February; http://president.kremlin.ru/text/appears/2007/02/118109.shtml .

  90. Putin, V. 2019a. Vladimir Putin's News Conference. Kremlin.ru, 29 June, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/60857 .

  91. Putin, V. 2019b. President Putin's SPEECH at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), 7 June, https://nepal.mid.ru/en/press-centre/news/president_putin_s_speech_at_the_spief_2019/ .

  92. Renz, B. 2018. Russia's Military Revival . Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar

  93. Rid, T. 2020. Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare . London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar

  94. Robinson, N. 2017. Russian Neo-Patrimonialism and Putin's "Cultural Turn". Europe-Asia Studies 69(2): 348–366.

    Google Scholar

  95. Robinson, P. 2019. Corrupting Democracy. Irrussianality, 22 April, https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/04/22/corrupting-democracy/ .

  96. Robinson, P. 2020. #Democracyrip and the Narcissism of Russiagate. Irrussianality, 12 May 2020, https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/democracyrip-and-the-narcissism-of-russiagate/ .

  97. Sakwa, R. 2008. Putin: Russia's Choice, fully revised and updated , 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  98. Sakwa, R. 2017a. Russia against the Rest . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

  99. Sakwa, R. 2017b. Europe and the Political: From Axiological Monism to Pluralistic Dialogism. East European Politics 33(3): 406–425.

    Google Scholar

  100. Sakwa, R. 2018a. The International System and the Clash of New World Orders. In Multipolarity: The Promise of Disharmony , ed. Peter W. Schulze, 27–51. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar

  101. Sakwa, R. 2018b. One Europe or None? Monism, Involution and Relations with Russia. Europe-Asia Studies 70(10): 1656–1667.

    Google Scholar

  102. Sakwa, R. 2019. Russian Neo-Revisionism. Russian Politics 4(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar

  103. Sakwa, R. 2020. The Putin Paradox . London: I. B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar

  104. Sakwa, R. 2021. Deception: Russiagate and the New Cold War . Bristol: Bristol University Press (Forthcoming).

  105. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 2020. Report on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 US Election , Vol. 4, Review of the Intelligence Community Assessment with Additional Views. Washington, DC: US Senate, 20 April, https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf .

  106. Shekhovtsov, A. 2017. Russia and the Western Far Right: Tango Noir . London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar

  107. Sherr, J. 2013. Hard Diplomacy and Soft Coercion: Russia's Influence Abroad . London: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar

  108. Simpson, G.R., and P. Fritsch. 2019. Why Britain Needs its Own Mueller Report. The Guardian , 13 December, p. 5.

  109. SIPRI. 2020. Global Military Expenditure Sees Largest Annual Increase in a Decade -- Says SIPRI -- Reaching $1917 Billion in 2019, 27 April, https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2020/global-military-expenditure-sees-largest-annual-increase-decade-says-sipri-reaching-1917-billion .

  110. Smith, M. 2019. The Russia Anxiety and How History Can Resolve it . London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar

  111. Snyder, T. 2018. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America . New York: Tim Duggan Books.

    Google Scholar

  112. Transcript: Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Speech. 2016. New York Times , 27 April, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/politics/transcript-trump-foreign-policy.html .

  113. Treisman, D. 2016. Why Putin Took Crimea: The Gambler in the Kremlin. Foreign Affairs 95(3): 47–54.

    Google Scholar

  114. Trenin, D. 2016. Should We Fear Russia? . Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar

  115. Troitskiy, M. 2019. Statecraft Overachievement: Sources of Scares in US-Russian Relations. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 619, October, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336739392_Statecraft_Overachievement_Sources_of_Scares_in_US-Russian_Relations_PONARS_Eurasia_Policy_Memo_619 .

  116. Tsygankov, A.P. 2009. Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar

  117. Tsygankov, A.P. 2016. Crafting the State-Civilization. Problems of Post-Communism 63(3): 146–158.

    Google Scholar

  118. Umland, A. 2017. Post-Soviet Neo-Eurasianism, the Putin System, and the Contemporary European Extreme Right. Perspectives on Politics 15(2): 465–476.

    Google Scholar

  119. Walt, S.M. 2019. The Hell of Good Intentions: America's Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of US Primacy . New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

    Google Scholar

  120. Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar

  121. Wilson, J.L. 2019. Are Russia and China Revisionist States?. The Asia Dialogue , 11 June, https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/06/11/are-russia-and-china-revisionist-states/ .

  122. Wohlforth, W.C., and V. Zubok. 2017. An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism, and the Mirage of Western-Russian Partnership after the Cold War. International Politics 54(4): 405–419.

    Google Scholar

  123. Xinhua. 2019. China, Russia Agree to Upgrade Relations for New Era, 6 June, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-06/06/c_138119879.htm .

  124. Zakaria, F. 2020. The New China Scare: Why America Shouldn't Panic about Its Latest Challenger. Foreign Affairs. 99(1): 52–69.

    Google Scholar

Download references Author information Affiliations

  1. School of Politics and International Relations, Rutherford College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NX, UK

    Richard Sakwa

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Sakwa . Ethics declarations Conflict of interest

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners in accordance with our Privacy Statement . You can manage your preferences in Manage Cookies. OK Manage Cookies

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00258-0

[Jul 24, 2020] US officials force entry into shuttered Chinese consulate in Houston soon after evicted staff left -- RT USA News

Jul 24, 2020 | www.rt.com

NoisyBaboon dontdenythe 7 minutes ago Both China and Russia can even bulldoze the US embassies in their countries. But they will not do this because doing so is actually NONSENSICAL. Let the foools enjoy themselves.

[Jul 24, 2020] Cold Wars Profit by Craig Murray

Jul 24, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Consortiumnews Volume 26, Number 206 – Friday, July 24, 2020

AFGHANISTAN , COMMENTARY , FOREIGN POLICY , HISTORY , HUMAN RIGHTS , MEDIA , PROPAGANDA , RUSSIA , RUSSIAGATE , UKRAINE , UNITED KINGDON , UNTIL THIS DAY--HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NEWS Cold Wars & Profit July 21, 2020 Save

Craig Murray lambasts a Russophobic media that celebrates a supposed cyber attack on UK vaccine research, ignores collapse of key evidence of a "hack" and dabbles in dubious memorabilia.

The Guardian's headquarters in London. (Bryantbob, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk

... ... ...

Attack on UK Vaccine Research

Andrew Marr, center, in 2014. ( Financial Times , Flickr)

A whole slew of these were rehearsed by Andrew Marr on his flagship BBC1 morning show. The latest is the accusation that Russia is responsible for a cyber attack on Covid-19 vaccination research. This is another totally evidence-free accusation. But it misses the point anyway.

The alleged cyber attack, if it happened, was a hack not an attack -- the allegation is that there was an effort to obtain the results of research, not to disrupt research. It is appalling that the U.K. is trying to keep its research results secret rather than share them freely with the world scientific community.

As I have reported before , the U.K. and the USA have been preventing the WHO from implementing a common research and common vaccine solution for Covid-19, insisting instead on a profit driven approach to benefit the big pharmaceutical companies (and disadvantage the global poor).

What makes the accusation that Russia tried to hack the research even more dubious is the fact that Russia had just bought the very research specified. You don't steal things you already own.

Evidence of CIA Hacks

If anybody had indeed hacked the research, we all know it is impossible to trace with certainty the whereabouts of hackers. My VPNs [virtual private networks] are habitually set to India, Australia or South Africa depending on where I am trying to watch the cricket, dodging broadcasting restrictions.

More pertinently, WikiLeaks' Vault 7 release of CIA material showed the specific programs for the CIA in how to leave clues to make a leak look like it came from Russia. This irrefutable evidence that the CIA do computer hacks with apparent Russian "fingerprints" deliberately left, like little bits of Cyrillic script, is an absolutely classic example of a fact that everybody working in the mainstream media knows to be true, but which they all contrive never to mention.

Thus when last week's "Russian hacking" story was briefed by the security services -- that former Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn deployed secret documents on U.K./U.S. trade talks which had been posted on Reddit, after being stolen by an evil Russian who left his name of Grigor in his Reddit handle -- there was no questioning in the media of this narrative. Instead, we had another round of McCarthyite witch-hunt aimed at the rather tired looking Corbyn.

Personally, if the Russians had been responsible for revealing that the Tories are prepared to open up the NHS "market" to big American companies, including ending or raising caps on pharmaceutical prices, I should be very grateful to the Russians for telling us. Just as the world would owe the Russians a favor if it were indeed them who leaked evidence of just how systematically the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders.

But as it happens, it was not the Russians. The latter case was a leak by a disgusted insider, and I very much suspect the NHS U.S. trade deal link was also from a disgusted insider.

When governments do appalling things, very often somebody manages to blow the whistle.

Crowdstrike's Quiet Admission

Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry presenting at the International Security Forum in Vancouver, 2009.
(Hubert K, Flickr)

If you can delay even the most startling truth for several years, it loses much of its political bite. If you can announce it during a health crisis, it loses still more. The world therefore did not shudder to a halt when the CEO of Crowdstrike admitted there had never been any evidence of a Russian hack of the DNC servers.

You will recall the near incredible fact that, even through the Mueller investigation, the FBI never inspected the DNC servers themselves but simply relied on a technical report from Crowdstrike, the Hillary Clinton-related IT security consultant for the DNC.

It is now known for sure that Crowdstrike had been peddling fake news for Hillary. In fact, Crowdstrike had no record of any internet hack at all. There was no evidence of the email material being exported over the internet. What they claimed did exist was evidence that the files had been organized preparatory to export.

Remember the entire "Russian hacking" story was based ONLY on Crowdstrike's say so. There is literally no other evidence of Russian involvement in the DNC emails, which is unsurprising as I have been telling you for four years from my own direct sources that Russia was not involved. Yet finally declassified congressional testimony revealed that Shawn Henry stated on oath that "we did not have concrete evidence" and "There's circumstantial evidence , but no evidence they were actually exfiltrated."

This testimony fits with what I was told by Bill Binney, a former technical director of the National Security Agency (NSA), who told me that it was impossible that any large amount of data should be moved across the internet from the USA, without the NSA both seeing it happen in real time and recording it. If there really had been a Russian hack, the NSA would have been able to give the time of it to a millisecond.

That the NSA did not have that information was proof the transfer had never happened, according to Binney. What had happened, Binney deduced, was that the files had been downloaded locally, probably to a thumb drive.

Bill Binney. (Miquel Taverna / CCCB via Flickr)

So arguably the biggest news story of the past four years -- the claim that Putin effectively interfered to have Donald Trump elected U.S. president -- turns out indeed to be utterly baseless. Has the mainstream media, acting on security service behest, done anything to row back from the false impression it created? No it has doubled down.

Anti-Russia Theme

The "Russian hacking" theme keeps being brought back related to whatever is the big story of the day.

Brexit? Russian hacking.
U.K. general election 2019? Russian hacking
Covid-19 vaccine? Russian hacking.

Then we have those continual security service briefings. Two weeks ago we had unnamed security service sources telling The New York Times that Russia had offered the Taliban a bounty for killing American soldiers. This information had allegedly come from interrogation of captured Taliban in Afghanistan, which would almost certainly mean it was obtained under torture.

It is a wildly improbable tale. The Afghans have never needed that kind of incentivization to kill foreign invaders on their soil. It is also a fascinating throwback of an accusation – the British did indeed offer Afghans money for, quite literally, the heads of Afghan resistance leaders during the first Afghan War in 1841, as I detail in my book "Sikunder Burnes."

Taliban in Herat, Afghanistan, 2001. (Wikipedia)

You do not have to look back that far to realize the gross hypocrisy of the accusation. In the 1980s the West was quite openly paying, arming and training the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden – to kill Russian and other Soviet conscripts in their thousands. That is just one example of the hypocrisy.

The U.S. and U.K. security services both cultivate and bribe senior political and other figures abroad in order to influence policy all of the time. We work to manipulate the result of elections -- I have done it personally in my former role as a U.K. diplomat. A great deal of the behavior over which Western governments and media are creating this new McCarthyite anti-Russian witch hunt, is standard diplomatic practice.

My own view is that there are malign Russian forces attempting to act on government in the U.K. and the USA, but they are not nearly as powerful as the malign British and American forces acting on their own governments.

The truth is that the world is under the increasing control of a global elite of billionaires, to whom nationality is irrelevant and national governments are tools to be manipulated. Russia is not attempting to buy corrupt political influence on behalf of the Russian people, who are decent folk every bit as exploited by the ultra-wealthy as you or I. Russian billionaires are, just like billionaires everywhere, attempting to game global political, commercial and social structures in their personal interest.

The other extreme point of hypocrisy lies in human rights. So many Western media commentators are suddenly interested in China and the Uighurs or in restrictions on the LBGT community in Russia, yet turn a completely blind eye to the abuse committed by Western "allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

As somebody who was campaigning about the human rights of both the Uighurs and of gay people in Russia a good decade before it became fashionable, I am disgusted by how the term "human rights" has become weaponized for deployment only against those countries designated as enemy by the Western elite.

Finally, do not forget that there is a massive armaments industry and a massive security industry all dependent on having an "enemy." Powerful people make money from this Russophobia. Expect much more of it. There is money in a Cold War.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

This article is from CraigMurray.org.uk .

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please Contribute to Consortium
News on its 25th Anniversary

Donate securely with PayPal here .

Or securely by credit card or check by clicking the red button: 2840

Tags: Cold War Craig Murray Russophobia Ukrainian Insurgent Army Ukrainian Resistance

Post navigation ← COVID-19: The Pentagon Confronts the Pandemic State Dept-Funded Transparency International Silent on Jailed Transparency Activist Julian Assange → 12 comments for " Cold Wars & Profit "

DH Fabian , July 22, 2020 at 19:54

On the core subject here: By necessity, a pandemic requires a cooperative international response. Only one country has refused to do so: The US. In their supreme arrogance, our ruling class lost track the fact that the US needs the rest of the world, not the other way way around.

Zalamander , July 22, 2020 at 19:12

One by one the so-called Russiagate "evidence" have collapsed. The fake Steele Dossier, "Russian spy" Joseph Mifsud who is actually a self-admitted member of the Clinton Foundation, Roger Stone's non-existant Wikileaks contacts, Russian Afgan bounties, etc. But the neoliberal mainstream media still presents these as "facts" with no retractions. This is not journalism, its disinformation designed to distract the American public from the failures of capitalism.

Piotr Berman , July 22, 2020 at 18:03

Peter Janney
July 22, 2020 at 06:55
Craig Murray succinctly (and very beautifully) gives us a REAL glimpse of what great journalism really looks like.
-- --
Perhaps it is great writing, but is it journalism?

Some people in National Union of Journalists (a trade union in UK) ponder that question for many months, unable to decide if Craig should be allowed to join or not. If he is neither a flack nor a hack, who kind of journalist is he? (More details at Craig Murray's web site).

Peter Janney , July 23, 2020 at 06:06

Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed.
Everything else is public relations.
-- George Orwell

rosemerry , July 22, 2020 at 16:42

All of the Russophobia and lies serve the rulers of the USA?UK and their poodles well. The whole year of Skripal mania started by Theresa May and joined in by Trump, with the media such as the Guardian's scurrilous Luke Harding providing fantasy "evidence" and the whole story conveniently disappearing, like the Skripals, when other "news" arrived, has no benefit to seekers of even the minimum of truth.

DH Fabian , July 22, 2020 at 19:46

Certainly, and this is key to understanding the current situation. What we're seeing now is the final stages of the long-sinking West -- those once-mighty partners of empire, the UK/US. This descent appears to have begun with the Reagan/Thatcher years, and is now in the final stages. We've seen a rather dramatic growth of psychosis in the political-media-public discussion over the past 3-4 years, driven by an irrational obsession with China/Russia. (Russia and China both quietly observe, prepared to respond if attacked.) There really isn't anything we can do about it, beyond acknowledging it as what it is.

Jerome J Donnelly , July 22, 2020 at 12:12

Very good, but needs to be supplemented by reference to the interview with NIH Director Franaic Collins on last Sunday's Meet the Press. When host Chuck Todd asked Collins about Russian hacking of US vaccine research Collins smiled and answered by pointing out that the research wasn't intended to be secret and that it was all to be published for "transparency." Todd looked disappointed, mumbled, "OK," and changed the subject. No media have reported this exchange, which is retrievable on the internet.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , July 22, 2020 at 10:58

Brilliant, but that's what one expects of Craig Murray.

Ray McGovern , July 22, 2020 at 10:13

Brilliant article, Craig. You do have a way of saying things. Thanks.

Question: "Team Mueller" forgot to interview you. Have any of the new investigators taken the trouble to talk to you?

Ray

Bob Van Noy , July 22, 2020 at 09:18

Can't thank you enough Craig Murray for your professional life of honesty!

Please read: hXXp://off-guardian.org/2020/07/21/globocap-uber-alles/

Peter Janney , July 22, 2020 at 06:55

Craig Murray succinctly (and very beautifully) gives us a REAL glimpse of what great journalism really looks like. I commend his courage for never bending in the face of all the bullshit we have had to tolerate from the mainstream media. Thank you, thank you dear Craig . . .

geeyp , July 22, 2020 at 00:10

Regarding Craig's last summing up paragraph, all one need do to confirm that is read the previous article of Michael T. Klare.

[Jul 24, 2020] Intelligence agencies, in Israel and elsewhere, are organized criminal syndicates

Jul 24, 2020 | twitter.com

. Jul 22 Funny that people hating on me for covering crimes of Israeli intelligence ignore the fact that Mossad heads openly admit it's a criminal organization. Intelligence agencies, in Israel and elsewhere, are organized criminal syndicates. Ex-spy chief said 'fun part' about Mossad is that it's a crime organization. Netanyahu is not amused *** haaretz.com

[Jul 24, 2020] Nobel peace price hawk and other stories

Jul 24, 2020 | www.rt.com

Roger Thornhill 2 hours ago If I recall correctly, Obama gave the Russians all of 48 hours to leave their consulate in San Francisco, which had been occupied since the 19th Century. This was around Christmas time in 2016. So I don't find this particularly surprising. Two days to have the diplomats, staff, and families completely out of the country.

[Jul 23, 2020] Demorats defeat amedment ot cut Defence by 10%

Highly recommended!
Jul 23, 2020 | news.antiwar.com

Amendment to make across-the-board reductions overwhelmingly defeated by members of both parties

Eric Garris Posted on July 21, 2020 Categories News

By a vote of 324-93 , the House of Representatives soundly defeated an amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.

Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.

This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when available.

[Jul 23, 2020] 'Putin Hacked Our Vaccine' the excessive use of words like ridiculous and stupid; calim is both stupid and evil

Notable quotes:
"... CaitlinJohnstone.com ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... This article was re-published with permission. ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. ..."
Jul 23, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

COVID-19: 'Putin Hacked Our Vaccine' Is Dumbest Story Yet July 17, 2020 Save

Caitlin Johnstone tackles the latest "Russiavape" story.

By Caitlin Johnstone
CaitlinJohnstone.com

O MG you guys Putin hacked our coronavirus vaccine secrets!

Today mainstream media is reporting what is arguably the single dumbest Russiavape story of all time, against some very stiff competition.

"Russian hackers are targeting health care organizations in the West in an attempt to steal coronavirus vaccine research, the U.S. and Britain said," reports The New York Times .

"Hackers backed by the Russian state are trying to steal COVID-19 vaccine and treatment research from academic and pharmaceutical institutions around the world, Britain's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) said on Thursday," Reuters reports .

"Russian news agency RIA cited spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying the Kremlin rejected London's allegations, which he said were not backed by proper evidence," adds Reuters.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1283787832549691395&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F07%2F17%2Fcovid-19-putin-hacked-our-vaccine-is-dumbest-story-yet%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=550px

I mean, there are just so many layers of stupid.

First of all, how many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about Russian nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media? Since 2016 it's been wall-to-wall narrative about evil things Russia is doing to the empire-like cluster of allies loosely centralized around the United States, and they all just happen to be things for which nobody can actually provide hard verifiable evidence.

Ever since the shady cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike admitted that it never actually saw hard proof of Russia hacking the DNC servers, the already shaky and always unsubstantiated narrative that Russian hackers interfered in the U.S. presidential election in 2016 has been on thinner ice than ever. Yet because the mass media converged on this narrative and repeated it as fact over and over they've been able to get the mainstream headline-skimming public to accept it as an established truth, priming them for an increasingly idiotic litany of completely unsubstantiated Russia scandals, culminating most recently in the entirely debunked claim that Russia paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Secondly, the news story doesn't even claim that these supposed Russian hackers even succeeded in doing whatever they were supposed to have been doing in this supposed cyberattack.

"Officials have not commented on whether the attacks were successful but also have not ruled out that this is the case," Wired reports .

Thirdly, this is a "vaccine" which does not even exist at this point in time, and the research which was supposedly hacked may never lead to one. Meanwhile, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University reports that it has "successfully completed tests on volunteers of the world's first vaccine against coronavirus," in Russia.

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, how obnoxious and idiotic is it that coronavirus vaccine "secrets" are even a thing?? This is a global pandemic which is hurting all of us; scientists should be free to collaborate with other scientists anywhere in the world to find a solution to this problem. Nobody has any business keeping "secrets" from the world about this virus or any possible vaccine or treatment. If they do, anyone in the world is well within their rights to pry those secrets away from them.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1283875929152909312&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F07%2F17%2Fcovid-19-putin-hacked-our-vaccine-is-dumbest-story-yet%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=550px

This intensely stupid story comes out at the same time British media are blaring stories about Russian interference in the 2019 election, which if you actually listen carefully to the claims being advanced amounts to literally nothing more than the assertion that Russians talked about already leaked documents pertaining to the U.K.'s healthcare system on the internet.

"Russian actors 'sought to interfere' in last winter's general election by amplifying an illicitly acquired NHS dossier that was seized upon by Labour during the campaign, the foreign secretary has said," reports The Guardian .

"Amplifying." That's literally all there is to this story. As we learned with the ridiculous U.S. Russiagate narrative , with such allegations, Russia "amplifying" something can mean anything from RT reporting on a major news story to a Twitter account from St. Petersburg sharing an article from The Washington Post . Even the foreign secretary's claim itself explicitly admits that "there is no evidence of a broad spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election."

"The statement is so foggy and contradictory that it is almost impossible to understand it," responded Russia's foreign ministry to the allegations. "If it's inappropriate to say something then don't say it. If you say it, produce the facts."

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1283786417206956034&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fconsortiumnews.com%2F2020%2F07%2F17%2Fcovid-19-putin-hacked-our-vaccine-is-dumbest-story-yet%2F&theme=light&widgetsVersion=9066bb2%3A1593540614199&width=550px

Instead of producing facts you've got the Murdoch press pestering Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party candidate, on his doorstep over this ridiculous non-story, and popular right-wing outlets like Guido Fawkes running the blatantly false headline "Government Confirms Corbyn Used Russian-Hacked Documents in 2019 Election." The completely bogus allegation that the NHS documents came to Jeremy Corbyn by way of Russian hackers is not made anywhere in the article itself, but for the headline-skimming majority this makes no difference. And headline skimmers get as many votes as people who read and think critically.

All this new Cold War Russia hysteria is turning people's brains into guacamole. We've got to find a way to snap out of the propaganda trance so we can start creating a world that is based on truth and a desire for peace.

Caitlin Johnstone is a rogue journalist, poet, and utopia prepper who publishes regularly at Medium . Her work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking her on Facebook , following her antics on Twitter , checking out her podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following her on Steemit , throwing some money into her tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of her sweet merchandise , buying her books " Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone " and " Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers ."

This article was re-published with permission.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.


Putin Apologist , July 19, 2020 at 17:50

"How many more completely unsubstantiated government agency allegations about Russian nefariousness are we the public going to accept from the corporate mass media?"

The Answer is none. Nobody (well, nobody with a brain) believes anything the "corporate mass media" says about Russia, or China, Iran or Venezuela or anything else for that matter.

James Keye , July 19, 2020 at 10:26

Guy , July 18, 2020 at 15:32

But,but, but we never heard the words "highly likely" ,they must be slipping.LOL


DH Fabian
, July 18, 2020 at 13:41

The Democrat right wing are robotically persistent, and count on the ignorance of their base. By late last year, we saw them begin setting the stage to blame-away an expected 2020 defeat on Russia. Once again, proving that today's Democrats are just too dangerous to vote for. Donald Trump owes a great deal to his "friends across the aisle."

[Jul 23, 2020] Am I in an IMAX theater? Because there is so much projection going on here.

Jul 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

jayc , Jul 22 2020 18:40 utc | 21

There's no way the trillion in T-bills will be seized/defaulted/whatever. The damage to US credibility will be unrecoverable.

It is certainly crazy time. AG Barr threatened major US corporations Disney & Apple with having to register as "foreign agents" due to their Chinese investments. Earlier in the year, the FBI and Congress decided to destroy the career of one of America's top scientists over failure to submit relatively inconsequential paperwork. These are the types of things which should result in a determined pushback against an intrusive national security state, but the balance of power in USA may have flipped.

J W , Jul 22 2020 17:01 utc | 4

Am I in an IMAX theater? Because there is so much projection going on here.

[Jul 23, 2020] Garbage in, Garbage out, again

Neocon presstitutes like Appelbaum (actually a well paid MIC lobbyist in disguise) and MI6 connected criminals like like Browder are the feature of the US political landscape, not a bug. I actually did laugh at Browder's piece on the BBC though, were a money launderer and tax evader who left his book keeper to die in a Russian prison telling us we shouldn't trust the Russians.
US economic problems are greatly enhanced by the tremendous amount of defense expenditures (outspending the combined next seven leading countries in arms expenditures) and tax payer's money being wasted on paranoid obsessions likes what's mentioned here: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2020/07/a-visit-from-the-fbi/
Jul 23, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com
A.I.S. JULY 21, 2020 AT 11:33 AM

How can anyone think that Bowder is an authority of anything other then high level Nigerian crown prince scams? Enrique JULY 22, 2020 AT 9:55 PM

Russia's goal? ..to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, of course. Didn't you read the report? Mikhail JULY 22, 2020 AT 8:18 AM

Talk about "Garbage In-Garbage Out", the idiocy behind that is how she/he/it punked out of live discussion:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldhaveyoursay/2007/08/a_new_cold_war.html

Much easier to lob pot shots from a distance where there's little, if any challenge. Enrique JULY 22, 2020 AT 9:31 PM

I think she finally found a husband and stopped ragging on western expats drooling over slavic women like schoolboys. 😉


Enrique JULY 22, 2020 AT 9:11 PM

The article mentions Steele as a discredited participant but what about Applebaum, or are we to forget how her Polish husband was demoted by his own government for concocting a story about Putin offering to split Ukraine with Poland, at an alleged meeting that he was shown to have never attended. Poland no doubt sanctioned him for fabricating such an easily disproved event, certainly not out of any such notion as a search for truth.

That said, not having invited even a token moderate voice to this august 'panel of experts' speaks volumes about either the ignorance, the incompetence, the perfidy or just plain 'We don't really care what you think. We've done our duty' arrogance of the report's authors.

[Jul 23, 2020] Egypt approves Libya deployment, risking clash with Turkey - HoustonChronicle.com

Jul 23, 2020 | www.houstonchronicle.com

CAIRO (AP) -- Egypt's parliament on Monday authorized the deployment of troops outside the country, a move that could escalate the spiraling war in Libya after the president threatened military action against Turkish-backed forces in the oil-rich country.

A troop deployment in Libya could bring Egypt and Turkey, close U.S. allies that support rival sides in the conflict, into direct confrontation.

[Jul 21, 2020] This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier.

Highly recommended!
Apr 20, 2019 | theduran.com
Marcus April 20, 2019

There is something rotten in the state .. of England.

This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier. He was getting homesick (perhaps his mother getting older is part of this) for Russia and he thought that to get back to Russia he needed something big to get back in Putin's good graces. He would have needed something really big because Putin really has no use for traitors. Skripal put out some feelers (perhaps through his daughter though that may be dicey). The two couriers were sent to seal or move the deal forward. The Brits (and perhaps the CIA) found out about this and decided to make an example of Sergei. Perhaps because they found out about this late, the deep state/intelligence people had to move very quickly. The deep state story was was extremely shaky (to put it mildly) as a result. Or they were just incompetent and full of hubris.

Then they were stuck with the story and bullshit coverup was layered on bullshit coverup. 7 Reply FlorianGeyer Reply to Marcus April 20, 2019

@ Marcus.

To hope to get away with lies, one must have perfect memory and a superior intellect that can create a lie with some semblance of reality in real life, as opposed to the digital 'reality' in a Video game. And a rather corny video game at that.

MI5/6 failed on all parts of Lie creation 2 Reply Mistaron April 21, 2019

If Trump was so furious about being conned by Haspel, how come he then went on to promote her to becoming the head of the CIA? It's quite perplexing.

[Jul 21, 2020] Russian influence in the UK is the 'new normal,' widely anticipated report claims

This is not simply projection on the part of UK MI5/MI6 duet, this is a real war on reality. UK false flag operation with Skripla poisoning (which probably was designed to hide possible role of Skripal in creating Steele dossier) now will forever be textbook example of evilness MI5/MI6 honchos.
If we think that GRU is the past was able to fight Abwehr to standstill, they really would now be worried about the blowback from Skripal mess.
Jul 21, 2020 | www.msn.com

A highly-anticipated report by the U.K. Parliament into Russia n interference in the country was released on Tuesday, claiming that Russian influence in the U.K. is the "new normal."

The Russia Report, published after months of delay, is the culmination of two years of fact finding by the U.K. Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ICS), providing insights on the Salisbury Novichok poisonings , Russian financial influence and social media disinformation. The report said the U.K. was a "top target" for Russian interference.

The publication of the report comes a week after security services in the U.S., U.K. and Canada said that Russian hackers had been attempting to hack into global coronavirus vaccine research . The Kremlin has denied the accusations.

However, the report will likely disappoint observers who expected the ICS to detail how far Russia interfered in the bitterly contested Brexit Referendum of 2016 . Prime Minister Boris Johnson's was accused of withholding the publication of the report until after the election of December 2019, a claim they denied.

[Jul 20, 2020] The Real 'Russian Playbook' Is Written in English -- Strategic Culture

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. ..."
"... Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'? ..."
"... a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources. ..."
"... His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. ..."
Jul 17, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

I hadn't given The Russian Playbook much attention until Susan Rice, Obama's quondam security advisor, opined a month ago on CNN that " I'm not reading the intelligence today, or these days -- but based on my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook ". She was referring to the latest U.S. riots.

Once I'd seen this mention of The Russian Playbook (aka KGB, Kremlin or Putin's Playbook), I saw the expression all over the place. Here's an early – perhaps the earliest – use of the term. In October 2016, the Center for Strategic and International studies (" Ranked #1 ") informed us of the " Kremlin Playbook " with this ominous beginning

There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia's economic engagement with the region expanded significantly.

And asks

Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region's democratic institutions through its influence to 'break the internal coherence of the enemy system'?

Well, to these people, to ask the question is to answer it: can't possibly be disappointment at the gap between 2004's expectations and 2020's reality, can't be that they don't like the total Western values package that they have to accept, it must be those crafty Russians deceiving them. This was the earliest reference to The Playbook that I found, but it certainly wasn't the last.

Russia has a century-old playbook for 'disinformation' 'I believe in Russia they do have their own manual that essentially prescribes what to do,' said Clint Watts, a research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and a former FBI agent. (Nov 2018)

The Russian playbook for spreading fake news and conspiracy theories is the subject of a new three-part video series on The New York Times website titled 'Operation Infektion: Russian Disinformation: From The Cold War To Kanye.' (Nov 2018)

I found headlines such as these: Former CIA Director Outlines Russian Playbook for Influencing Unsuspecting Targets (May 2017) ; Fmr. CIA op.: Don Jr. meeting part of Russian playbook (Jul 2017) ; Americans Use Russian Playbook to Spread Disinformation (Oct 2018) ; Factory of Lies: The Russian Playbook (Nov 2018) ; Shredding the Putin Playbook: Six crucial steps we must take on cyber-security -- before it's too late. (Winter 2018) ; Trump's spin is 'all out of the KGB playbook': Counterintelligence expert Malcolm Nance (May 2019) .

Of course, all these people are convinced Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Somehow. To some effect. Never really specified but the latest outburst of insanity is this video from the Lincoln Project . As Anatoly Karlin observes: "I think it's really cool how we Russians took over America just by shitposting online. How does it feel to be subhuman?" He has a point: the Lincoln Project, and the others shrieking about Russian interference, take it for granted that American democracy is so flimsy and Americans so gullible that a few Facebook ads can bring the whole facade down. A curious mental state indeed.

So let us consider The Russian Playbook. It stands at the very heart of Russian power. It is old: at least a century old . Why, did not Tolstoy's 1908 Letter to a Hindu inspire Gandhi to bring down the British Indian Empire and win the Great Game for Moscow? The Tolstoy-Putin link is undeniable as we are told in A Post-Soviet 'War and Peace': What Tolstoy's Masterwork Explains About Putin's Foreign Policy : "In the early decades of the nineteenth century, Napoleon (like Putin after him) wanted to construct his own international order ". Russian novelists: adepts of The Playbook every one . So there is much to consider about this remarkable Book which has had such an enormous – hidden to most – role in world history. Its instructions on how to swing Western elections are especially important: the 2016 U.S. election ; Brexit ; " 100 years of Russian electoral interference "; Canada ; France ; the European Union ; Germany and many more. The awed reader must ask whether any Western election since Tolstoy's day can be trusted. Not to forget the Great Hawaiian Pizza Debate the Russians could start at any moment.

What can we know about The Playbook? For a start it must be written in Russian, a language that those crafty Russians insist on speaking among themselves. Secondly such an important document would be protected the way that highly classified material is protected. There would be a very restricted need to know; underlings participating in one of the many plays would not know how their part fitted into The Playbook; few would ever see The Playbook itself. The Playbook would be brought to the desk of the few authorised to see it by a courier, signed for, the courier would watch the reader and take away the copy afterwards. The very few copies in existence would be securely locked away; each numbered and differing subtly from the others so that, should a leak occur, the authorities would know which copy read by whom had been leaked. Printed on paper that could not be photographed or duplicated. As much protection as human cunning could devise; right up there with the nuclear codes .

So, The Russian Playbook would be extraordinarily difficult to get hold of. And yet every talking head on U.S. TV has a copy at his elbow! English copies, one assumes. Rachel Maddow has comprehended the complicated chapter on how to control the U.S. power system . Others have read the impenetrably complex section on how to control U.S. voting machines or change vote counts . Many are familiar with the lists of divisions in American society and directions for exploiting them . Adam Schiff has mastered the section on how to get Trump to give Alaska back . Susan Rice well knows the chapter "How to create riots in peaceful communities".

And so on. It's all quite ridiculous: we're supposed to believe that Moscow easily controls far-away countries but can't keep its neighbours under control.

There is no Russian Playbook, that's just projection. But there is a "playbook" and it's written in English, it's freely available and it's inexpensive enough that every pundit can have a personal copy: it's named " From Dictatorship To Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation " and it's written by Gene Sharp (1928-2018) . Whatever Sharp may have thought he was doing, whatever good cause he thought he was assisting, his book has been used as a guide to create regime changes around the world. Billed as "democracy" and "freedom", their results are not so benign. Witness Ukraine today. Or Libya. Or Kosovo whose long-time leader has just been indicted for numerous crimes . Curiously enough, these efforts always take place in countries that resist Washington's line but never in countries that don't. Here we do see training, financing, propaganda, discord being sown, divisions exploited to effect regime change – all the things in the imaginary "Russian Playbook". So, whatever he may have thought he was helping, Sharp's advice has been used to produce what only the propagandists could call " model interventions "; to the "liberated" themselves, the reality is poverty , destruction , war and refugees .

The Albert Einstein Institution , which Sharp created in 1983, strongly denies collusion with Washington-sponsored overthrows but people from it have organised seminars or workshops in many targets of U.S. overthrows . The most recent annual report of 2014 , while rather opaque, shows 45% of its income from "grants" (as opposed to "individuals") and has logos of Euromaidan, SOSVenezuela, Umbrellamovement , Lwili , Sunflowersquare and others. In short, the logos of regime change operations in Ukraine, Venezuela, Hong Kong, Burkina Faso and Taiwan. (And, ironically for today's USA, Black Lives Matter). So, clearly, there is some connection between the AEI and Washington-sponsored regime change operations.

So there is a "handbook" but it's not Russian.

Reading Sharp's book, however, makes one wonder if he was just fooling himself. Has there ever been a "dictatorship" overthrown by "non-violent" resistance along the lines of what he is suggesting? He mentions Norwegians who resisted Hitler; but Norway was liberated, along with the rest of Occupied Europe, by extremely violent warfare. While some Jews escaped, most didn't and it was the conquest of Berlin that saved the rest: the nazi state was killed . The USSR went away, together with its satellite governments in Europe but that was a top-down event. He likes Gandhi but Gandhi wouldn't have lasted a minute under Stalin. Otpor was greatly aided by NATO's war on Serbia. And, they're only "non-violent" because the Western media doesn't talk much about the violence ; "non-violent" is not the first word that comes to mind in this video of Kiev 2014 . "Colour revolutions" are manufactured from existing grievances, to be sure, but with a great deal of outside assistance, direction and funding; upon inspection, there's much design behind their "spontaneity". And, not infrequently, with mysterious sniping at a expedient moment – see Katchanovski's research on the "Heavenly Hundred" of the Maidan showing pretty convincingly that the shootings were " a false flag operation" involving "an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland". There is little in Sharp's book to suggest that non-violent resistance would have had much effect on a really brutal and determined government. He also has the naïve habit of using "democrat" and "dictator" as if these words were as precisely defined as coconuts and codfish. But any "dictatorship" – for example Stalin's is a very complex affair with many shades of opinion in it. So, in terms of what he was apparently trying to do, one can see it only succeeding against rather mild "dictators" presiding over extremely unpopular polities. With a great deal of outside effort and resources.

His "playbook" is useful to outside powers that want to overthrow governments they don't like. Especially those run by "dictators" not brutal enough to shoot the protesters down. It's not Russian diplomats that are caught choosing the leaders of ostensibly independent countries . It's not Russians who boast of spending money in poor countries to change their governments . It's not Russian diplomats who meet with foreign opposition leaders . Russia doesn't fabricate a leader of a foreign country . It's not Russia that invents a humanitarian crisis , bombs the country to bits , laughs at its leader's brutal death and walks away. It's not Russia that sanctions numerous countries . It's not Russia that gives fellowships to foreign oppositionists . Even the Washington Post (one of the principals in sustaining Putindunnit hysteria) covered " The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere "; but piously insisted "the days of its worst behavior are long behind it". Whatever the pundits may claim about Russia, the USA actually has an organisation devoted to interfering in other countries' business ; one of whose leading lights proudly boasted: " A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. "

The famous "Russian Playbook" is nothing but projection onto Moscow of what Washington actually does: projection is so common a feature of American propaganda that one may certain that when Washington accuses somebody else of doing something, it's a guarantee that Washington is doing it.

[Jul 20, 2020] Gavin "Stupid Boy" Williamson was Minister of Defence when he said that Russia should "go away and shut up"

The game now turned against Johnson and Co and it is British government who now probably should follow his immortal advice "go away and shut up".
Jul 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE July 19, 2020 at 10:37 am

Not foreign minister: Gavin "Stupid Boy" Williamson was Minister of Defence when he said that Russia should "go away and shut up".

[Jul 20, 2020] The text of the OPCW document is "enhanced" in FT reports

Jul 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

CORTES July 19, 2020 at 1:37 pm

To paraphrase the famous line from "Jaws":

"You're gonna need a bigger rewrite" as another wheel falls off the Skripals Saga Wagon:

http://johnhelmer.net/financial-times-editor-khalaf-fakes-opcw-reports-on-skripal-sturgess-cases-hides-original-documents/

The text of the OPCW document is "enhanced" in FT reports. "Sexed up" was the term used about the UN Weapons Inspectors' report on Iraq's WMD programme way back when.

A Dr. David Kelly was involved. I wonder what became of him?

MOSCOWEXILE July 19, 2020 at 7:47 pm

That term "sexed up" really made me cringe when it suddenly came in vogue amongst UK commenters and "journalists" .

I was already in exile when the the shit hit the fan in the UK as regards criminal Blair's warmongering and was at a loss to understand what "sexed up" meant in the British newspaper articles that I read at the time -- no Internet then, so once a week I used to buy a copy of the "Sunday Times" (Woden forgive me!) in the foyer of of the five-star Hotel National, Moscow. Used to cost me an arm and a leg an' all! Robbing bastards!

[Jul 20, 2020] Harding's latest shtick the Guardian can't be arsed having him interviewed for another piece of self promotion by one of their hacks

Jul 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE July 17, 2020 at 9:06 pm

Love this comment below to this offGuardian article:

The "Russian vaccine hack" is a 3-for-1 deal on propaganda – OffGuardian

https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/16/the-russian-vaccine-hack-is-a-3-for-1-deal-on-propaganda/

Tutisicecream
Jul 17, 2020 8:44 AM
Yikes! The Ruskies are hacking again! Let's not forget that the British Superb plan for Brexit was born out of Vova's cunning mind.

From the people who brought you polonium in a teacup, Basha's bouncing Barrel Bombs, Salisbury Plain Pizza and the Covid- Horrid. Now want you to know Vova is back!

Last weekend they launched their counter move with Luke Harding interviewing himself about his new book

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2020/jul/12/covering-russia-and-the-west-putins-goal-is-to-make-the-truth-unknowable

The decline of the Guardian is legend and one of their supposed ace gumshoes, Luke Harding, who has been the chief protagonist of the "Stupid Russia/ Cunning Russia" Guardian editorial line gets this time to interview himself. Displacement in psychology, as I'm sure Luke must have learnt from his handlers, is where we see in others that which we can't or fail to recognise in ourselves.

Those CIFers long in the tooth will recall how he moderated his own BTL comments on Russia until it all got too much for him. At which point they were cancelled. Now it seems it's all gone to a new level as Harding apparently interviews himself about his new book! In the Guardian's new post apocalyptic normal, where self censorship plus self promotion is the norm for their self congratulatory hacks and hackets Harding never fails to amaze at this genre.

As expected the reader is taken into the usual spy vs spy world of allusion and narrative plus fake intrigue and facts, so much the hallmark of Harding's work. None of which stands up to serious analysis as we recall:

https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g

where we have Arron Maté, a real journalist doing a superb job of exposing Harding as the crude propagandist he truly is.

This interview is about Harding's last book "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win the 2016 US election".

Now we have a new cash cow where clearly with Harding's latest shtick the Guardian can't be arsed having him interviewed for another piece of self promotion by one of their hacks. So they go for the off the shelf fake interview where they allow Harding to talk to himself.

Clearly as they point out Harding is working for home, with more than one foot in the grave it must be time to furlough him.

You couldn't make this stuff up Luke could you?

[Jul 20, 2020] The above link exhaustively details how the fraud was perpetrated and how the White Helmets were funded. The most disturbing facts were the murder of captive Syrian civilians including children for use as props for Western media.

Jul 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

A former British officer and gentleman, no less!

PATIENT OBSERVER July 19, 2020 at 11:29 am

http://syriapropagandamedia.org/james-le-mesurier-a-reconstruction-of-his-business-activities-and-covert-role

The above link exhaustively details how the fraud was perpetrated and how the White Helmets were funded. The most disturbing facts were the murder of captive Syrian civilians including children for use as props for Western media. There is little doubt in my mind that these murders were viewed as standard business practice with the only concern being related to complication from being caught. Of course, being "caught" was a minor inconvenience that the MSM could easily manage into oblivion.

Mr. Le Mesurier may have been killed as the White Helmets no longer had value and dead men rarely talk:

https://www.dailysabah.com/investigations/2019/12/10/british-spy-le-mesurier-was-likely-running-away-from-someone-before-his-death

His wife was not very helpful in the investigation having changed her story several times.

Winberg said she looked for her husband inside the house and saw his lifeless body when she looked out of the window. Police are investigating now how she was able to wake up about half an hour after she took a sleeping pill and why she stacked a large amount of money inside the house into bags immediately after Le Mesurier's body was found.
Among questions that are needed to be addressed in the case is why Le Mesurier, who intended to sleep, did not change his clothes, did not even loosen his belt or remove his watch. It is also not known why he did not choose a definitive suicidal action to kill himself, instead of jumping from a relatively low height and why he chose to walk along the roof, passing around the air conditioning devices on the roof, instead of jumping to the street directly from the section of the roof closer to his window.

Mr. Le Mesurier was previously active in Kosovo.

[Jul 20, 2020] The US military is defending US global hegemony, and is priced accordingly. What you think of US military spending depends on what you think of the US as a hegemon.

Jul 20, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

Ebenezer Scrooge 07.19.20 at 1:13 pm

US military spending is certainly much higher than it needs to be for US defense needs. But the US military is not primarily defending the US. It is defending Asia from China, NATO from Russia, and a number of countries from Iran, not to speak of Norkland.

IOW, the US military is defending US global hegemony, and is priced accordingly. What you think of US military spending depends on what you think of the US as a hegemon.


Alan White 07.19.20 at 2:15 pm ( 21 )

Thanks John that's very helpful -- I thought those two figures would be much closer together. Reading CT is always instructive in one way or another.

James Wimberley 07.19.20 at 5:02 pm ( 22 )

Long comment on the cross-post, on the cost of the energy transition part of the GND:
https://johnquiggin.com/2020/07/18/a-trillion-here-a-trillion-there-pretty-soon-youre-talking-real-money-creation/#comment-226012

Tom 07.20.20 at 1:37 pm ( 23 )

As a share of GDP, military spending today is half of what it was in 1986. Data here:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US

I am not a fan of military spending – following an excellent post by John about Eisenhower's famous speech (more tanks or more hospitals), I often use it as an example opportunity cost when teaching. One can certainly claim that the budget should be lower but, as a share of overall economic resources, the budget has been cut substantially in the last 30 years.

[Jul 20, 2020] One of the few things that the USA and UK has in common: there is no cost to their lying.

Jul 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL July 20, 2020 at 1:56 am

Not much different from the British public (media). UKgov was in trouble last week for failing to have their own man as head of the toothless rubberstamping parliamentary intelligence and security committee, shortly afterwards UKGov amped up 'Russia wot stole our vaccine' and the whole UK media ran with it, save a couple of articles qustioning the 'timing'.

The thinking the US & UK have in common is that there is no cost to their lying. They're only thinking of the short term obviously, but they depend on the other to turn the cheek ignore it as 'domstic politiking.' Last saturday I saw the al-Beeb s'allah preview of RusAmb interview to be broadcast on Sunday. The anchor had an 'expert' to help her. Cue cherry brief picked quotes from the interview to make the Ambassador look weak and the 'expert' saying 'that's what you would expect them to say.'

Today I see that Scotland is now the target, i.e. that Russia 'interfered' with the independence referendum. It's not even anything goes August yet. This whole year has been August reporting.

[Jul 20, 2020] That wanker Cecil has a lot to answer for!

Jul 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE July 19, 2020 at 7:35 pm

I just cannot see why the US public -- better said, some of the US public. -- fall for that torrent of verbal diarrhoea that Maddow regularly gushes forth on TV about all things Russian.

The shite that she so regularly spews out is patently untrue and clearly propagandistic. Time and time again, the content of "The Rachel Maddow Show" (Why "show" FFS? Is it because that is what it is -- a distraction, an entertainment vehicle for the uncritical masses?) has repeatedly been shown to be untrue, but never an apology from Maddow.

Oh, what a surprise! Her paternal grandfather's family name was Medvedev, a Four-by-Two who fled the Evil (Romanov) Empire and set up shop in the "Land of the Free".

Something that has often puzzled me is this: If the Russian Empire was such a "Prison of Nations", all crushed by the autocratic state, how come Western Europe and the USA is swarming with the descendants of the Tsar's former Jewish subjects?

To be fair to Maddow -- though I see no reason why I should be, for she is a lying cnut -- her family background is not really kosher: her mother hails from Newfoundland and is of English/Irish descent, and one of her grandmother's forebears were from the Netherlands. Furthermore, Maddow says that she had a conservative Catholic upbringing. I suppose that's why she's now a liberal lesbian. And guess what: she's a Rhodes Scholar with an Oxford PhD.

That wanker Cecil has a lot to answer for!

[Jul 20, 2020] Who was Steele's primary Subsource and who belong his circle of heavily drinking buddies who brainstormed the set of myth which Steele put in the dossier

Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Jul 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Felten via RealClearInvestigations.com,

Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on, Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday afternoon.

The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.

Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File

Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given."

The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a "social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.

Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource], suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on Trump."

And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject" was).

Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with Russians.

Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.

The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct 'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."

And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.

Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia

While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."

With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.

Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.

When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier, here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes, he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform."

All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.

Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare the dossier a fabrication on the spot.

But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.

But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."

One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort, however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz."

While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story," Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score) supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring that at least "it wasn't a denial."

If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its extraordinary investigation was crumbling.

bh2, 23 minutes ago

Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".


[Jul 20, 2020] Was Skripal one of the subsources of Steele?

So Russia started to suspect him and British staged this fun show with Novichok ?
Heavily drinking individuals are probably common in London Russian emigrant circles.
‘Duckgate’, as it is now being dubbed, was used to trick US President Trump into expelling 60 Russian Diplomats over false photographic evidence presented to him by Haspel, as it was provided to her by UK authorities. The manipulation of Trump, courtesy of CIA Director Haspel, the UK government (and accidentally documented on by the NYT), had blown first serious holes into the entire narrative that Sergei and Yulia Skripal were poisoned by Russian agents with the deadly Novichok nerve agent.
"Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives "
Notable quotes:
"... The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos. ..."
Jul 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.

...Steele’s operation didn’t rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource’s account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: “Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes.” The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI “that he was ‘clueless’ about who Manafort was, and that this was a ‘strange task’ to have been given.”

The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn’t have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a “social circle.” And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.

bh2 , 23 minutes ago

Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".

Versengetorix, 1 hour ago remove

The Durham investigation has been covered over with asphalt.

ze_vodka , 1 hour ago

After all that has happened, if anyone actually still thinks the Trump = Putin story has any shred of truth... well... there are no words left to write about that.

jeff montanye , 1 hour ago

chris wray needs to go pronto.

https://thespectator.info/2020/07/20/chris-wray-hires-jason-jones-a-partner-at-rod-rosensteins-law-firm-and-associate-of-sally-yates-as-fbi-general-counsel/

[Jul 19, 2020] Real cancel culture is a psyop to cancel truth or make it unrecognizable from lie via coloring and half-truths such as Russiagate, White Helmets, Skripals, MH-17, Integrity Initiative, Russian Bounties

Jul 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Jul 18 2020 21:38 utc | 53

The establishment's massive propaganda campaigns and psyops CANCEL the truth or make it unrecognizable via coloring and half-truths. Russiagate, White Helmets, Skripals, MH-17, Integrity Initiative, Assange, Russian Bounties & remaining in Afghanistan, "China virus", hydroxyChloroquine, etc.

The Trump Administration has CANCELED entire countries via terminating peace treaties, imposing sanctions, covert war, and conducting a propaganda war.

Where is the outrage from writers, artists, and academics about THAT?

[Jul 19, 2020] A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money

Jul 19, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

Alan White 07.19.20 at 1:21 am

John, what say you about US/global military spending, which if cut and reallocated in the low double digits could transform society? Do you think it's just politically untouchable? If the US cut its military budget by say 25% it would still be formidable, especially given its nuclear deterrent. For the life of me I can never understand why military budgets are sacrosanct. Is it just WW2 and Cold War hangover? Couldn't the obvious effects of climate change and the fragility of the economy subject to natural threats like the pandemic change attitudes about overfunding the military (like the debacle of the F-35 program)?

John Quiggin 07.19.20 at 3:50 am ( 15 )

Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent or less most places. So that's a significant and unproductive use of resources that could be redirected to better effect. But the income of the top 1 per cent is around 20 per cent of total income. If that was cut in half, there would be little or no reduction in the productive services supplied by this group. If you want big change, that's where you need to look.

eg 07.19.20 at 4:08 am ( 16 )

@Alan White #13

I think some of the reluctance to cut military spending in the US is the extent to which it acts as a politically unassailable source of fiscal stimulus and "welfare" in a country where such things are otherwise anathema. Well, that and all of the grift it represents for the donor class.

likbez 07.19.20 at 10:18 am ( 17 )

@John Quiggin 07.19.20 at 3:50 am *15)

Alan White @13 Military spending is about 3.4 per cent of US GDP, compared to 2 per cent or less most places.

GDP is a fake metric in general (due to the size of FIRE sector in the US economy) and especially when we are discussing military spending.

Military spending is 53% of discretionary spending which put the USA in the category of the most militarized countries. https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2020/militarized-budget-2020/

[Jul 18, 2020] Divide We Fall -- America Has Been Blacklisted and McCarthyism Refashioned for a New Age

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Not to be outdone, the censors are also taking aim at To Kill a Mockingbird , Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in the Jim Crow South who defends a black man falsely accused of rape. Sixty years after its debut, the book remains a powerful testament to moral courage in the face of racial bigotry and systemic injustice , told from the point of view of a child growing up in the South, but that's not enough for the censors. They want to axe the book -- along with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn -- from school reading curriculums because of the presence of racial slurs that could make students feel "humiliated or marginalized." ..."
"... What started with Joseph McCarthy's headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once corporations and the American people caught the fever. ..."
"... McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was: an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful. ..."
"... Battlefield America: The War on the American People ..."
Jul 18, 2020 | www.mintpressnews.com

For those old enough to have lived through the McCarthy era, there is a whiff of something in the air that reeks of the heightened paranoia, finger-pointing, fear-mongering, totalitarian tactics that were hallmarks of the 1950s.

Back then, it was the government -- spearheaded by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee -- working in tandem with private corporations and individuals to blacklist Americans suspected of being communist sympathizers.

By the time the witch hunts carried out by federal and state investigative agencies drew to a close, thousands of individuals ( the vast majority of them innocent any crime whatsoever ) had been accused of communist ties, investigated, subpoenaed and blacklisted. Regarded as bad risks, the accused were blacklisted, and struggled to secure employment. The witch hunt ruined careers, resulting in suicides, and tightened immigration to exclude alleged subversives.

Seventy years later, the vitriol, fear-mongering and knee-jerk intolerance associated with McCarthy's tactics are once again being deployed in a free-for-all attack by those on both the political Left and Right against anyone who, in daring to think for themselves, subscribes to ideas or beliefs that run counter to the government's or mainstream thought

It doesn't even seem to matter what the issue is anymore (racism, Confederate monuments, Donald Trump, COVID-19, etc.): modern-day activists are busily tearing down monuments, demonizing historic figures, boycotting corporations for perceived political transgressions, and using their bully pulpit to terrorize the rest of the country into kowtowing to their demands

All the while, the American police state continues to march inexorably forward.

This is how fascism, which silences all dissenting views, prevails.

The silence is becoming deafening.

After years of fighting in and out of the courts to keep their 87-year-old name, the NFL's Washington Redskins have bowed to public pressure and will change their name and team logo to avoid causing offense . The new name, not yet announced, aims to honor both the military and Native Americans.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, a delegate to the House of Representatives who supports the name change, believes the team's move " reflects the present climate of intolerance to names, statues, figments of our past that are racist in nature or otherwise imply racism [and] are no longer tolerated."

Present climate of intolerance, indeed.

Yet it wasn't a heightened racial conscience that caused the Redskins to change their brand. It was the money. The team caved after its corporate sponsors including FedEx, PepsiCo, Nike and Bank of America threatened to pull their funding

So much for that U.S. Supreme Court victory preventing the government from censoring trademarked names it considers distasteful or scandalous.

Who needs a government censor when the American people are already doing such a great job at censoring themselves and each other, right?

Now there's a push underway to boycott Goya Foods after its CEO, Robert Unanue, praised President Trump during a press conference to announce Goya's donation of a million cans of Goya chickpeas and a million other food products to American food banks as part of the president's Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

Mind you, Unanue -- whose grandfather emigrated to the U.S. from Spain -- also praised the Obamas when they were in office, but that kind of equanimity doesn't carry much weight in this climate of intolerance.

Not to be outdone, the censors are also taking aim at To Kill a Mockingbird , Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in the Jim Crow South who defends a black man falsely accused of rape. Sixty years after its debut, the book remains a powerful testament to moral courage in the face of racial bigotry and systemic injustice , told from the point of view of a child growing up in the South, but that's not enough for the censors. They want to axe the book -- along with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn -- from school reading curriculums because of the presence of racial slurs that could make students feel "humiliated or marginalized."

Never mind that the N-word makes a regular appearance in hip-hop songs. The prevailing attitude seems to be that it's okay to use the N-word as long as the person saying the word is not white . Rapper Kendrick Lamar "would like white America to let black people exclusively have the word."

Talk about a double standard.

This is also the overlooked part of how oppression becomes systemic: it comes about as a result of a combined effort between the populace, the corporations and the government.

McCarthyism worked the same way.

What started with Joseph McCarthy's headline-grabbing scare tactics in the 1950s about Communist infiltrators of American society snowballed into a devastating witch hunt once corporations and the American people caught the fever.

McCarthyism was a contagion, like the plague, spreading like wildfire among people too fearful or weak or gullible or paranoid or greedy or ambitious to denounce it for what it was: an opportunistic scare tactic engineered to make the government more powerful.

The parallels to the present movement cannot be understated.

The contagion of fear that McCarthy helped spread with the help of government agencies, corporations and the power elite is still poisoning the well, whitewashing our history, turning citizen against citizen, and stripping us of our rights.

What we desperately need is the kind of resolve embodied by Edward R. Murrow, the most-respected newsman of his day.

On March 9, 1954, Murrow dared to speak truth to power about the damage McCarthy was inflicting on the American people. His message remains a timely warning for our age.

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

America is approaching another reckoning right now, one that will pit our commitment to freedom principles against a level of fear-mongering that is being used to wreak havoc on everything in its path.

The outcome rests, as always, with "we the people." As Murrow said to his staff before the historic March 9 broadcast: "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices."

Take heed, America.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People , this may be your last warning.

Feature photo | Nehemiah Nuk Nuk Johnson, left, with JUICE (Justice Unites Individuals and Communities Everywhere), confronts a counter protester who did not give his name in Martinez, Calif., July 12, 2020, during a protest calling for an end to racial injustice and accountability for police. Jeff Chiu | AP

John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney, author and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute . His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected] .

[Jul 18, 2020] Real Russiagate bombshell -- FBI knew Steele dossier was fiction, Strzok notes show NYTimes reporting misleading and inaccurate

Notable quotes:
"... "primary sub-source" ..."
"... "misleading and inaccurate" ..."
"... "no evidence" ..."
"... Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party. ..."
"... "miscarriage of justice" ..."
"... "collusion" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable ..."
Jul 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

New documents show the FBI was aware that the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable, and that the New York Times published false information about the 'Russiagate' probe.

The two documents were published on Friday by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), as part of an ongoing probe of the FBI's investigation of Trump. One is a 59-page, heavily redacted interview of the "primary sub-source" for Christopher Steele, the British spy commissioned through a series of cut-outs by the Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election campaign.

While the identity of the source is hidden, the document makes it clear it was not a current or former Russian official, but a non-Russian employee of Steele's British company, Orbis. The source's testimony seriously questioned the claims made in the dossier – which is best known for the salacious accusation that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia with tapes of an alleged sex romp in a Moscow hotel.

The second, and more intriguing, document is a five-page printout of a February 14, 2017 article from the New York Times, along with 13 notes by Peter Strzok, one of the senior FBI agents handling the Russiagate probe. The article was published five days after the FBI interview with the sub-source, and Strzok actually shows awareness of it (in note 11, specifically).

In the very first note, Strzok labeled as "misleading and inaccurate" the claim by the New York Times that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, noting there was "no evidence" of this.

Likewise, Strzok denied the FBI was investigating Roger Stone (note 10) – a political operative eventually indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller over allegedly lying about (nonexistent) ties to WikiLeaks, whose sentence Trump recently commuted to outrage from 'Russiagate' proponents. Nor was Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort on any calls involving Russian government officials, contrary to claims by the Times (note 3).

Not only did the FBI know the story was false, in part based on the knowledge they had from Steele's source, but the recently ousted FBI director Jim Comey had openly disputed it in June 2017. The paper stood by its reporting.

Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation.

Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party.

ALSO ON RT.COM So it wasn't 'by the book'? Strzok notes reveal Obama & Biden were involved in FBI going after General Flynn

The last two renewals, in April and June 2017, were requested after the sub-source interview. Commenting on the document release, Sen. Graham called these two renewals a "miscarriage of justice" and argued that the FBI and the Department of Justice should have stopped and re-evaluated their case.

Mueller eventually found no "collusion" between Trump and Russia as alleged by the Democrats, but not before a dozen people – from Stone and Manafort to Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn and innocent Russian student Maria Butina – became casualties of the investigation.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 236 13


Austin Rock 22 hours ago Staggering is the monumental deceitful effort to hitch Trump to Russia. And yet for MSM and their poodles in the press no barb thrown is too outragious, no smear is too false enough. With Google, Twitter and Facebook on board we Europeans are being played. But we Europeans are not as stupid as your average US punter. These pathetic fairy tales are an embarressement to journalism.

[Jul 17, 2020] The "Russian vaccine hack" is a 3-for-1 deal on propaganda

Looks like Guardian is another intelligence agencies controlled entity.
Notable quotes:
"... Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works. ..."
"... As it was anti-Russian I expected it to be accompanied with a Luke Harding byline but this is from the Defence and Security Editor, Dan Sabbagh, Harding, as well as being a plagiarist, has written four anti-Russian books including "Collusion" about how Russia helped Donald Trump get into power (using the discredited Steele dossier as his main source). Here Aaron Mate interviews him leaving him totally uncomfortable by the end. ..."
Jul 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

The Guardian, and all the other predictable voices, are currently reporting that Russian "state sponsored hackers" have been attempting to steal "medical secrets" from British pharmaceutical researchers.

At this stage they offer no substantiation, but it does serve as good teaching exercise in the techniques of modern propagandists.

  1. First the lack of evidence. Observe the Guardian article, note the complete absence of sources or references. There's not a link in sight. There's no content there beyond the parroted words of UK government officials, whose honesty and/or competence is never interrogated.
  2. Second, the lies by omission. They don't mention, for example, the Vault 7 revelations from Wikileaks that the CIA/Pentagon have developed technology to make one of their own cyber-attacks appear to come from anywhere in the world , Russia obviously included. This is clearly vital information.
  3. Third, the multitasking. When you splash a huge red lie on your front pages, it's always best to make it serve several agendas at once. In fact, an unsupported statement which serves multiple state-backed narratives at the same time is one of the telltale signs of propaganda.

With this one completely unverified claim, the Guardian – or rather the people who tell the Guardian what to say – back up three narratives:

The further demonisation of an "enemy". Russia is portrayed as pursuing "selfish interests with reckless behaviour" , whilst we (and our allies) are "getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health." Promoting the vaccine. The vaccine is coming. It will likely be mandatory, it will certainly have been insufficiently tested, if tested at all. They need some pro-vaccine advertising, and nothing sells better than "our vaccine is so good, people are trying to steal it". Most importantly – Enhancing the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique global threat which puts us all in danger. The unspoken assumption is that Russia needs to steal our research because the virus is so dangerous we all need to be afraid of it despite it being harmless to the vast majority of people .

Whether it's the (totally unsubstantiated) allegation that Russia put bounties on NATO servicemen in Afghanistan , or the (very predictable) "leak" that "Russian interference" was backing Corbyn in the general election, it's clear that any Globalist deal on the coronavirus is dead and buried, and it's very much open season on Putin's Russia again.

Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works.

As it was anti-Russian I expected it to be accompanied with a Luke Harding byline but this is from the Defence and Security Editor, Dan Sabbagh, Harding, as well as being a plagiarist, has written four anti-Russian books including "Collusion" about how Russia helped Donald Trump get into power (using the discredited Steele dossier as his main source). Here Aaron Mate interviews him leaving him totally uncomfortable by the end.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9Ikf1uZli4g


John Pretty , Jul 17, 2020 12:03 AM Reply to John Goss

This is a favorite piece on Harding, published by Spiked in 2011:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2011/10/04/face-it-the-fsb-is-just-not-that-into-you/

Grafter , Jul 16, 2020 11:10 PM

It's all so dumb and fraudulent . Not worthy of anyone's attention who may possess a few brain cells. Those who serve up this shit in the name of journalism should be sent back to primary school for some basic education . Really, we have had enough of this crap from American morons ever since the Cold War era and here we have the same corrupt media parroting exactly the same dross about those evil Russians . This scum need a history lesson for had it not been for Russia's sacrifice and bravery in WW2 these cretins would not be sitting on their arses writing this dross. This ongoing malevolent campaign against Russia is extremely disturbing and has all the hallmarks of a psychopathic mindset and all coming from a nation whose main "industry" is the production of weaponry and who is responsible for the deaths of between 20 to 30 million people, directly and indirectly since the end of WW2.

Eyes Open , Jul 16, 2020 10:35 PM

It's so obvious the media are pulling a 'dog in a manger' psyop on us. Ie. 'oh no! I never wanted the vaccine in the first place, but the Russians want to steal ours, so all of a sudden I want my vaccine' etc.

Most likely Gate's vaccines will cause harm to some, so take them all I say. (My condolences to the Russians.)

This video – from the horse's mouth. Notice the duping delight:

https://twitter.com/BeachMilk/status/1265265434741272576?s=20

S Cooper , Jul 16, 2020 9:35 PM

"Russian vaccine hack"
So the CORPORATE FASCISTS are saying that the Russian Federation got its vaccine against the CORPORATE FASCIST MASS HYSTERIA FEAR PANIC FRENZY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN by hacking? This is not going to end well for the OLIGARCH MOBSTER PSYCHOPATHS.

John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:35 PM Reply to S Cooper

"For The Record" (spitfirelist.com) began reporting 4 or 5 years ago that all the Russiagate baloney, hacks of Hillary et al., was a CIA inside job ~ and related matters like it, long before that ~ referring listeners to much evidence that CIA cyber-technology had long been working on black op devices that could hack while leaving "Russian" or "CCP" digital fingerprints, etc., all the one-trick pony of ceaseless false-flaggery that our Intel has been using for years, for nearly everything. And that stuff isn't really new.

Oliver Stone interviewed Putin for 4 hrs a couple years ago, carried by cable here, and asked him point blank, "Did your agencies hack the DP?" Or words to that effect.

And he answered merely, "That was an internal affair of yours."

Of course, VP is a high spymaster himself, it would seem one of the best, ever, and no stranger to purposeful misdirection certainly, but by the same token of his eminence in that global realm, he is well supported by the evidence.

Especially, "If past is prologue " and all of its preponderance? Endless .

S Cooper , Jul 17, 2020 12:40 AM Reply to John Ervin

The aspect which most concerns me is the no holds barred publicly funded sales and marketing campaign that Psychopath Billy and BIG PHARMA are mounting to find dupes and Guinea Pigs for their toxic patent medicine snake oil brew. It is going to hurt a lot of people.

"The hack" bull shit fairy tale store is just one of the means employed by those criminal psychopaths.

John Ervin , Jul 17, 2020 2:16 AM Reply to S Cooper

Yes indeed, there are many such signs, all of them bad. I don't know why I feel pleased when I get confirmations of all the worst suspicions, if it only confirms my antennae are still functioning, whilst being shamed by the brainwashed and the same old headlines . It should take a lot more or better to please the sensibilities.

I guess it's the sense of vindication, that one can't help but thrill when that terrible thirst for some reality is slaked.

Or that you have cause to be thankful. Faith tells you this won't last forever, and it's a real gift that you weren't fooled.

But it can still feel like "cold comfort" when "almost" everyone you see or know, is.

Too many take the bit too nicely. What good does that do?

It shows up a pale country, too dead, as living only in the flesh, really, too numb in the spirit, not vigilant.

About to be rolled!

voxpox , Jul 16, 2020 9:25 PM

I like this article, it says it all. I have also long harbored a theory that the US intelligence are behind most of the worlds financial cyber-crime, systematically fleecing the world to fund their many many operations around the world. They have the tech with Windows back-doors, the motivation to hide 'off the book' operations and a proven lack of morals as demonstrated during the Iran–Contra affair, many years ago. but what do I know. As Bill Maher says, 'I can't prove it but I know it's true'.

John Ervin , Jul 16, 2020 11:59 PM Reply to voxpox

The USA foreign policy shows a penchant for amoral deceptiveness of ALL other countries, even best allies, chronically.

So that gives heft to Bill Maher's maxim.

Perennial treaty busters and oath breakers, why would anyone trust?

Fool me once etc.

That's at the core of my take on all USA has said about C-19(84). Been there, done that, with 100 other false flags, always the same tune.

The boy who cried wolf: Uncle Scam.

Always proven false after all the marbles are stolen. Or at some point down the road. If not, it shall be, like the JFK fiasco. Like the lone holdout among nations on the Napalm Ban, or sole rogue to drop an A bomb (75th Anniversary of that cowardly Holocaust coming up in a few weeks.)

Lone, lone, lone.

A sad little homeboy in the Land of the Lone Gunman. So many, though. Too many, for the world's good .

~~~~~~~~~£4£&$4$

Don't take it from me, though, I'm a total patriot, really, compared to Mr. Gonzo, Hunter S. Thompson:

"America just a nation of 200 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms at all about using them on anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."

Hunter always said it like it is, at least at yhr time he saw it, he rode with the Hell's Angels and wrote the 1st book about them, and wasn't much shy about calling a spade a spade.

And. Like my own old man: another highly assisted apparent suicide.

~~~~~~~~

Old Radio broadcast:

"Who was that masked man?!

Why, it's the Lone Ranger!"

[Jul 16, 2020] Butina stay in a US correctional facility!

Jul 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

PATIENT OBSERVER July 15, 2020 at 8:31 am

The ingrate! She should have been thankful for her stay in a US correctional facility!

https://www.rt.com/russia/494829-burina-jail-time-memoir/

A guard pushed me into a corridor with a small metal staircase and we started descending. From there, I could hear the dreadful sounds of people pounding on metal, shouting in anguish – all sorts of inhuman moaning and howling.

"Shut up, all of you!" barked the officer into the semi-darkness of that metal hell.

We walked down the corridor surrounded by cells beyond count, men and women were clinging to the metal netting of the doors. They were begging for water, toilet paper – or at least for someone to tell them what time it was. Male prisoners were raising hell after they noticed me, which put an amused grin on the face of my guard.

He threw me into a cell next to one with a man. The wall between us had no windows so I couldn't see my 'neighbor', but he certainly liked to tune in to any sound I made. He got so stimulated hearing me moving around next door and choking on my tears that he pleasured himself loudly all night long – and I had to listen.


[Jul 16, 2020] We support the environment as long as it benefits our trade partners and is poitically balanced in our favor.

Jul 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL July 14, 2020 at 9:14 am

Politico.eu : EU's new green label for fertilizer is set to benefit Russia
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-new-green-label-fertilizer-benefits-russia-cadmium-phosphate/

That scientific debate soon turned into a geopolitical one, however. EU farmers are overwhelmingly dependent on North and West Africa for phosphate where, because of the natural conditions, there is usually a cadmium level far higher than 20mg/kg. At the same time, phosphate coming from Russia has far lower natural levels of the metal.

Southern European countries feared that switching phosphate supplies away from Africa to Russia could severely undermine volatile North African economies and trigger social problems

One of the countries that has strongly opposed the new labeling rules is Poland -- a country that historically wants to avoid commercial dependence on Russia but also has its own national fertilizer business and has invested in a Senegalese phosphate mine
####

Plenty more at the link.

We support the environment as long as it benefits our trade partners and is poitically balanced in our favor.

This looks like the european industry is waving the 'Russia Bad' flag because it cannot counter the technical aspects and more environmental policies coming out of the EU.

They are also arguing in favor of less transparency and less information for farmers which is suspect because their fear is that low cadmium fertilizer (from Russia/wherever) may get tax-breaks to promote its use.

Rather than figure out a way to adapt and help their partners, their first reaction is to throw poo at the walls.

[Jul 15, 2020] I think Putin, a long time ago , decided to spare his people from the same fate of the Western populace or at least , make it as comfortable, as can be expected in these times.

Jul 15, 2020 | www.unz.com

GMC , says: July 15, 2020 at 7:59 am GMT

Good article, yes I remember 2016 and the power grid that was taken out by the Ukies. A lot of generators were sold that summer /year. lol I see Putin and Russia – just sitting /waiting it out – patiently as usual. Time is on their side and bad things are happening fast in the domestic west.

Of course Russia is part of the NWO because they have to be. They sell oil, gaz and natural resources internationally and have Corporations that have a big sayso in the Government. I think Putin, a long time ago , decided to spare his people from the same fate of the Western populace or at least , make it as comfortable, as can be expected – in these times. It helps by not having the Ghettos, Gangs, Dysfunctional Melting Pot, POlice state, and a slew of Wars to deal with -- for starters. Like the Saker said – Russian problems are – all the BS directed at them from ther West .

[Jul 14, 2020] Angloshere propaganda mostly projects onto target countries what they themselves are doing

Jul 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU1 , Jul 13 2020 4:56 utc | 150

JC 143

Plenty of decent people have headed to five eyes thinking they would find a better life, but we also take in the scum of the world that can be used against their own countries. These generally rise to high places.
Imperial France seems of the same mindset and Chechen freedom fighters are now fighting for their freedom in France. Yankistans freedom fighter Osama Bin Larden was just fighting for freedom apparently. Like the AQ media wing 'White Helmets' that UK and Canada took in, not to mention the nazi's that participated in the genocides in their own countries in WWII.

When peasants living conditions are constantly improving, there will be no revolt and no civil war. Yankistan propaganda can't even come up with an opposition in China.

Angloshere propaganda mostly projects onto target countries what they themselves are doing.

[Jul 14, 2020] I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut Skripal was the source of the Russian 'intelligence', and that he was bumped off afterward to make sure he stayed quiet about Steele dossier.

Notable quotes:
"... If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up, and leak if something foreshortened his life ..."
Jul 14, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN July 8, 2020 at 8:08 pm

"The judge also concluded that Steele's notes of his first interaction with the FBI about the dossier on July 5, 2016 made clear that his ultimate client for his research project was Hillary Clinton's campaign as directed by her campaign law firm Perkins Coie. The FBI did not disclose that information to the court."

Finally we are getting down to where the cheese binds. Hillary Clinton's campaign, with Mrs. Clinton's knowledge, commissioned the Steele dossier to try to torpedo Trump's election prospects. She never thought he could win, but the Dems wanted to make sure.

I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut Skripal was the source of the Russian 'intelligence', and that he was bumped off afterward to make sure he stayed quiet.

The whole Russiagate scandal was just Democrat bullshit, and they kept up with it long after they all knew they were lying. And Biden thinks he's going to get elected, after that revelation? The Democrats deserve to be expelled from politics en masse. Leading with that wretched prick Schiff.

JEN July 8, 2020 at 9:42 pm

It would seem likely that had the Klintonator won the 2016 Presidential election, Sergei Skripal might have been left alone mouldering with his guinea pigs and cats in his Salsibury home. Perhaps he had to take the fall for HRC's loss in the election, for whatever reason (not shovelling enough shit into the dossier to bring down Trump perhaps); someone had to take the blame and of course HRC will never admit responsibility for her own failure.

MARK CHAPMAN July 9, 2020 at 8:43 am

Well, you never know – Russians are kind of an endangered species in the UK. They turn up dead whenever a public accusation of another Putin 'state hit' would be a useful feature in the papers.

ET AL July 9, 2020 at 12:34 am

What I want to know is if the paths of the Skripals passed with those of the supposed Russian assassins (which I assume to be possible decoys) or anyone else in space, but not necessarily time. If Skripal is involved with all the Clinton stuff, then he would want an insurance policy for example on an USB drive that he could leave for someone to pick up, and leak if something foreshortened his life

It could well have been a simple dead-drop and when alerted by their phones being turned off and batteries removed, the priority was to immobilize/incapacitate them. A bit tricky in public, but not at all impossible by a near/passer by to their bench with an aerosol, say a cyclist walking with his bike After all, they did also have the Chief nurse of the BA on hand just in case it went wrong as things sometimes do. Which leads to the question, was it just the Brits alone, together with the Americans, or watching the Americans and then cleaning up their mess? 2 or more likely 3 seem most likely if we look at sheer brazeness.

That concludes my speculation for the day! Maybe I should be a journalist. I could be paid for this!

MARK CHAPMAN July 9, 2020 at 9:01 am

Yes, you never know, but it's certainly hard to believe Occam was English. It seems pretty clear the simplest explanation is "MI6 bumped him off and blamed it on Russia". When you are trying to arrange a death which is bound to be suspicious, you want to do it in a way that when it becomes public knowledge, the first people the public thinks of is not you. means, motive and opportunity all strongly favour the English side. It seems to be be fairly common knowledge that Skripal wanted to return to Russia; we have no way of knowing if he planned to live there or just visit, more likely the latter. But Putin decides to send an assassination team to England to rub him out. Instead of welcoming him home to Russia, where he could prevent the British from investigating, and then killing him. Presumably in a much more prosaic fashion – say, running him down with a car – rather than employing some exotic poison or isotope which will scream 'Russia!!' How long would the British have been investigating the Skripals' deaths (if they had died) had they been run down with a 7.5 ton lorry which was subsequently found burned to a shell several counties away? Would the British papers have been shrieking "Putin's Truck!!!" next morning? But no – Russian assassins always have to 'send a message', which must inspire Britain to 'send a message' of its own by punishing the entire country. Maybe it's just me, but flash-cooking Skripal in the High Street with a flamethrower in broad daylight would send a message. And then say to the police, "Keep your hands where I can see 'em, unless you want a couple of shashliks, comrade", before speeding away in an Aurus Senat limousine. That would send a message, too.


[Jul 13, 2020] Daily Fail: EDWARD LUCAS: At last! The end of the age of appeasing Beijing bullies

Jul 13, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL July 7, 2020 at 2:53 am

Ever wondered what happened to our mouth foaming favorite russophobe, Ed Lucas?

Daily Fail: EDWARD LUCAS: At last! The end of the age of appeasing Beijing bullies
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8495983/EDWARD-LUCAS-end-age-appeasing-Beijing-bullies.html

####

Remember, Sir John Sawers is the former chief of MI6 and is in no way linked to the UK government. He is a private individual. This is not Hybrid Warfare.

Which is good, because it allows Ed to earnestly parrot his talking points and add plenty of filler in that well known balanced, independent and journalistically shining star of an outlet, the Daily Fail.

The lesson I think we can take from this is that UK gov has finally been caught in its own bitch 'n' slap China trap and also a victim of t-Rump's bash China campaign. Time has run out on this strategy. It was more than happy to sign on to loud anti-China slogans, as long as it didn't cost UK plc serious cash or future investme nt. The problem is that China has had enough of mostly ignoring those slings and arrows for years.

The new so-called 'Wolf-warrior' China response that the west is publicly bemoaning as 'threatening' comes after so much sinophobia. Thus, UK gov has got the message much more forcefully in the last few days and the opposition like 'ex' directors of British intelligence and others are all hands to the wheel because they do not hold official power and have no other way of influencing the government. 2020 really is a momentous year.

MARK CHAPMAN July 7, 2020 at 8:28 am

I didn't really have time to read it because I have to leave for work, but the headline alone is enough to showcase classic Lucas behavior – enthusiastically cheer the government 'taking a stand', and leaving the accountants to sort out the damage and try to salvage something from the rubble. You know, it is a miracle Britain has survived as long as it has with the eejits who are let to run it.

[Jul 13, 2020] Washington has essentially forgotten how to negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.

Jul 13, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN July 7, 2020 at 8:12 am

Again, probably not an urgent problem unless some existing Chinese aircraft in service are on their last legs and urgently must be replaced. In which case they could go with Airbus if the situation could not wait. China has options. Boeing does not.

The west loves to portray the Chinese as totally without ethics, and if you have a product they can't make for themselves, they will buy it from you only until they have figured out how to make it themselves, and then fuck you, Jack. I don't see any reason to believe the Chinese value alliances less than the west does, or are any more incapable of grasping the value of a give-and-take trade policy. The west – especially the United States – favours establishing a monopoly on markets and then using your inability to get the product anywhere else as leverage to force concessions you don't want to make; is that ethical? China must surely see the advantages of a mutually-respectful relationship with Russia, considering that country not only safeguards a significant length of its border from western probing, but supplies most of its energy. There remain many unexplored avenues for technical, engineering and technological cooperation. At the same time, Russia is not in a subordinate position where it has to endure being taken advantage of.

Trade is hard work, and any partner will maneuver for advantage, because everyone in commerce likes market share and money. But Washington has essentially forgotten how to negotiate on mutually-respectful terms, and favours maneuvering its 'partners' into relationships in which the USA has an overwhelmingly dominant position, and then announcing it is 'leveling the playing field'. Which means putting its thumb on the scale.


[Jul 13, 2020] How to Make a Brick from Straw and Bullshit

After neocons in Washinton adopted Magnitsky act all bets for US-Russia cooperation are off. And that in a long run will hurt the USA too.
Notable quotes:
"... Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. ..."
Jul 13, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN July 13, 2020 at 10:49 am

Every time you "impose costs" on another country, you make more enemies and inspire more end-around plays which take you as an economic player out of that loop. And by and by what you do is of no great consequence, and your ability – your LEGAL ability, I should interject – to 'impose costs' is gone. Sooner or later America's allies are going to refuse to recognize its extraterritorial sanctions, which it has no legal right to impose; it gets away with it by threatening costs in trade with the USA, which is a huge economy and is something under its control. But that practice causes other countries to gradually insulate themselves against exposure, and one day the cost of obeying will be greater than the cost of saying "Go fuck yourself".

The New York Times goes a little further, stressing that the agreement would entail an economic and military partnership: "It calls for joint training and exercises, joint research and weapons development and intelligence sharing -- all to fight "the lopsided battle with terrorism, drug and human trafficking and cross-border crimes." This would give Iran access to some fairly high-tech systems, perhaps fighter aircraft and training and tech support, but of that part of the package, I would rate intelligence sharing the highest. It would potentially give Iran a heads-up on what the USA is planning in the region before it even is briefed to Congress – Washington leaks like a sieve, and while it is often intentional, it happens when it is not desired as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/svc/oembed/html/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F07%2F11%2Fworld%2Fasia%2Fchina-iran-trade-military-deal.html

Washington's policy now consists of little more than frantically papering over cracks as they appear; its ability to direct the world is gone and its ability to influence it is deteriorating by the day as it becomes more and more intensely disliked, and everyone's enemy. Perversely, this brings war closer as a possibility, as threats of it are no longer an effective deterrent to partnerships and exchanges the USA does not like. More and more of those threatened are taking the attitude of "Put up or shut up". Trade deals outside Washington's influence increase those countries' insulation against US sanctions, and perhaps it is beginning to dawn on the western banking cartel that it is in imminent danger of being isolated itself, like a fleck of grit that irritates an oyster and finds itself encased in nacre.

ET AL July 13, 2020 at 9:22 am

SCMP: China hits back, sanctioning US officials and Congress members in response to Xinjiang ban
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3092945/china-hits-back-sanctioning-us-officials-response-uygur-ban

Beijing follows through on its promised retaliation for Washington's move to hold individuals to account

Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio among those facing sanctions in latest tit-for-tat move
####

More at the link.

What springs to mind is that Groucho Marx quote: "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."

That the US sanctions China with an act named after a dodgy Russian book-keeper working for a thief is all kinds of wrong, but as we all know, the ends justify the means. Hamsters are happy.

[Jul 13, 2020] Evidence Casts New Doubts on Russian Doping Whistleblower

F irst Magnitsky then Roschenkov . What happened with Spiegel?
Jul 13, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

ET AL July 6, 2020 at 8:55 am

Via MoonofAlabma.org .

The Beagle: Evidence Casts New Doubts on Russian Doping Whistleblower
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/evidence-casts-new-doubts-on-russian-doping-whistleblower-a-4bba2ee9-4ead-42fd-85d0-56bd87092c93

For five years, the sporting world has been gripped by Russian manipulation of the anti-doping system. Now new evidence suggests the whistleblower who went into a witness protection program during the scandal may not have been entirely truthful.

#####

What's the bet that the beagle will win prizes for 'reporting' like this and the previous 'discovery' that Bill Browder makes pork sandwiches in a pork shop made of pork? More importantly, wtf is up with this coming out now? Has the free, democratic and inquisitive German press suddenly grown a pair or have the authorities told them that they could 'go ahead.' Nothing that they have published is new and has been known about for a long time. Again, wtfof?

NICOLAAVERY July 6, 2020 at 11:23 am

There's currently several differences of opinion between US and WADA regarding what the US wants WADA to do in thr future and what their funding contribution will be: https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/us-may-withhold-wada-funding-due-to-failure-to-reform/
Der Spiegel stuck its neck out re Browder in recent months too https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-responds-to-browder-criticisms-of-magnitsky-story-a-1301716.html

ET AL July 6, 2020 at 11:52 am

Don't forget the Danes at Finans.dk !

https://www.thekomisarscoop.com/2020/01/danish-press-board-says-report-on-browder-lies-tax-evasion-is-true/

MARK CHAPMAN July 6, 2020 at 1:11 pm

Hi, Nicola! Great to see you again! It would be fairly easy to guess what the US wants WADA to do in future – mind your business where US athletes are concerned, or at a minimum accept American explanations for any irregularities you might find, and come down like a ton of bricks on the Russians and the Chinese, excluding them from pro sports to the degree that is possible.

NICOLAAVERY July 7, 2020 at 11:08 am

Shame isn't it, am not against WADA in principle but a biased WADA helps no one. Perhaps they want to privatise it

MARK CHAPMAN July 7, 2020 at 8:17 pm

I wish they would get it out of Canada. I find it embarrassing.

MARK CHAPMAN July 6, 2020 at 12:37 pm

Well, once again, it was the Germans who started it all. WADA went to German station ARD with its suspicions – which it got from the Stepanovs, Rodchenkov was still defending the Moscow lab and calling the WADA panel 'fools' at that point – and then WADA used the ARD 'documentary' as an excuse to open a major investigation. At some juncture someone probably pointed out how lucrative it could be fr Roschenkov if he rolled, and he did.

Yes, I'm sure the Germans will reap rewards from playing both ends. But who cares, as long as it gets out? Maybe it will teach people to not be so trusting of the mess media next time it breaks a Russia-the-Evil story. Probably not, though.


[Jul 13, 2020] How to Make a Brick from Straw and Bullshit. The New Kremlin Stooge

Jul 13, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

I have to confess, I'm having a hard time getting past the headline. There's so MOSCOW BLOG: Kremlin ready to roll out the red carpet for Bojo's flying circus much about it that screams of a policy flak who knows how to present things as facts when they are anything but, and lead you into the piece already believing that (a) Britain has been the victim of more than one attack by Russia, (b) that a country supposedly friendless, without allies and with its economy reeling and staggering from punishing sanctions still somehow has sufficient power to not only grip Europe, but to squeeze it until it squeaks, and (c) Britain can do something about it.

REPORT THIS AD

Well, let's look; if Mr. Straw is totally unconcerned about potential embarrassment. there's nothing holding us back, is there? As we have often done before, let's look at each of the 'attacks' Russia is supposed to have visited upon Britain. Ready? Litvinenko.

Litvinenko is supposed to have ingested Polonium 210 – a uniquely Russian isotope, although the United States buys enough Polonium from Russia nearly every month to have killed Litvinenko about 8,000 times – which was slipped to him by two Russian agents in the Pine Bar in London. Polonium traces were subsequently found all over London, including on documents Litvinenko had touched, a Fax machine at fellow collaborator Boris Berzovsky's house, and in a cab in which Litvinenko had ridden, which was so toxic thereafter that it had to be withdrawn from service. The problem with that is that neither of Litvinenko's accused murderers was with him in the cab, or touched the documents he handled but Litvinenko never touched Polonium with his hands. He swallowed it, in tea, and once inside him it could not contaminate anything else unless Litvinenko licked it, because Polonium – despite its toxicity – is a low-alpha isotope which cannot penetrate skin. Litvinenko was, remarkably, covered from head to toe in skin.

Litvinenko produced a passionately and eloquently-written deathbed accusation which tabbed Vladimir Putin as his murderer, because he – Litvinenko – 'knew too much', including Putin's secret pedophilia, evidence of which was the subject of KGB videotapes made while Putin was a student, although the first personal video recorder (the Sony Betamax) was not introduced until the year Putin graduated. Litvinenko himself could barely order a cup of coffee in English, but that puzzle was solved when Alexander Goldfarb – a former nuclear scientist in Russia and a close confidante of Boris Berezovsky – stepped up to say that Litvinenko had 'dictated it to him'. Just as an interesting aside, Litvinenko had bragged to his brother how he had lied to British authorities before in the case of a supposed murder attempt against Boris Berezovsky by the Russian state, using a poisoned pen. This fake murder plot was successfully used by Berzovsky to argue against deportation from Great Britain.

Anyway, we don't want to go on and on about Litvinenko – how believable is the British tale of his assassination by the Russian state? Polonium traces all over London in places the alleged assassins had never visited could not have been left by Litvinenko, because he never touched Polonium with his hands, and it cannot penetrate skin. Polonium was not discovered in his urine until after he was dead. We will never know if radiation poisoning made his hair fall out, because his head was shaved by one of Berezovsky's dissident Chechen sidekicks. Berezovsky himself also turned up dead in England, after losing a major legal case, having supposedly hung himself with his tie inside a locked bathroom at his home. Coincidentally, Polonium as a murder weapon led straight back to Russia (if we assume we did not know about the American purchases of Polonium, which had the added cachet of bearing the telltale signature of having been made in a Russian nuclear reactor), and would have been a breathtakingly stupid choice for a Russian assassin. Still, they almost got away with it – British doctors were totally on the wrong track, and the alleged assassins had already left the country, when an 'anonymous tipster' (*cough* Goldfarb *cough*) suggested they check for Polonium 210.

The Skripals – yes, 'pon my word, old chap; what a nefarious example of Russian ruthlessness. Probably ordered straight from the top, by Vladimir Putin himself – "Will no one rid me of this troublesome has-been KGB agent who has been out of Russia since 2010: would that I had snuffed him then, instead of trading him to the UK in a spy swap!" Yes, I know, already stupid, but it gets so much more unbelievable . Once again, a distinctively Russian murder weapon; Novichok, a nerve agent manufactured from commercially-available fertilizers and organophosphates. The helpful BBC miniseries Mr. Straw speaks of was an exercise in retconning – retroactive connectivity, an after-the-fact fix which explains what was unexplainable in previous versions. For instance, the co-poisoning of Detective Nick Bailey, so ill he was nigh unto death. Originally the story was that he was contaminated because he was one of the first responders, when the Skripals were jerking and drooling on a public bench near the restaurant where they had just eaten, in Salisbury. But the first passer-by, who helpfully attended them, just happened to be none other than the senior medical officer in the British Army, and she was in no way affected although she wore no protection than perhaps rubber gloves. Nick Bailey also wore gloves, because it was cold. The next version had him entering the Skripal home – where he was contaminated – via the back door. But the assassins had unhelpfully smeared the poison on the front doorknob. Shit! So, unable to bring the assassins and the Skripals and Nick Bailey all together at the same doorknob within the same period of lethality, the story was changed again. Bailey had actually nipped next door, borrowed the spare key – the existence of which was completely unknown to anyone prior to the television broadcast – from a neighbour, and entered by the front door, where he became contaminated. It was touch and go there for awhile, but he went home 18 days later, none the worse for his brush with one of the deadliest nerve agents known to man. A nerve agent which, incidentally, was not known to the elimination of other possibilities to have killed anyone. Dawn Sturgess died later, in Amesbury, after spraying pure Novichok on her wrists from a fake perfume bottle, we are told. But Dawn Sturgess was a known drug addict, Novichok as an aerosol spray would have taken effect within seconds but she was not stricken for hours, and the medium of infection was not discovered until three days after her death, sitting conspicuously on Charles Rowley's kitchen counter, although the house had already been searched. Perfectly intact and waiting to be discovered, although Charles Rowley's brother reported that the bottle had broken in his brother's hands as Sturgess handed it back to him, which was how he became contaminated. Another insultingly full-of-bullshit story that would not survive press scrutiny for an hour if it had been Russia reporting a poisoning by British agents in Russia.

Well, I spent a lot longer on that than I meant to; let's move on. Suffice it to say that while there indeed is 'overwhelming evidence' in both cases as Mr. Straw avers, it argues strongly that Britain made up both scenarios, and not very competently, while there is actually zero evidence that Russia had anything to do with either except for the screaming 'made in Russia' agents used, which Russian assassins would be beyond foolish to have chosen for that very reason. Would it make sense for a British assassin in Moscow to bump off a former double agent by caving in his skull with a King Dick claw hammer , and then leave it at the scene? Do international test scores suggest an otherworldly degree of reasoning ability on the part of Britons, while Russians are abysmally stupid by comparison? Not that I have ever seen.

Straw claims an 'ever-present threat of Russia's efforts to destabilise the UK and European Union.' Is there anything more destabilizing between the two than Brexit ? Whose idea was that – Putin's?

Mr. Straw claims Russia's alleged belligerence results from insecurity, a feeling of weakness and is a function of how many more times Russia's defense budget other countries and alliances spend. How do you figure? The best fighter aircraft the USA can come up with, for more than $80 Million a copy , is the F-35. The F-35 was unable to defeat previous-generation aircraft from its own armed forces. The Sukhoi S-35 costs less than half as much, and while western sites which match the two grant all sorts of 'excitement points' to the F-35 for its technology and Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) performance, the SU-35 is more maneuverable, has a higher rate of climb, more thrust, has double the speed, and while the F-35's BVR performance is rated much better, its engagement range with its embarked missile is only a bit better than half the SU-35's.

"However, despite high spending on its military, it is no match for the US, which spends 12 times as much, nor China, which spends four times its budget. Russia's population is declining, and its GDP per head is just 50th in the world. It feels isolated, surrounded by potentially hostile forces, and weak."


JENNIFER HOR July 6, 2020 at 2:26 am

I was led to believe by some other online sites (the names of which I've now forgotten) that Sergei Skripal's neighbour, from whom Detective Nick Bailey must have borrowed the spare key 'coz who else could have held it, was none other than Pablo Miller. I'd have thought the D-notice imposed on British media compelling them never to refer to him back in March 2018 was still current. How would the BBC or those Guardian journos who wrote the script for the recent TV series have avoided referring to him when the detective was trying to locate a spare key? I admit I haven't seen the TV series yet and from what I've seen and heard about it so far, it's not worth a look.

Thanks for the new post, Mark, and for making it as detailed and riveting as ever.

ET AL July 6, 2020 at 3:04 am

The D-Notice system (DSMA?) technically only requires voluntary compliance but curiously all the British media consistently go along with it Ho! Ho! Ho!

..Any D-Notices or DA-notices are only advisory requests and are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice

MARK CHAPMAN July 6, 2020 at 8:38 am

Thanks, Jennifer; I didn't really have to do much – Moscow Exile was kind and psychic enough to print out Straw's whole editorial, else I might have had to subscribe to The Independent to even see it. *Shudder*. And Straw just opened his head and let the bullshit flow – I only had to redirect the stream a little here and there.

I don't think Miller was the neighbour, I seem to remember a different name nope, that was Ross Cassidy, who was cited by John Helmer as perhaps the only person Skripal trusted enough to have left a key with him, but he didn't live next door. Pablo Miller does indeed also live in Salisbury, but I have seen no mention of where,

https://www.theblogmire.com/joining-some-dots-on-the-skripal-case-part-2-four-invisible-clues/

Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank regiment in the British Army. I have seen one other source – can't remember where now – that claimed Christopher Steele also served in the same regiment, but that's not true – he was recruited straight out of Cambridge at graduation, by MI6, and worked for them for 22 years. That's not to say there were not connections, though – Steele was also Case Officer for Litvinenko, and was allegedly the first to assess that Litvinenko's death was 'a Russian state hit'.

"Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles, but always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6's Russia desk. When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit"."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

You'll enjoy that piece by The Grauniad – it goes on and on about how first-rate credible Steele was, and how the quality of his work is above reproach. His legendary 'dossier', obviously, has since fallen apart and been dismissed as fanciful disinformation.

CORTES July 6, 2020 at 12:20 pm

The spare key was found in the usual place: inside the cane rod of the little angling garden gnome modelled on His Imperial Majesty Tsar Nicholas II, stood by that awkward entrance to the back porch. No need for nosy neighbours. (I added this detail for inclusion in Version 4 of The Skripals, due out in January 2021.)

Thanks again, Mark.

[Jul 11, 2020] Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank regiment in the British Army

Jul 11, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN July 6, 2020 at 8:38 am

Thanks, Jennifer; I didn't really have to do much – Moscow Exile was kind and psychic enough to print out Straw's whole editorial, else I might have had to subscribe to The Independent to even see it. *Shudder*. And Straw just opened his head and let the bullshit flow – I only had to redirect the stream a little here and there.

I don't think Miller was the neighbour, I seem to remember a different name nope, that was Ross Cassidy, who was cited by John Helmer as perhaps the only person Skripal trusted enough to have left a key with him, but he didn't live next door. Pablo Miller does indeed also live in Salisbury, but I have seen no mention of where,

https://www.theblogmire.com/joining-some-dots-on-the-skripal-case-part-2-four-invisible-clues/

Pablo Miller, Mark Urban and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon all served in the same tank regiment in the British Army. I have seen one other source – can't remember where now – that claimed Christopher Steele also served in the same regiment, but that's not true – he was recruited straight out of Cambridge at graduation, by MI6, and worked for them for 22 years. That's not to say there were not connections, though – Steele was also Case Officer for Litvinenko, and was allegedly the first to assess that Litvinenko's death was 'a Russian state hit'.

"Over a career that spanned more than 20 years, Steele performed a series of roles, but always appeared to be drawn back to Russia; he was, sources say, head of MI6's Russia desk. When the agency was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit"."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

You'll enjoy that piece by The Grauniad – it goes on and on about how first-rate credible Steele was, and how the quality of his work is above reproach. His legendary 'dossier', obviously, has since fallen apart and been dismissed as fanciful disinformation.

[Jul 11, 2020] Mutiny on the Bounties by Ray McGovern

Jul 03, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?


Special to Consortium News

C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered 18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.

Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read, incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)

In an oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO) claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)

McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.

Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.

Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tcN_tWk089w?feature=oembed

As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century .

Obama and the National Security State

I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.

Some Questions

Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.

Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan?

Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?

And what does one make of the spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Times reports has now been blocked until after the election?

Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor

And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack. Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.

To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]

At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry, offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job speaks volumes.

'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'

It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.

Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV) said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

Homework

Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)

Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation."

And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."

Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence.

Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again." Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please Contribute to
Consortium News on its 25th Anniversary

Donate securely with PayPal here .

Or securely by credit card or check by clicking the red button: 6075

Tags: Clark Gabel Curtis LeMay Donald Trump Eric Chiaramella Henry Wooton James Clapper Joe Biden Joe McCarthy Michael McFaul Ray McGovern Vladimir Putin Yogi Berra


Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25

Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.

The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the readership is to read and believe this garbage.

Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58

By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners list…..

John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55

Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.

The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.

Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38

Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.
The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.

Juan M Escobedo , July 5, 2020 at 11:35

Dems and Reps are already mad.You cannot destroy what does not exist;like Democracy in these United States.Nor God or Putin could.This has always being a fallacy.This is not a democracy;same thing with”comunist China or the USSR.Those two were never socialist.There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.

Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26

“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”
That statement goes to the crux of the matter .Why should journalists care about what is true or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to endure . As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .

Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36

They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”.
Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.

Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50

The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.
In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy scoiety of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin.

Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42

Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal.

Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10

I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully prosecute the maggots that infest our government.

Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29

What is the basis for this confidence?

John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03

Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School” of Russia Analytics.

It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.

Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16

Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill Americans?

Wendy LaRiviere , July 4, 2020 at 18:29

Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.

AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27

Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet to back up the latest bunch of lies. Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly – by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are (and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is learnt).

Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected, i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??) representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the president.

But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia) raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them. HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.

BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the “democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of days ago.

Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48

“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a Political Revolution?

Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of 123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of 3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?

vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37

There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in 2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses – hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition party.”

And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.

The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right. And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)

What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.

Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51

Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?

Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10

Apres moi, le Deluge.

John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25

Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was actually intelligent intelligence.

Enter stage right Allen Dulles(fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.

Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets complicated.

Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11

from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.”

Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35

I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to “command”?

Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49

Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone tries to end them.

Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges who are bought off or moronic or both.

dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52

The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?

Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49

“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.”

Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress.

”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of ‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what they are themselves actually doing.

The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20

Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable, co-operative and prosperous.

rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10

The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that
1. the USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
2 Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can do with no help
has no basis in reality.

If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic, LBGTQ,”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!

Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54

“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”

Napoleon

Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17

“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.

delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09

Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump, who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.

(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)

JOHN CHUCKMAN , July 4, 2020 at 08:52

Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist.

He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories.

The book was a big best seller in Germany.

Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.

Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30

Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!

Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52

Gekaufte journalisten.
Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”.

Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59

I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35

Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace Alliance)

Blessthebeasts , July 4, 2020 at 11:55

The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about Russia. I think most people just tune it out.
The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.
They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these ridiculous games.

Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34

The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.

And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local “peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.” Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?

[Jul 10, 2020] The man behind Iraq WDM hoax rips Fake Russia Bounty Story

Jul 10, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

When Colin Powell of all people has to appear on MSNBC to slam fake reporting you know mainstream media has lost the plot.

In a rare moment, the former Secretary of State under Bush slammed the wall-to-wall coverage of the Russian bounties in Afghanistan story as "almost hysterical" . It's all the more awkard for MSNBC, which had him on the network Thursday to talk about it, given he's one of those 'never Trump' Bush-era officials, who despite a legacy of having fed the world lie after lie to invade Iraq, has since been given "resistance hero" status among liberals.

Describing that military commanders on the ground didn't give credence to The New York Times claim that Russia's GRU was paying Taliban and other militants to kill American soldiers, Powell said the media "got kind of out of control" in the first days after the initial report weeks ago.

"I know that our military commanders on the ground did not think that it was as serious a problem as the newspapers were reporting and television was reporting," Powell told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "It got kind of out of control before we really had an understanding of what had happened. I'm not sure we fully understand now."

"It's our commanders who are going to go deal with this kind of a threat, using intelligence given to them by the intelligence community," Powell continued. "But that has to be analyzed. It has to be attested. And then you have to go find out who the enemy is. And I think we were on top of that one, but it just got almost hysterical in the first few days."

He also deflated the ongoing manufactured atmosphere which seeks to maintain a perpetual Washington hawkish position vis-a-vis Moscow, based on perceived "Russian aggression".

"I don't think we're in a position to go to war with the Russians," Powell said. "I know Mr. Putin rather well. He's just figuring out a way to stay in power until 2036. The last thing he's looking for is a war, and the last thing he's looking for is a war with the United States of America."

[Jul 09, 2020] U.S. UK intensify campaign against Russia; UK harks back to first pillar of new Cold War, the Magnitsky hoax – The Komisar Scoop

Notable quotes:
"... Browder testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards ..."
"... Browder's Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it. ..."
"... She says there has been a violation of Article 165 of the criminal code. ..."
"... Browder translates that into Starova accusing his companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his testimony , Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky. ..."
"... Magnitsky's body on a cot in the hospital ward. ..."
"... Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Script: The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door. ..."
"... Magnitsky face shoulders on hospital-bed ..."
"... Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky. ..."
"... Browder doctored report claims a section illegible, third line. ..."
"... Russian document shows nothing is illegible. ..."
"... Dr. Robert Bux ..."
"... They do exist, but Browder did not give them to PHR. ..."
"... Forensic photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee ..."
"... Forensic schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries. ..."
"... closed craniocerebral injury ..."
"... No signs of a violent death detected." ..."
"... Magnitsky death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected ..."
Jul 09, 2020 | www.thekomisarscoop.com

U.S. & UK intensify campaign against Russia; UK harks back to first pillar of new Cold War, the Magnitsky hoax

By Lucy Komisar
July 6, 2020, Committee for an East-West Accord .

Browder testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee
claimed that Magnitsky was beaten to death by 8 riot guards .

The U.S. and UK are intensifying their collaborative Cold War against Russia. In Washington, calls for sanctions are based on the fake "bountygate," and the UK has sanctioned selected Russians based on William Browder's Magnitsky hoax.

The "bountygate" charge that Russia paid militants to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan is unproved by U.S. intelligence agencies and even discounted by the international wire-tapping National Security Agency (NSA). The UK sanctions against 25 Russians, judges and court officials, tax investigators, and prison doctors, are based on disproved claims by billionaire investor William Browder that they were responsible for the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.

Browder's Magnitsky story is a pillar of America's Russiagate, which has five. Before bountygate, there was the 2019 Mueller Report which found no evidence that President Trump had colluded with the Russians, the Jan 2017 intelligence agencies' charge of Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election which concludes with the admission that they had no proof; and the 2016 accusation that Russians had stolen Democratic National Committee emails, made by the private security group CrowdStrike, later walked back by CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry at a secret House hearing in Dec 2017, but not revealed till this May.

With the UK, we return to the first pillar of the U.S. Russiagate story, the 2012 Magnitsky Act, which targeted many on the U.S. list. The Magnitsky Act is recognized as the beginning of the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations. It is based on a hoax invented by Browder and easily disproved by documentary evidence, if governments cared about that.

The European Court of Human Rights on Magnitsky's arrest

First, a few of the obvious fake charges. Three judges are accused of detaining Magnitsky, which the UK says "facilitated" his mistreatment and denial of medical care. However, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in August 2019, "The Russians had good reason to arrest Sergei Magnitsky for Hermitage tax evasion." The Court said: "The accusations were based on documentary evidence relating to the payment of taxes by those companies and statements by several disabled persons who had confessed to sham work for the two companies."

The decision to arrest him was made after "investigating authorities noted that during a tax inquiry which had preceded the criminal investigation, Mr Magnitskiy had influenced witnesses, and that he had been preparing to flee abroad. In particular, he had applied for an entry visa to the United Kingdom and had booked a flight to Kyiv." He was a flight risk.

Several of the UK targets were said to have "facilitated" mistreatment of Magnitsky because they had been involved in a fraud he exposed. The reference is to a $230-million tax refund scam against the Russian Treasury.

Back to the ECHR: "The Court observe[d] that the inquiry into alleged tax evasion, resulting in the criminal proceedings against Mr Magnitskiy, started in 2004, long before he complained that prosecuting officials had been involved in fraudulent acts." The taxes were the real story; the fraud narrative was a cover-up.

The fake fraud story

Magnitsky did not uncover a massive fraud. That was the tax refund fraud in which companies engaged in collusive lawsuits, "lost" the suits, and "agreed" to pay damages equal to their entire year's profits. They then requested a full refund of taxes paid on the now zero gains. The fake lawsuits and payouts were first revealed to police by Russian shell company director Rimma Starova April 9 and July 10, 2008. (Russian originals April and July .)

With investigators on the trail, Browder's Hermitage Fund director Paul Wrench filed a complaint about the fraud, and Browder gave the story to The NYTimes and the Russian paper Vedomosti , which published it July 24, 2008, long before Magnitsky mentioned it in October 2008. His testimony did not accuse any officials.

Browder's Hermitage Fund in 2009 put out press release noting Starova's complaint to police. See last graph. Browder deleted it when his narrative changed, but the Wayback Machine preserved it. She says there has been a violation of Article 165 of the criminal code. Browder translates that into Starova accusing his companies of the theft of state funds. She talks about involvement of Viktor Markelov, who organized the fraud. In his testimony , Markelov said he got documents from a "Sergei Leonidovich." Magnitsky's full name was Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky.

The main story at the center of the Magnitsky Acts in the U.S. and UK are not that he was mistreated or failed to get good medical care, which is what is mostly alleged here. That would put dozens of U.S. prison officials in the crosshairs, including recently those running state prison systems in Alabama and Mississippi . It is that he was murdered. In the only reference to beating, the head of the Matrosskaya detention center is accused of "ordering the handcuffing and beating" of Magnitsky before he died.

The U.S. Act, on which the British version is modeled, says that in detention Magnitsky "was beaten by 8 guards with rubber batons on the last day of his life." But the alleged assailants' names are not on the list. A key argument made by sponsors Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md) and Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass) was that the people targeted – tax investigators, court officials, hospital workers -- played a role in this claimed murder of Magnitsky. (Cardin and McGovern haven't responded to my requests to comment on contradictory evidence.)

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab takes the same line, declaring, "You cannot set foot in this country, and we will seize your blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try," as he announced the new sanctions. Blood-drenched? No evidence supplied for the sanctioned Russians.

For Browder, the purpose of the Magnitsky Acts he promotes in the West is as a political tool to build a wall against Russia's attempt to have him answer for documented financial frauds totaling at least $100 million, and with new evidence as much as $400 million.

The death hoax: Forensic photos tell the truth

Here is the story of Magnitsky death hoax, with links to evidence, including how Browder forged and falsified documents.

Browder had the Russian forensic reports and photos that were made after Magnitsky's death but suppressed what did not support his arguments. The photos in this forensic report show that Magnitsky, allegedly beaten to death, didn't have a life-threatening mark on his body.

Magnitsky's body on a cot in the hospital ward. Script: The position of the corpse of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky.

Script: The situation in the [hospital] ward, viewed towards the door.

Magnitsky face shoulders on hospital-bed . Script: Chest image of Mr. S. L. Magnitsky.

Browder doctored part of another forensic report provided in translation to the Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, Mass., for its analysis of Magnitsky's death. It notes as "illegible" words that show there were no beating marks on Magnitsky's body and that there was no scalp damage. The deleted parts of the true translation are underlined.

"The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck, trunk, upper and lower extremities, with pressure on them with a finger disappear and restore their original color after 8 minutes. Damage not found on the scalp."

The doctored line reads, "The cadaverous spots are abundant, bluish-violet, diffuse, located on the back surface of the neck, trunk, upper and lower extremities, (illegible) not found on the scalp."

Here in the report that Browder gave PHR:

Browder doctored report claims a section illegible, third line.

The paragraph in the Russian document shows nothing is illegible.

Russian document shows nothing is illegible.

The Russian words omitted in the doctored English document are "при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено."

The full Russian text can be translated online: Трупные пятна обильные, синюшно-фиолетовые, разлитые, располагающиеся на задней поверхности шеи, туловища, верхних и нижних конечностей, при надавливании на них пальцем исчезают и восстанавливают свою первоначальную окраску через 8 минут. Повреждений на волосистой части головы не обнаружено. Кости лицевого скелета, хрящи носа на ощупь целы. Глаза закрыты.

What the American pathologist who analyzed Browder's documents said

Dr. Robert Bux

Dr. Robert C. Bux, then coroner/chief medical examiner for the El Paso County Coroner's Office in Colorado Springs, was the forensic expert on the team that wrote the PHR report . Bux told me, "I do not think that these spots are contusions. Contusions will not go away and can be demonstrated by incising or cutting into the tissues under the skin. These are reportedly all on the posterior aspect of the neck, body and limbs and may represent postmortem lividity when the body was viewed by the prosecutor of the autopsy."

Dr. Bux said, "If this is lividity (red purple coloration of the skin) it is not yet fixed and will blanch to a pale skin color and red purple coloration will disappear. If the body is then placed face up i.e. supine then after a few minutes then it will appear again. This is simply due to blood settling in the small blood vessels and a function of gravity."

It's not what a layman reading Browder's forged "illegible" might think.

Dr. Bux added, "Having said all of this, I have never seen any autopsy photographs demonstrating this, and while photographs should have been taken to document all skin abnormalities as well as all surfaces of the body to document the presence or absence of trauma, I do not know if photographs were taken and withheld or never taken ."

PHR said, "A full and independent review of the cause of death of S.L. Magnitsky is not possible given the documentation presented and available to PHR." The document list is at its report pages 2-3 .

The PHR autopsy protocol claims that there are "photo tables on 2 sheets" and "schematic representation of injuries on 1 sheet. However, if they exist, they were not available for the present review."

They do exist, but Browder did not give them to PHR.

Browder posted and widely distributed this composite of photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hand and knee taken November 17 th , 2009, the day after the accountant's death.

Forensic photos of bruises on Magnitsky's hands and knee

He got them from Russian forensic Report 2052. Katie Fisher , doing public relations for Hermitage, posted them, but not the text, to Google Cloud.

The report cited "circular abrasions in the wrist area," a "bluish-violet bruise" and "multiple strip-like horizontally located abrasions."

It said, "A bruise located on the inner surface of the right lower limb in the projection of the ankle joint appeared 3-6 days before the time death."

It concluded, "[T]hese injuries in living persons do not entail a temporary disability or a significant permanent loss of general disability and are not regarded as harm to health, they are not in a cause and effect relationship with death."

The forensic reports attribute bruises to Magnitsky wearing handcuffs and kicking and hitting against cell doors. Magnitsky's lawyer Dmitri Kharitonov told filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, "I think he was simply banging on the door with all his force trying to make them let him out and none paid attention."

No other injuries found

The same report includes schematic drawings of Magnitsky's body on which to note other relevant marks or injuries.

The report said, "There were no marks or injuries noted on his head or torso No other injuries were found on the corpse " Browder didn't send PHR these drawings or make them public.

Forensic schematic drawings showing marks of injuries show no injuries.

Asked if there was evidence that Magnitsky was "beaten to death by riot guards," Dr. Bux told me, "I have no evidence to suggest that this occurred." For the record, PHR said Magnitsky's death was from untreated serious illness. Even without the body photos, its experts didn't claim a beating. Forensic analysts never have.

Manipulating the death certificate

To promote his fabrication, Browder posted a deceptive PowerPoint of the death certificate that indicated a " closed craniocerebral injury ?" circled in red, with the other text too small to read.

The true document told a different story: " No signs of a violent death detected." That url is at the bottom of Browder's own PowerPoint.

Magnitsky death certificate – no signs of a violent death detected

"Closed" meant "past." Several forensic documents include an interview with Magnitsky's mother Natalya Magnitskaya. She told investigators, "In 1993 – I can't say a more accurate date, S.L Magnitsky had a craniocerebral injury. He slipped on the street and as a result hit his head, after which he had headaches for some time."

Investigators obtained full medical records including this on page 29 of Report 555-10 in English, which Browder gave PHR: " On February 4, 1993, at about 08:40 a.m.., in his house entrance he slipped and fell down hitting his head, lost consciousness for a short time, vomited, attended for emergency help by an ambulance which took him to the City Clinic Hospital (GKB). Was examined by the neurosurgeon in the reception ward, craniogram without pathema. Diagnosis: brain concussion, recommended treatment to be taken on an out-patient clinic basis."

Browder's assertion that the "closed craniocerebral injury" came from a beating was a lie.

Browder's changing stories on the death of Magnitsky

Browder did not initially claim Magnitsky had been murdered. He said Magnitsky, left alone uncared for in a room, had simply died. After a few years, pushing the Magnitsky Act, he declared Magnitsky had been tied up and beaten by rubber baton-wielding thugs until dead.

Graphic by Michael Thau.

Browder December 2009 tells Chatham House , London, "I don't know what they were thinking. I don't know whether they killed him deliberately on the night of the 16th, or if he died of neglect."

"They put him in a straight-jacket, put him in an isolation room and waited 1 hour and 18 minutes until he died." December 2010, San Diego Law School .

Then, promoting the Magnitsky Act, "They put him in an isolation cell, tied him to a bed, then allowed eight guards guards beat him with rubber batons for 118 min until he was dead." December 2011, University of Cambridge Judge Business School.

" .they put him in an isolation cell, chained him to a bed, and eight riot guards came in and beat him with rubber batons. That night he was found dead on the cell floor." July 2017, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee .

What the Moscow Public Oversight Commission says really happened

The Public Oversight Commission , an independent Russian NGO, reports Magnitsky's final day differently. November 16, 2009:

7:00pm. The patient behaves inadequately. Talks to a "voice," looks disorientated, and shouts that someone wants to kill him. His condition is diagnosed as psychosis. The emergency doctor was called. There are no body damages apart from traces of handcuffs on the wrists.

7:30pm. He was left unattended without medical support.

8:48pm. Emergency team arrived. When emergency doctors entered the special cell, Sergei was sitting on the cot, with his eyes unfocused.

9:15pm. The patient was surveyed again as his condition deteriorated. He lost consciousness. The reanimation procedure was started (indirect heart massage and ventilation of lungs using the Ambu pillow). The patient was transferred to the special room where he received an artificial ventilation of lungs and a hormones injection.

9:50pm. The patient died."

The commission reported no evidence of beating. The Russian forensic and medical experts' conclusion was that Magnitsky had heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, hepatitis, and pancreatitis, some illnesses predating arrest. They wrote detailed criticism of the doctors' treatment, saying that it wasn't timely or adequate and that "the shortcomings in the provision of the medical assistance to S.L. Magnitsky" caused his death.

But it's not the riot squad beating Browder, with no evidence, sold to the U.S. Congress, the State Department, the UK Parliament, the Foreign Office and the media. Or that U.S. or UK authorities or media ever attempted to prove. Because like the Tonkin Gulf "incident" and Iraq's WMD, the weaponized Russiagate stories have a foreign/military policy goal. Truth is quite irrelevant.

ShareThis

Click here to donate to The Komisar Scoop

7 Responses to " U.S. & UK intensify campaign against Russia; UK harks back to first pillar of new Cold War, the Magnitsky hoax "
  1. Pingback: U.S. & UK intensify campaign against Russia; UK harks back to first pillar of new Cold War, the Magnitsky hoax – The Chaos Cat

  2. Pingback: Links 7/9/2020 | naked capitalism

  3. Pingback: Links 7/9/2020 – collabor8.life

  4. Pingback: Links 7/9/2020 – Viral News Connection

  5. Pingback: Links 7/9/2020 - Health News at Your Fingertips

  6. Pingback: Links 7/9/2020 – Beachum News

  7. matsb Jul 9, 2020 at 3:39 pm

    Very good article. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


[Jul 07, 2020] Mutiny on the Bounties by RAY McGOVERN

Highly recommended!
So they dusted of McFaul to provide the support for bounty provocation. I wonder whether McFaul one one of Epstein guests, or what ?
So who was the clone of Ciaramella this time? People want to know the hero
Notable quotes:
"... Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis. ..."
"... Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ..."
"... As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century . ..."
"... Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan? ..."
"... Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House? ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account. ..."
"... Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation." ..."
"... Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence. ..."
"... Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper. ..."
"... The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website. ..."
"... “It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.” ..."
"... They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter. ..."
"... In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin. ..."
"... Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal. ..."
"... from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.” ..."
"... Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress. ..."
"... Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available. ..."
"... Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

RAY McGOVERN: Mutiny on the Bounties

Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House, as Obama's former ambassador to Russia piles on the nonsense about Trump being in Putin's pocket?

By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News

C orporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered 18 years ago to "justify" the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.

Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The Washington Post 's editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read, incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into "Putin's pocket." (This has become increasingly urgent as the canard of "Russiagate" -- including the linchpin claim that Russia hacked the DNC -- lies gasping for air.)

In an oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO) claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)

McFaul had -- well, let's call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador -- "an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country." What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador who comes back home and just can't stop misleading.

Not to doubt McFaul's ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an "honest man" -- however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.

Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama's director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA's illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC's Chuck Todd about "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tcN_tWk089w?feature=oembed

As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper's proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected -- the most embarrassing such "intelligence assessment" I have seen in half a century .

Obama and the National Security State

I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the pitiably self-serving "analysis" of the National Security State. Then I re-read "Obama Misses the Afghan Exit-Ramp" of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were -- like their predecessors in Vietnam -- in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all documented in Craig Whitlock's, "The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth." Corporate media, who played an essential role in that "war with the truth", have not given Whitlock's damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.

Some Questions

Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.

Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats' bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan?

Does the current flap bespeak some kind of "Mutiny on the Bounties," so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump's national security council as a "whistleblower" and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump's telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump's White House?

And what does one make of the spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump's planned pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Times reports has now been blocked until after the election?

Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor

And who published McFaul's oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack. Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.

To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. "If you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction," Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review . "If that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]

At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry, offered this comment: "Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn't real, we're not supposed to confidently declare that it is." That Hiatt is still in that job speaks volumes.

'Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent'

It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the "intelligence" on WMD in Iraq was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.

Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV) said the attack on Iraq was launched "under false pretenses." He described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

Homework

Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)

Here's an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul's oped carefully. It appears under the title: "Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he's ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia's pattern of hostility matches Trump's pattern of accommodation."

And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international norms, rules and laws -- and daring the United States to do anything about it."

Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul's text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul's claims, determine which of the claims is (a) "uncorroborated"; which (b) "contradicted"; and which (c) "non-existent;" or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence.

Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with "Deja vu, all over again." Sorry, Yogi, that's what it is; you coined it.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.


Tarus77 , July 6, 2020 at 14:25

Gad, one wonders if it can ever get much lower in the press and the answer is yes, it can and will go lower, i.e. the mcfaul/hiatt tag team. They are still plumbing for the lows.

The question becomes just how stupid these two are or how stupid do they believe the readership is to read and believe this garbage.

Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:58

By now the Russia did it ! is in effect a joke in Russia. Economically, politically, geo strategically China and Asia and Africa have become more important and reliable partners of Russia than the USA. And Europe is also dropping fast on the trustworthy partners list…..

John , July 5, 2020 at 12:55

Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both long-time members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), flagship of the globalist “liberal world order”. The CFR and its many interlocking affiliates, along with their media assets and frontmen in government, have dominated US policy since WW2. Most of the Fed chairmen and secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and CIA have been CFR members, including Jerome Powell and Mark Esper.

The major finance, energy, defense and media corporations are CFR sponsors, and several of their execs are members. David Rubenstein, billionaire founder of the notorious Carlyle Group, is the current CFR chairman. Laurence Fink, billionaire chairman of BlackRock, is a CFR director. See lists at the CFR website.

Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:38

Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are both very active promoters of hate crimes. Neither has any decency hence decency is allergic to war profiteers and opportunistic liars.

The poor USA; to descend to such a deep moral hole that both Michael McFaul and Fred Hiatt are still alive and prospering. Shamelessness and presstituting are paid well in the US.

Juan M Escobedo , July 5, 2020 at 11:35

Dems and Reps are already mad. You cannot destroy what does not exist; like Democracy in these United States. Nor God or Putin could. This has always being a fallacy. This is not a democracy; same thing with ”communist" China or the USSR .Those two were never socialist. There has never being a real Socialist or Communist country.

Guy , July 4, 2020 at 12:26

“It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.”

That statement goes to the crux of the matter.Why should journalists care about what is true or a lie in their reports ,they know they will never be held to account .They should be held to account through the court system . A lie by any journalist should be actionable by any court of law . The fear of jail time would sort out the scam journalists we presently have to endure .

As it is they have perverted the profession of journalism and it is the law of the jungle .No true democracy should put up with this. We are surrounded with lies that are generated by the very establishment that should protect it’s citizens from same .

Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:36

They are spoon fed those lies by our “intelligence” agencies. As CNN’s Jeff Zucker said, “We’re not investigators, we’re journalists”. Replace “journalists” with “toadies” or “shills” for our “intelligence” community and you’ve gotten to the truth of the matter.

Anna , July 6, 2020 at 09:50

The ‘journalists’ observe how things have been going on for Cheney the Traitor and Bush the lesser — nothing happened to the mega criminals. The hate-bursting and war-profiteering Cheney’s daughter has even squeezed into US Congress.

In a healthy society where human dignity is cherished, the Cheney family will be ostracized and the family name became a synonym for the word ‘traitor.’ In the unhealthy society of Clintons, Obamas, Epstein, Mueller, Adelsons, Clapper, and Krystols, human dignity is a sin.

Ricard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 11:42

Our institutions including journalism are not merely corrupt, they are degenerate. That is, the corruption is not occasional or the exception is is by design, desired and entirely normal.

Stan W. , July 4, 2020 at 12:10

I’m still confident that Durham’s investigation will expose and successfully prosecute the maggots that infest our government.

Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 15:29

What is the basis for this confidence?

John Puma , July 4, 2020 at 12:03

Re: whether Obumma “had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School” of Russia Analytics.

It would be a worthy addition to his degree collection featuring that earned from the Neville Chamberlain Night School of Critical Political Negotiation.

Jeff Harrison , July 4, 2020 at 11:16

Hmmm. Lessee. The US attacks Afghanistan with about the same legitimacy that we had when we attacked Iraq and the Taliban are in charge. We oust the Taliban from power and put our own puppets in place. What idiot thinks that the Taliban are going to need a bounty to kill Americans?

Wendy LaRiviere , July 4, 2020 at 18:29

Jeff Harrison, I like your logic. Plus, I understand that far fewer Americans are being killed in Afghanistan than were under Obama’s administration.

AnneR , July 4, 2020 at 10:27

Frankly, I am sick to death of the unwarranted, indeed bestial Russophobia that is megaphoned minute by minute on NPR and the BBC World Service (only radio here since my husband died). If it isn’t this latest trumped up (ho ho) charge, there are repeated mentions, in passing, of course, of the Russiagate, hacking, Kremlin control of the Strumpet to back up the latest bunch of lies.

Doesn’t matter at *all* that Russiagate was debunked, that even Mueller couldn’t actually demonstrably pull the DNC/ruling elites rabbit out of the hat, that the impeachment of the Strumpet went nowhere. And it clearly – by its total absence on the above radio broadcasts – doesn’t matter one iota that the Pentagonal hasn’t gone along, that gaping holes in the confabulation are (and were) obvious to those who cared to think with half a mind awake and reflecting on past US ruling elite lies, untruths, obfuscations. Nope. Just repeat, repeat, repeat. Orwell would clap his hands (not because he agreed with the atrocious politics but the lesson is learnt).

Added to the whipped up anti-Russia, decidedly anti-Putin crapola – is of course the Russian peoples’ vote, decision making on their own country’s changes to the Basic Law (a form of Constitution). When the radio broadcasts the usual sickening anti-Russian/Putin propaganda regarding this vote immediately prior they would state that the changes would install Putin for many more years: no mention that he would have to be elected, i.e. voted by the populace into the presidency. (This was repeated ad infinitum without any elaboration.) No other proposed changes were mentioned – certainly not that the Duma would gain greater control over the governance of the country and over the president’s cabinet. I.e. that the popularly elected (ain’t that what we call democracy??) representatives in the Duma (parliament) would essentially have more power than the president.

But most significantly, to my mind, no one has (well of course not – this is Russia) raised the issue of the fact that it was the Russian people, the vox populi/hoi polloi, who have had some say in how they are to be governed, how their government will work for them. HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works – let alone for us, the hoi polloi? When did we the citizenry last have a voting say on ANY sentence in the Constitution that governs us??? Ummm I do believe it was the creation of the wealthy British descended slave holding, real estate ethnic-cleansing lot who wrote and ratified the original document and the hardly dissimilar Congressional and state types who have over the years written and voted on various amendments. And it is the members of the upper classes in the Supreme Court who adjudicate on its application to various problems.

BUT We the hoi polloi have never, ever had a direct opportunity to individually vote for or against any single part of the Constitution which is supposed to be the “democratic” superstructure which governs us. Unlike the Russians a couple of days ago.

Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:48

“HOW much say have we had/do we have in how our government functions, works…” See, that’s your mistake right there. WE don’t have a government. We need one, but we ain’t got one. THEY have a government which they let us go through the motions of electing. ‘Member back when Bernie was talking about a Political Revolution?

Here’s a little fact for you. The five most populous states have a total of 123,000,000 people. That’s 10 Senators. The five least populated states have a total of 3.5 million. That’s also 10 Senators. Democracy anyone?

vinnieoh , July 4, 2020 at 09:37

There have been three coup d’état within the US within the lifetimes of most that read these pages. The first was explained to us by Eisenhower only as he was exiting his time from the national stage; the MIC had co-opted our government. The second happened in 2000, with the putsch in Florida and then the adoption by the neocon cabal of Bush /Chaney of the PNAC blueprint “Strategies for Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (Defenses – hahahaha – shit!). The third happened late last year and early this year when the bottom-up grass-roots movement of progressivism was crushed by the DNC and the cold-warrior hack Biden was inserted as the champion of “the opposition party.”

And, make no mistake that Kamala Harris WILL be his running mate. It was always going to be Harris. It was to be Harris at the TOP of the ticket as the primaries began, but she wasn’t even placing in the top tier in any of the contests. However, the poohbahs and strategists of the DNC are nothing if not determined and consistent. If Biden should win, we should all start practicing now saying “President Harris” because that is what the future holds. For the DNC, she looks the part, she sounds the part, but more importantly she is the very definition of the status quo, corporate ass-kisser, MIC tool.

The professional political class have fully colluded to fatally cripple this democratic republic. “Democracy” is just a word they say like, “Where’s my kickback?” (excuse me – my “motivation”.) This bounty scam and the rehabilitation of GW Bush are nothing but a full blitzkrieg flanking of Trump on the right. And Trump of course is so far out of his depth that he actually believes that Israel is his friend. (A hint Donny: Israel is NO-ONE’S friend.)

What is most infuriating? hope-crushing? plain f$%&*#g scary? is that the majority of Americans from all quarters do not want any of what the professional political class keeps dumping on us. The very attempt at performing this upcoming election will finally and forever lay completely bare the collapse of a functioning government. It’s going to be very ugly, and it may very well be the end. Dog help us all.

Richard Coleman , July 6, 2020 at 15:51

Don’t you think that the assassination of JFK counts as a coup d’etat?

Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:10

Apres moi, le Deluge.

John Drake , July 7, 2020 at 11:25

Oh gosh how can you forget the Kennedy Assassination. Most people don’t realize he was had ordered the removal of a thousand advisors from Vietnam starting the process of completely cutting bait there, as he had in Laos and Cambodia. All of which made the generals apoplectic. The great secret about Vietnam-which Ellsberg discovered much latter, and mentioned in his book Secrets, another good read- was that every president had been warned it was likely futile. Kennedy was the only one who took that intelligence seriously-like it was actually intelligent intelligence.

Enter stage right Allen Dulles (fired CIA chief), the anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia and most important the MIC; exit Jack Kennedy.

Douglas, JFK why he died and why it matters is the best work on the subject. And no Oswald did not do it; it was a sniper team from different angles, but read the book it gets complicated.

Roger , July 4, 2020 at 09:11

from Counterpunch.org : “Around 15,000 Soviet troops perished in the Afghan War between 1979 and 1989. The US funneled more than $20 billion to the Mujahideen and other anti-Soviet fighters over that same period. This works out to a “bounty” of $1.33 million for each Soviet soldier killed.”

Skip Scott , July 4, 2020 at 08:35

I am wondering how Cheney and Crow can block Trump from withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan. Is Trump Commander in Chief, or not? How can two senators stop the Commander in Chief from commanding troop movements? I realize they control the budget, but aren’t they crossing into illegality by restricting Trump’s ability to “command”?

Toad Sprocket , July 4, 2020 at 16:49

Yeah, I imagine it’s illegal. Didn’t Lindsay Graham threaten the same thing when Trump was thinking of pulling troops/”advisers” from Syria? And other congress warmongers joined in though I don’t think any legislation was passed. They can’t be bothered to authorize the starts of wars but want to step in when someone tries to end them.

Oh, and Schumer on South Korea troops, I think that one did pass. Almost certainly illegal if it came down to it, but our government is of course lawless. And our courts full of judges who are bought off or moronic or both.

dean 1000 , July 4, 2020 at 06:52

The soft coup attempt continues Ray. More lies and bullshit. It may continue until election day. Will the media fess-up to its lies after the fact again?

Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49

“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.”

Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress.

”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of ‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what they are themselves actually doing.

The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

Antonia Young , July 4, 2020 at 12:20

Putin’s (and by extension the Russian Federation’s) primary objective is international stability. “Destroying America, dividing Americans is the last thing he wants.) Putin learned many lessons during the break-up of the U.S.S.R. observing the carpet baggers/oligarchs/vultures who descended on the weak nation, absconding with it’s wealth and resources at mere fractions of their real value. The deep state’s worst fear is the co-operation btwn Putin and President Trump to make the world more peaceful, stable, co-operative and prosperous.

rosemerry , July 4, 2020 at 16:10

The whole conceited and arrogant “belief” that

  1. The USA has any resemblance to a democracy and
  2. Pres. Putin has nothing else to do but think how he could do a better job of showing the destructive and irresponsible behavior of the USA than its own leaders” and media can do with no help has no basis in reality.

If anything, Putin is such a stickler for international law, negotiations, avoidance of conflict that he is regarded by many as too Christian for this modern, individualistic, LBGTQ, ”nobody matters but me” worldview of the USA!

Steve Naidamast , July 5, 2020 at 19:54

“If the enemy is self destructing, let them continue to do so…”

Napoleon

Zhu , July 7, 2020 at 02:17

“zionist cliques”: Christian Zionist fighting Fundies, eager for the End of the World, the Second Coming of Jesus.

delia ruhe , July 4, 2020 at 01:09

Yup, we got a Bountygate. Since my early morning visit to the Foreign Policy site, the place has exploded with breathless articles on the dastardly Putin and the cowardly Trump, who has so far failed to hold Putin to account. Reminded me of a similar explosion there when Russiagate finally got the attention the Dems thought it deserved.

(Anyone think that the intel community pays a fee to each of the FP columnists whenever one of their a propaganda narratives needs a push to get it off the ground?)

JOHN CHUCKMAN , July 4, 2020 at 08:52

Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist. He wrote a sensational book about the practices he experienced of the CIA paying German journalists to publish certain stories. The book was a big best seller in Germany. Its English translation was suppressed for years, but I believe is now available.

Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:30

Reply to John Chuckman: I’d love to read this book but it wasn’t available a few years ago when I looked. I’ll look again!

Voice from Europe , July 6, 2020 at 11:52

Gekaufte journalisten. Ulfkotte admitted he signed off on numerous articles that were prepared for him during his career. The last year’s of his life he changed his mores and advocated “better die in truth than live with lies”.

Richard A. , July 4, 2020 at 00:59

I remember the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour from decades ago. Real experts on Russia like Dimitri Simes and Stephen Cohen were the ones to appear on that NewsHour. The NewsHour of today rarely has experts on Russia, just experts on Russia bashing–like Michael McFaul. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Antonia Young , July 3, 2020 at 23:35

Thank you, Ray for your clarion voice in the midst of WMD-seventeen-point-oh. Will the American people have the wisdom to notice how many times we’re being fooled? And finally wake up and stop supporting these questionable news outlets? With appreciation for your excellent analysis, as usual. ~Tonia Young (Formerly with the Topanga Peace Alliance)

Blessthebeasts , July 4, 2020 at 11:55

The majority of Americans have a lot more to worry about than the latest nonsense about Russia. I think most people just tune it out.

The ones being fooled are the fools who have been lapping this crap up from the get go. The supposed educated class who think themselves superior and well informed because they read and listen to the propaganda of PBS, NPR, NYT etc.

They don’t seem to realize the ship is sinking while they’re playing these ridiculous games.

Susan Siens , July 5, 2020 at 16:34

The supposedly educated class, yes! It can be stunning how people believe anything they hear on PBS or NPR, and then they make fun of people who believe anything they hear on Fox News. What’s the difference? Both are propaganda tools.

And, yes, watch us go down in flames while so-called progressives boo-hoo about Trump thinking he’s above the law (like every other president before him). Our local “peace and justice” group sent me an email asking me to sign a petition supporting Robert Mueller. I was gobsmacked, and then I realized our local “peace and justice” group had been taken over by Democratic Party “resisters.” Jeezums, why is every word hijacked?

[Jul 07, 2020] Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy

Jul 07, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

In an oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin's alleged crimes, offering a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow's (D-CO) claim that: "Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy."

Francis Lee , July 4, 2020 at 04:49

“Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.”

Yes, of course it is a well-known ‘fact’ that Putin has nothing better to do than destory American democracy, and I bet he has dreams about it too! But I am minded to think that if anybody has a penchant for destroying American democracy it is the powers that be in the US deep state, intelligence agencies, and zionist cliques controlling the President and Congress.

”Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.”

The American establishment seems to be suffering from a bad case of ‘projection’ as psychiatrists call it. That is to say accusing others of what they are themselves actually doing.

The whole idiotic circus would be hilarious if it were not so serious.

[Jul 07, 2020] The value of Trumpo in exposing the Deep State and controlled by intelligence services MSM

Jul 07, 2020 | www.unz.com

David Rodriguez , says: July 6, 2020 at 12:56 pm GMT

@Robert White how self-important, arrogant, and entitled these jerks are, they would understand the volcanic rage directed at Trump. But there is more. Many of these people really are utterly corrupt in the sense that they have made huge amounts of money through illegal deals, influence-peddling, etc. They felt secure in the knowledge that Hillary Clinton was surely not going to go after them, though she might have insisted on a piece of the pie,, like the greasy, small-town lawyer she is. Now things are not nearly so sure and they know it.
Trump is far from perfect, in any way you can imagine. Come November, after he has used Joe Biden as a dishrag, Mr. White and friends will suffer a real case of the sadz.

[Jul 07, 2020] The five Eyes need an enemy to keep budgets up, anyone will do, and Russia is Wall street's favorite bogey, keeping China out of the limelight.

Jul 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Antonym , Jul 6 2020 3:07 utc | 82

My impression at this point:

Russia since Putin does not offer much global profit; Xi Jinping on the other hand does, for (manufacturing) stock market darlings like Apple, Amazon or Walmart etc. The five Eyes need an enemy to keep budgets up, anyone will do, and Russia is Wall street's favorite bogey, keeping China out of the limelight.

Western left keeps on supporting Xi, bedazzled by his orchestrated propaganda of being a benign ruler. They barely care about Russia, the main activity is denigrating their own West: "we" are bad = some European colonialists and fascists of two or more generations ago .

[Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | thegrayzone.com

US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous

Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to the right

Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no action.

Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."

"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this Cold War," Blumenthal says.

Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his latest "The Management of Savagery."

TRANSCRIPT

AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.

Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story. But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans, but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some Americans killed.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?

SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.

Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters, or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know, capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international dialogue.

This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the, you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are. They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.

AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan detainees.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this latest fake bombshell.

JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.

OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?

JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.

Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19 years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know, fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.

But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory. Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.

And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and, you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now, and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.

Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just simply doesn't want peace in these areas.

So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.

That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.

THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.

And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who hate Donald Trump.

And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron, number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.

So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.

AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here, starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria, said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.

JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.

DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty rounds for this?

TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as well.

DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed, we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.

TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.

DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.

TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.

And then with the introduction of the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.

So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So, this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy price.

MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price. The other thing

CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?

MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.

MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.

AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.

Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we will find out."

It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing? They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president do.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles, because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald, you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better! Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?

Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean, just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.

AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her position in the shadow cabinet.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.

I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason. I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.

We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any official capacity.

AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.

We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press [News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia, reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these conversations in the near future.

AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of Savagery , thanks a lot.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Thanks for having me.

[Jul 06, 2020] Trump's two Russias confound coherent US policy

This is a neocon written article. Reader beware.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | apnews.com

When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make up its mind.

For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.

The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.

Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his first term with a difficult reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence suggesting Russia was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.

The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been aware.

The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe and the United States with disinformation and election interference .

Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the continent.

But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.

Trump's approach to Russia was at center stage in the impeachment proceedings, when U.S. officials testified that the president demanded political favors from Ukraine in return for military assistance it needed to combat Russian aggression. But the issue ended up as a largely partisan exercise, with House Democrats voting to impeach Trump and Senate Republicans voting to acquit .

Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their positions.

Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the campaign illegally conspired with Russia.

Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in Helsinki .

Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.

Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.

At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in Afghanistan.

On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated, he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the objections of the other members.

White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in its ability to create chaos.

[Jul 06, 2020] The attack on Russian athletes is just another instance of the American and Western petty hatred of Russia

Jul 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Erelis , Jul 5 2020 20:59 utc | 46

I tell people: "Russia dopes their Olympians. America rapes them." The attack on Russian athletes is just another instance of the American and Western petty hatred of Russia. When the athletes got independent tests certifying they are clean, they were still not allowed to participate in many international events. As Russian hackers revealed some of the biggest names in sports are legally allowed meds because of existing conditions. Sure.Right. Who knew that the Norwegian team and country have the highest rates of asthma around and required performance enhancing drugs. Russia was a way to distract away from other country's doping.

[Jul 03, 2020] My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the two bosses is a better businessman.

Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Jul 3 2020 5:43 utc | 96

My take on Tucker and Maddow: both serve those who write their paychecks, but one of the two bosses is a better businessman.

Tucker does not duplicate Hannity which lets them serve different (if overlapping) segments of the audience. Showing Paralimpil and Gabbard to the viewers did not lead to any major perturbation in American politics, but it lets his viewer feel that they are better informed than the fools who watch Maddow. And it helps that to a degree they are.

uncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 6:53 utc | 103

JC #72

I get that Tucker invites good a reasonable people on his show and gives voice space where they would not otherwise get it. That is deliberate.

I bet you that the stats show that the demented monotone oozing out of MSNBC and CNN etc has been a serious turn off for a sector of audience that is well informed and exercise critical faculties. That is exactly what Tucker needs to pay for his program as I would be fairly sure these people are Consumers of a desirable degree and advertisers like Tucker's formula and Fox Bosses like Tuckers income generator.

I don't think it is more complex than that and his bosses will entertain most heresies as long as the program generates advertiser demand for that time slot.

So Tucker is OK and he is reasonable and he will interview a broad spectrum. Good for him. But he smooths the pillow and caresses the establishment arse.

[Jul 03, 2020] Russians to the USA embassy: 1993. It was yours; 2020. It will be ours!

Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ashino , Jul 3 2020 11:20 utc | 129

The Russian Constitution Was Projected Onto the US Embassy Building in Moscow

https://www.youtube.com/watchtime_continue=1&v=J1Bk11INPNI&feature=emb_logo

The organisers projected an image of the cover of the Russian Constitution against the background of Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, and the inscription "1993. It was yours " Then there is an image of the Russian people and the message "2020. It will be ours!", followed by a call to come to vote, was projected on the building of the US Embassy. The light projection was organised by the art group "Re:Venge".
https://www.stalkerzone.org/the-russian-constitution-was-projected-onto-the-us-embassy-building-in-moscow/

Ha, I really like this one ! Would have loved to watch 'das dumme Gesicht' (something like >>stupid face<< but stronger. like the Germans say) of the latest Trump's edition of silly ambassadors, lol !!!

[Jul 03, 2020] FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no reinstatement on horizon. FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large commercial relationship w/Germany.

Notable quotes:
"... Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J. Chuba , Jul 3 2020 16:13 utc | 162

VK, re: Russia's grip on Europe is gradually tightening from the U.K.'s INDEPENDENT

It's behind a paywall but I read just enough to be curious as to how someone could possibly justify a clickbait title like that.

I suspect that the rest of the article is just going to recap Russia's alleged sins in order to fan hatred but how can someone objectively say that Russia is tightening its grip on Europe?

  1. FUCKUS banned Russia from the Olympics on a bogus state sponsored steroid scam, no reinstatement on horizon.
  2. FUCKUS kicked Russia out of the now G7 and imposed a trade embargo that destroyed a large commercial relationship w/Germany.

What is the 'overwhelming' evidence that the Russians poisoned the Skripal's, Novichok can be made by just about anyone.

Some countries like Italy (maybe Germany) are warming to Russia a little bit but Russia has a long way to go just to get back to their pre-2014 status with Europe. That is 'tightening their grip?'. I know, this is how propagandists speak.

[Jul 01, 2020] Putin s economic and social policies have a neoliberal bent but Putin is far from a classic neoliberal

Highly recommended!
Putin has to stay within neoliberal framework because this is a the dominant social framework in existence. But he is determine to "tame the markets" when necessary which is definitely anathema to neoliberals. So he is kind of mixture of neoliberal and traditional New Deal style statist. At the same time he definitely deviates from neoliberalism in some major areas, such as labor market and monopolies.
Jul 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
likbez , July 02, 2020 at 03:51
@Prof K | Jul 1 2020 20:50 utc | 18
In fact, much of his economic and social policies have a decidedly neoliberal bent. As Tony Wood argues, Putin has reformed and consolidated the Yeltsin system. There is not as much of a break with Yeltsin as liberals -- or apparently leftists looking for any hope -- want to believe.
You have no clue. This is a typical left-wing "Infantile Disorder" point of view based on zero understanding of Russia and neoliberalism as a social system. Not that I am a big specialist, but your level of ignorance and arrogance is really stunning.

Neoliberalism as a social system means internal colonization of population by financial oligarchy and resulting decline of the standard of living for lower 80% due to the redistribution of wealth up. It also means subservience to international financial capital and debt slavery for vassal countries (the group to which Russia in views of Washington belongs) .

The classic example is Ukraine where 80% of population are now live on the edge of abject poverty. Russia, although with great difficulties, follows a different path. This is indisputable.

The neoliberal resolution which happened under alcoholic Yeltsin was stopped or at least drastically slowed down by Putin. Some issues were even reversed. For example, the USA interference via NGO ended. Direct interference of the USA into internal affairs of Russia ( Russia was a USA colony under Yeltsin ) also diminished, although was not completely eliminated (and this is impossible in view of the USA position in the the hegemon of the neoliberal "International" and owner of the world reserve currency.)

Those attempts to restore the sovereignty of Russia were clearly anti-neoliberal acts of Putin. After all the slogan of neoliberalism is "financial oligarchy of all countries unite" -- kind of perversion of Trotskyism (or. more correctly, "Trotskyism for the rich.")

In general, Yeltsin's model of neoliberalism in Russia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semibankirschina ) experienced serious setbacks under Putin's rule, although some of his measures were distinctly neoliberal.

Recent "Medvedev's" pension reform is one (which was partially a necessity due to the state of Russian finances at the time; although the form that was chosen -- in your face, without some type of carrot -- was really mediocre, like almost anything coming from Medvedev ); some botched attempt in privatization of electrical networks with Chubais at the helm is another -- later stopped, etc.

But in reality, considerable if not dominant political power now belongs to corporations, whether you want it or not. And that creates strong neoliberal fifth column within the country. That's a huge problem for Putin. The alternative is dictatorship which usually does not end well. So there is not much space for maneuvering anyway. You need to play the anti-neoliberal game very skillfully as you always have weak cards in hands, the point which people like VK never understand.

BTW, unlike classic neoliberals, Putin is a consistent proponent of indexation of income of lower strata of the population to inflation, which he even put in the constitution. Unlike Putin, classic neoliberals preach false narrative that "the rising tide lifts all boats."

All-in-all whenever possible, Putin often behaves more like a New Deal Capitalism adherent, than like a neoliberal. He sincerely is trying to provide a decent standard of living for lower 80% of the population. He preserves a large share of state capital in strategically important companies. Some of them are still state-owned (anathema for any neoliberal.)

But he operates in conditions where neoliberalism is the dominant system and when Russia is under constant, unrelenting pressure, and he needs to play by the rules.

Like any talented politician, he found some issues were he can safely deviate from neoliberal consensus without too hard sanctions. In other matters, he needs to give up to survive.

[Jul 01, 2020] Russiagate's Last Gasp by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins. ..."
"... But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad. ..."
"... Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." ..."
"... If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us. ..."
"... I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top. ..."
Jun 29, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia paid the Taliban to kill GIs as an attempt to pre-empt the findings into Russiagate's origins.

By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News

O n Friday The New York Times featured a report based on anonymous intelligence officials that the Russians were paying bounties to have U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan with President Donald Trump refusing to do anything about it. The flurry of Establishment media reporting that ensued provides further proof, if such were needed, that the erstwhile "paper of record" has earned a new moniker -- Gray Lady of easy virtue.

Over the weekend, the Times ' dubious allegations grabbed headlines across all media that are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective. To keep the pot boiling this morning, The New York Times' David Leonhardt's daily web piece , "The Morning" calls prominent attention to a banal article by a Heather Cox Richardson, described as a historian at Boston College, adding specific charges to the general indictment of Trump by showing "how the Trump administration has continued to treat Russia favorably." The following is from Richardson's newsletter on Friday:

Historian Richardson added:

"All of these friendly overtures to Russia were alarming enough when all we knew was that Russia attacked the 2016 U.S. election and is doing so again in 2020. But it is far worse that those overtures took place when the administration knew that Russia had actively targeted American soldiers. this bad news apparently prompted worried intelligence officials to give up their hope that the administration would respond to the crisis, and instead to leak the story to two major newspapers."

Hear the siren? Children, get under your desks!

The Tall Tale About Russia Paying for Dead U.S. Troops

Times print edition readers had to wait until this morning to learn of Trump's statement last night that he was not briefed on the cockamamie tale about bounties for killing, since it was, well, cockamamie.

Late last night the president tweeted: "Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or the VP. "

For those of us distrustful of the Times -- with good reason -- on such neuralgic issues, the bounty story had already fallen of its own weight. As Scott Ritter pointed out yesterday:

"Perhaps the biggest clue concerning the fragility of the New York Times ' report is contained in the one sentence it provides about sourcing -- "The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals." That sentence contains almost everything one needs to know about the intelligence in question, including the fact that the source of the information is most likely the Afghan government as reported through CIA channels. "

And who can forget how "successful" interrogators can be in getting desired answers.

Russia & Taliban React

The Kremlin called the Times reporting "nonsense an unsophisticated plant," and from Russia's perspective the allegations make little sense; Moscow will see them for what they are -- attempts to show that Trump is too "accommodating" to Russia.

A Taliban spokesman called the story "baseless," adding with apparent pride that "we" have done "target killings" for years "on our own resources."

Russia is no friend of the Taliban. At the same time, it has been clear for several years that the U.S. would have to pull its troops out of Afghanistan. Think back five decades and recall how circumspect the Soviets were in Vietnam. Giving rhetorical support to a fraternal Communist nation was de rigueur and some surface-to-air missiles gave some substance to that support.

But Moscow recognized from the start that Washington was embarked on a fool's errand in Vietnam. There would be no percentage in getting directly involved. And so, the Soviets sat back and watched smugly as the Vietnamese Communists drove U.S. forces out on their "own resources." As was the case with the Viet Cong, the Taliban needs no bounty inducements from abroad.

Besides, the Russians knew painfully well -- from their own bitter experience in Afghanistan, what the outcome of the most recent fool's errand would be for the U.S. What point would they see in doing what The New York Times and other Establishment media are breathlessly accusing them of?

CIA Disinformation; Casey at Bat

Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false."

Casey made that remark at the first cabinet meeting in the White House under President Ronald Reagan in early 1981, according to Barbara Honegger, who was assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser. Honegger was there, took notes, and told then Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who in turn made it public.

If Casey's spirit is somehow observing the success of the disinformation program called Russiagate, one can imagine how proud he must be. But sustained propaganda success can be a serious challenge. The Russiagate canard has lasted three and a half years. This last gasp effort, spearheaded by the Times , to breathe more life into it is likely to last little more than a weekend -- the redoubled efforts of Casey-dictum followers notwithstanding.

Russiagate itself has been unraveling, although one would hardly know it from the Establishment media. No collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Even the sacrosanct tenet that the Russians hacked the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks has been disproven , with the head of the DNC-hired cyber security firm CrowdStrike admitting that there is no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or anyone else .

U.S. Attorney John Durham. (Wikipedia)

How long will it take the Times to catch up with the CrowdStrike story, available since May 7?

The media is left with one sacred cow: the misnomered "Intelligence Community" Assessment of Jan. 6, 2017, claiming that President Putin himself ordered the hacking of the DNC. That "assessment" done by "hand-picked analysts" from only CIA, FBI and NSA (not all 17 intelligence agencies of the "intelligence community") reportedly is being given close scrutiny by U. S. Attorney John Durham, appointed by the attorney general to investigate Russiagate's origins.

If Durham finds it fraudulent (not a difficult task), the heads of senior intelligence and law enforcement officials may roll. That would also mean a still deeper dent in the credibility of Establishment media that are only too eager to drink the Kool Aid and to leave plenty to drink for the rest of us.

Do not expect the media to cease and desist, simply because Trump had a good squelch for them last night -- namely, the "intelligence" on the "bounties" was not deemed good enough to present to the president.

(As a preparer and briefer of The President's Daily Brief to Presidents Reagan and HW Bush, I can attest to the fact that -- based on what has been revealed so far -- the Russian bounty story falls far short of the PDB threshold.)

Rejecting Intelligence Assessments

Nevertheless, the corporate media is likely to play up the Trump administration's rejection of what the media is calling the "intelligence assessment" about Russia offering -- as Rachel Maddow indecorously put it on Friday -- "bounty for the scalps of American soldiers in Afghanistan."

I am not a regular Maddow-watcher, but to me she seemed unhinged -- actually, well over the top.

The media asks, "Why does Trump continue to disrespect the assessments of the intelligence community?" There he goes again -- not believing our "intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin."

In other words, we can expect no let up from the media and the national security miscreant leakers who have served as their life's blood. As for the anchors and pundits, their level of sophistication was reflected yesterday in the sage surmise of Face the Nation's Chuck Todd, who Aaron Mate reminds us, is a "grown adult and professional media person." Todd asked guest John Bolton: "Do you think that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election, and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?"

"This is as bad as it gets," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday, adding the aphorism she memorized several months ago: "All roads lead to Putin." The unconscionably deceitful performance of Establishment media is as bad as it gets, though that, of course, was not what Pelosi meant. She apparently lifted a line right out of the Times about how Trump is too "accommodating" toward Russia.

One can read this most recent flurry of Russia, Russia, Russia as a reflection of the need to pre-empt the findings likely to issue from Durham and Attorney General William Barr in the coming months -- on the theory that the best defense is a pre-emptive offense. Meanwhile, we can expect the corporate media to continue to disgrace itself.

Vile

Caitlin Johnstone, typically, pulls no punches regarding the Russian bounty travesty:

"All parties involved in spreading this malignant psyop are absolutely vile, but a special disdain should be reserved for the media class who have been entrusted by the public with the essential task of creating an informed populace and holding power to account. How much of an unprincipled whore do you have to be to call yourself a journalist and uncritically parrot the completely unsubstantiated assertions of spooks while protecting their anonymity? How much work did these empire fluffers put into killing off every last shred of their dignity? It boggles the mind.

It really is funny how the most influential news outlets in the Western world will uncritically parrot whatever they're told to say by the most powerful and depraved intelligence agencies on the planet, and then turn around and tell you without a hint of self-awareness that Russia and China are bad because they have state media.

Sometimes all you can do is laugh."

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst he led the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and prepared The President's Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.


Aaron , June 30, 2020 at 12:33

If anything, all roads lead to Israel. You have to consider the sources, the writers, journalists, editors, owners, and rich people from which these stories come. This latest ridiculous story will certainly help Trump, so the sources of these Russia stories are actually fans of Trump, they love his tax cuts, he helps their revenue streams, and he's the greatest friend and Zionist to Israel so far and also Wall Street. I think most Americans can understand that Putin doesn't possess all of the supernatural all-encompassing powers and mind-controlling omnipotence that Pelosi and her ilk attribute to him. That's why at his rallies, when Trump points to where the journalists are and sneers at them calling them bloodsuckers and parasites and all that, the people love it, because of stuff like this. It's like saying "look at those assholes, those liberal journalists over at CNN say that you voted for me because of Vladimir Putin?!" It just pisses off people to keep hearing that mantra over and over. So it's a gift to Trump, it helps him so much. And seeing that super expensive helicopter flying around the barren rocky slopes of the middle east, seems like it's out of some Rambo movie. And like Rambo, the tens of thousands of American servicemen that were sacrificed over there, and still commit suicides at a horrific rate, have always been treated by the architects of these wars that only helped the state of Israel, as the expendables. Whether it's a black life, a soldier fighting in Iraq, a foreclosed on homeowner by Mnuchin's work, or a brainwashed New York Times subscriber, we don't seem to matter, we seem to feel the truth that to these people were are indeed expendable. The question to answer I think is, not who is a Russian asset, but who is an Israeli asset?

Andrew Thomas , June 30, 2020 at 12:04

Great reporting as usual, Ray. But special kudos for the NYT moniker 'Gray lady of easy virtue.' I almost laughed out loud. A rare occurrence these days.

Michael P Goldenberg , June 30, 2020 at 10:45

Thanks for another cogent assessment of our mainstream media's utter depravity and reckless irresponsibility. They truly have become nothing more than presstitutes and enemies of the people.

Bob Van Noy , June 30, 2020 at 10:42

"It's all over but the shouting" goes the idiom and I think that is true of Russiagate, especially, thank all goodness, here at Robert Parry's Journalistic site!

I have a theory that propaganda has a lifetime but when it reaches a truly absurd level, it's all over. Clearly, we've reached that level Thanks to all at CN

evelync , June 30, 2020 at 10:33

You call Rachel Madcow "unhinged", Ray ..well, yes, I'm shocked at myself that there was a time that I tuned in to her show .
Sorry Ms Madcow you've turned yourself into a character from Dr Strangelove

The key threats – climate change, pandemics, nuclear war – and why we continue to fail to address these real things while filling the airwaves instead with the tiresome russia,russia,russia mantra – per Accam's razer suggests that it serves very short term interests of money and power whoever whatever the MICIMATT answers to.
"Former CIA Director William Casey said: "We'll know when our disinformation program is complete, when everything the American public believes is false." "

Who exactly was the "we" Casey was answering to each day?
I know it wasn't me or the planet or humanity or anyone I know.

Bill Rice , June 30, 2020 at 10:20

If only articles like this were read by the masses. Maybe people would get a clue. Blind patriotism is not patriotic at all. Skepticism is healthy.

torture this , June 30, 2020 at 09:54

It's a shame that VIPS reporting is top secret. It's the only information coming from people familiar with the ins and outs of spy agencies that can be trusted.

GeorgeG , June 30, 2020 at 09:45

Ray,
You missed the juicy stuff. See: tass.com/russia/1172369 Russia Foreign Ministry: NYT article on Russia in Afghanistan fake from US intelligence. Here is the kicker:

The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to US intelligence agencies' involvement in Afghan drug trafficking.
"Should we speak about facts – moreover, well-known [facts], it has not long been a secret in Afghanistan that members of the US intelligence community are involved in drug trafficking, cash payments to militants for letting transport convoys pass through, kickbacks from contracts implementing various projects paid by American taxpayers. The list of their actions can be continued if you want," the ministry said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry suggested that those actions might stem from the fact that the US intelligence agencies "do not like that our and their diplomats have teamed up to facilitate the start of peace talks between Kabul and the Taliban (outlawed in Russia – TASS)."

"We can understand their feelings as they do not want to be deprived of the above mentioned sources of the off-the-books income," the ministry stressed.

Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:08

Affirmative Ray, two of my old comrades who were SF both did security on CIA drug flights back in the day, and later on both while under VA care decided to die off God I miss them, great guys and honest souls.

DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 09:41

One point remains a mystery. Why would anyone think that when the US invades a country, someone would need to pay the people of that country a bounty to fight back?

Mark Clarke , June 30, 2020 at 09:27

If Biden wins the presidency and the Democrats take back the Senate, Russiagate will strengthen and live on for many years.

Al , June 30, 2020 at 12:11

All to deflect from Clinton's private server while SOS, 30,000 deleted emails, and the sale of US interests via the Clinton Foundation.

Zedster , June 30, 2020 at 12:56

That, or we learn Chinese.

Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 09:08

Another interesting aside is that Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop funding Terrorists" bill went nowhere in Congress. So it's Ok for us and our Arab allies to fund them, but not the Russians? Maybe we should go back to calling them the Mujahideen?

Thomas Scherrer , June 30, 2020 at 12:10

Preach, my child.

And aloha to the last decent woman in those halls.

HARRY M HAYS , June 30, 2020 at 09:01

Do you not think that the timing of all this (months after the report was allegedly presented to Trump) is an attempt to stop Trump from signing an agreement with the Taliban that will allow him to withdraw American troops from that country?

Skip Scott , June 30, 2020 at 08:58

Great article Ray, but I have to question whether Durham will fulfill his role and get to the bottom of the origins of RussiaGate. If he actually does name names and prosecute, how will the MSM cover it? What will Ms. Madcow have to say? Ever since the fizzling failure of the Epstein investigation, I have had my doubts about Barr and his minion Durham. I hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.

Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:24

I think on here I can talk about this issue you brought up Scott, on other places when I tried to have a rational discussion on the matter, I got shouted down, well they tried anyway.
I highly suggest to any readers of this here on Consortium to get Gore Vidal's old book, Imperial America, and also watch his old documentary, THE UNITED STATES OF AMNESIA.
Here is the point of it,
"Officially we have two parties which are in fact wings of a common party of property with two right wings. Corporate wealth finances each. Since the property party controls every aspect of media they have had decades to create a false reality for a citizenry largely uneducated by public schools that teach conformity with an occasional advanced degree in consumerism."
-GORE VIDAL, The United States of Amnesia
Also,
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt -- until recently and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."
? Gore Vidal
Others have pointed out the same like this,
"Nobody should have any illusions. The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the business party."
? Noam Chomsky
"In the United States [ ] the two main business-dominated parties, with the support of the corporate community, have refused to reform laws that make it virtually impossible to create new political parties (that might appeal to non-business interests) and let them be effective. Although there is marked and frequently observed dissatisfaction with the Republicans and Democrats, electoral politics is one area where notions of competitions and free choice have little meaning. In some respects the caliber of debate and choice in neoliberal elections tends to be closer to that of the one-party communist state than that of a genuine democracy."
? Robert W. McChesney, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
? Carroll Quigley [1910 – 1977 was an American historian and theorist of the evolution of civilizations. He is remembered for his teaching work as a professor at Georgetown University, for his academic publications.]
Teddy Roosevelt, whose statue is under attack in NYC, had this to say,
"The bosses of the Democratic party and the bosses of the Republican party alike have a closer grip than ever before on the party machines in the States and in the Nation. This crooked control of both the old parties by the beneficiaries of political and business privilege renders it hopeless to expect any far-reaching and fundamental service from either."
-THEODORE ROOSEVELT, The Outlook, July 27, 1912
I suggest also that you look up on line this article, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake Two-Party System
by Prof. Stephen H. Unger at Columbia, here is his concluding thought,
"The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party swindle."
With this all in mind, and if your my age, you might recall about how over the past more then 50 years, no matter which party gets in power, nothing of any significance changes, the wars continue, the transfer of wealth to the few, and the erosion of basic civil liberties continues pretty well unabated.
Trump is surrounded by neo-cons and I expect nothing will happen to change anything. I would get into how most called liberals are hardly that, but in reality neo-cons, but I've said enough for now, when you consider the statements I shared, then the Matrix begins to come unraveled.

Grady , June 30, 2020 at 08:01

Not to mention the potential peace initiative with Afghanistan and Taliban that is looming. Peace is not profitable, so who has the dual interests in maintaining protracted war in a strategic location while ensuring the poppy crop stays the most productive in the world? It seems said poppy production under the pre war Taliban government was minimal as they eliminated most of it. Attacking the Taliban and thwarting its rule allowed for greater production, to the extent it is the global leader in helping to fulfill the opiate demand. Gary Webb established long ago that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA, has somewhat of a tradition in such covert operations and logic would dictate they're vested interest lies in maintaining a high yield crop while feeding the profit center that is the MIC war machine. While certainly a bit digressive, the dots are there to connect.

Paul , June 30, 2020 at 07:54

My friend, I love your columns. Thank you, you have been one of the few sane voices on Russiagate from the beginning.

Sadly most Americans and most people in the world will not receive these simple truths you are telling. (not their fault)

We will continue our fight against the system.

Peace, Paul from South Africa

Voice from Europe , June 30, 2020 at 07:38

Don't think this will be the last Russiagate gasp whoever becomes the next president.
The 'liberal democrats' believe their own delusions and as long as they control the MSM, they won't stop. Lol.

Thomas Fortin , June 30, 2020 at 12:29

You should read my reply to Scott, most of these Democrats are not liberals, but neo-cons who just liberal virtue signal while in reality supporting the neo-con agenda. I hate it how the so called alternative or independent media abuse terms and words, which obscures realities. Anyway, take a look at my reply and the quotes I shared.
"Definition of liberal, one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways, progressive, broad-minded, . willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas, denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
? Derived from Webster's and the Oxford Dictionaries

"Liberal' comes from the Latin liberalis, which means pertaining to a free man. In politics, to be liberal is to want to extend democracy through change and reform. One can see why that word had to be erased from our political lexicon."
? Gore Vidal, "The Great Unmentionable: Monotheism and its Discontents," The Lowell Lecture, Harvard University, April 20, 1992.

Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:23

Er, hypocrisy much?

"'Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' says ex-CIA chief backing Clinton"
hXXps://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell-kill-russians-clinton/

Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:13

Once again I would like to compliment Mr McGovern on his magnificently Biblical appearance. That full set would do credit to any Old Testament prophet.

I see him as the USA's own Jeremiah.

Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:12

Seeing that picture of Johnson's sad, wicked bloodhound features really, really makes me wish I had had a chance to be outside his tent pissing in. I'd have been careful to drink as many gallons of beer as possible beforehand.

Although it would have been better, from a humanitarian pont of view, just to set fire to the tent.

Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:10

"Historian Richardson "

Clearly a serious exaggeration.

Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:09

Ah, the Chinook! The 60-year-old helicopter that epitomises everything Afghan patriots love about the USA. It's big, fat, slow, clumsy, unmanoeuvrable, and may carry enough US troops to make shooting it down a damaging political blow against Washington.

Vivek , June 30, 2020 at 05:43

Ray,
What do you make of Barbara Honeggar's second career as a alternative story peddler?
see hXXps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB21BVFOIjw

CNfan , June 30, 2020 at 03:43

A brilliant piece, with a deft touch depicting the timeless human follies running our foreign policy circus. Real-world experience, perspective, and courage like Ray's were the dream of the drafters of our 1st Amendment. And ending with Caitlin's hammer was effective. As to who benefits? I suspect the neocons – our resident war-addicts and Israeli assets. Paraphrasing Nancy, "All roads lead to Netanyahu."

Ehzal , June 30, 2020 at 03:12

So,Russia what will do in next Upcoming Years during these covid-19.

Realist , June 30, 2020 at 02:54

Ray, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has embraced these allegations against Russia as the gospel truth and has threatened to seek revenge against Putin once he occupies the White House.

He said Americans who serve in the military put their life on the line. "But they should never, never, never ever face a threat like this with their commander in chief turning a blind eye to a foreign power putting a bounty on their heads."

"I'm quite frankly outraged by the report," Biden said. He promised that if he is elected, "Putin will be confronted and we'll impose serious costs on Russia."

This is the kind of warmongering talk that derailed the expected landslide victory for the Queen of Warmongers in 2016. This time round though, Trump has seemingly already swung and badly missed three times in his responses to the Covid outbreak, the public antics attributed to BLM, and the Fed's creation of six trillion dollars in funny money as a gift to the most privileged tycoons on the planet. In baseball, which will not have a season in spite of the farcical theatrics between ownership and players, that's called a "whiff" and gets you sent back to the bench.

According to all the pollsters, Donnie's base of white working class "deplorables" are already abandoning his campaign–bigly, prompting the none-too-keen Biden to assume that over-the-top Russia bashing is back in season, especially since trash-talking Nobel Laureate Obama is now delivering most of the mute sock puppet Biden's lines. It was almost comical to watch Joe do nothing but grin in the framed picture to the left of his old boss during their most recent joint interview with the press. This dangerous re-set of the Cold War is NOT what the people want, nor is it good for them or any living things.

DH Fabian , June 30, 2020 at 10:18

Biden already lost 2020 -- in spite of the widely-disliked Trump. This is why Democrats began working to breath life back into Russia-gate by late last year, setting the stage to blame Russia for their 2020 defeat. We spent the past 25 years detailing the demise of the Democratic Party (replaced by the "New Democrat Party"), and it turned out that the party loyalists didn't hear a word of it.

John A , June 30, 2020 at 02:15

As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to believe all this nonsense about Russia. Have the people there really been that dumbed down by chewing gum for the eyes television and disgusting chemical and growth h0rmone laced food? Sad, sad, sad.

Tom Welsh , June 30, 2020 at 06:17

John, I think there is something to what you say about dumbing down. I recall Albert Jay Nock lamenting, in about 1910, how dreadfully US education had already been dumbed down – and things have been going steadily downhill ever since.

But I don't think we can quite release the citizenry from responsibility on account of their ignorance. (Isn't it a legal maxim that ignorance is not an excuse?)

There is surely deep down in most people a sly lust for dominance, a desire to control and forbid and compel; and also a quiet satisfaction at hearing of inferior foreigners being harmed or killed by one's own "world class" armed forces.

TS , June 30, 2020 at 11:14

> As a viewer from afar, in Europe, I find it mindboggling how the American public seem to believe all this nonsense about Russia.

May I remind you that most of the mass media in Europe parrot all this nonsense, and a large segment of the public swallows it?

Charles Familant , June 30, 2020 at 00:50

Mr. McGovern has not made his case. To his question as to why Taliban militants need any additional incentive to target U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it is not far-fetched to believe these militants would welcome additional funds to continue their belligerency. Waging war is not cheap and is especially onerous for relatively small organizations as compared to major powers. What reason would Putin have to pay such bounty? The increase in U.S. troop casualties would provide Trump an additional rationale to bring the troops home, as he had promised during his campaign speeches in 2015 and 2016. This action would be a boon to his re-election prospects. Putin is well aware that if Biden wins in November, there is little likelihood of the hostility in Afghanistan or anywhere else being brought to an end. But, more to the point, the likelihood of U.S. sanctions against Russia being curtailed under a Biden presidency is remote. To what he deemed rhetorical, Mr. McGovern asks how successful were U.S. interrogators of such captured Taliban in the past, I remind him that there were opposing views regarding which techniques were most effective. Might not these interrogators have, in the present case, employed more effective means? Finally, it should not even be a question as to why any news agency does not reveal its sources. But in this case, the New York Times specifically mentions that the National Security Council discussed the intelligence finding in late March. Further, if it is true that Trump, Pence et al ignored the said briefs of which the administration was well aware, this should be no surprise to any of us. Case in point: how long did it take Trump to respond to the present pandemic? One telling observation: Mr. McGovern says that Heather Cox Richardson is "described as a historian at Boston College.' She is not just "described as a historian" Mr. McGovern, she IS a historian at Boston College; in fact, she is a professor at that college and has authored six scholarly works that have been published as books, the most recent of which in March of this year by the Oxford University Press. Mr. McGovern states that the points Richardson made her most most recent newsletter as "banal." I see nothing banal in that newsletter, but rather a list of relevant factual occurrences. Finally (this time it really is final), Mr. McGovern employs the use of sarcasm to discount what Richardson and others have contended regarding this most recent expose. And seems to give more credibility to the comments made by Trump and his cohorts, as though this administration is remarkable for its integrity.

Sam F , June 30, 2020 at 11:05

Plausible interest does not make unsupported accusations a reality. What bounties did the US offer?
Have you forgotten that the US set up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with weapons to attack the USSR there?

Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:34

Come December this year, which losing party will blame which scapegoat? Russia? China? The Man in the Moon? It must be a hard decision!

Zhu , June 30, 2020 at 00:31

Unfortunately, bad ideas and conspiracy fictions rarely disappear completely. But that Afghans need to be paid to kill invaders is the dumbest conspiracy fiction yet.

Thomas Fortin , June 29, 2020 at 21:31

Excellent report Ray, as usual.
Interesting note here, I watched The Hill's Rising program, and listened to young conservative Saagar say, although he does not believe that Russia-gate is credible, he made the statement that Russia is supplying the Taliban weapons and wants us to get out of Afghanistan, and that is considered a fact by all journalists!
Saagar is a bit conflicted, he does not, but does believe the gods of intelligence, like so many did with the Gulf of Tonkin so long ago, I remember that all too well.
As I look out upon the ignorant masses and useful idiots who strain at those Confederate and other monuments, while continuing to elect the same old people back into office who continue the status quo, its a bit discouraging. We were told so long ago about our current situation, that,
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin." [James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817]
As a historian of some sort and educational film maker, I do my best to educate people, though its a bit overwhelming at times how ignorant and fascist brain-washed most are. Monroe, like the other founders knew the secret of maintaining a free and prosperous republic, from the same piece, "Let us, then, look to the great cause, and endeavor to preserve it in full force. Let us by all wise and constitutional measures promote intelligence among the people as the best means of preserving our liberties."
George Carlin got it right about why education "sucks", it was by design, so our work is cut out for us.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
~Thomas Jefferson

GMCasey , June 29, 2020 at 21:25

Why would Putin even bother? America and its endless wars is doing itself in. Afghanistan is said to be," the graveyard of empires." It was for Alexander the Great -- –it was for Russia and I suppose that it will be for America too -- -

DW Bartoo , June 29, 2020 at 20:50

Ray, I certainly hope that Durham and Barr will not wait too long a time to make public the truth about Russiagate.

Indeed, certain heads should, figuratively, roll, and as well, the whole story about who was behind the setting up of Flynn needs to, somehow, make it through the media flack.

Judge Sullivan's antics having been rather thoroughly shot down, though the media is desperately trying to either spin or ignore the reality that it was not merely Flynn that Sullivan was hoping to harm, but also the power of the executive branch relative to the judicial branch.

The role of Obama and of Biden who, apparently, suggested the use of the Logan Act as the means to go after Flynn, who we now know was intentionally entrapped by the intrepid FBI, need to be made clear as well.

Just as with the initial claims that torture was the work of "a few bad apples", when anyone with any insight into such "policy" actions had to have known that it WAS official policy (crafted by Addington, Bybee, and Yoo, as it turned out, directed to do so by the Bush White House), so too, must it be realized that it was not some rogue agents and loose cannons, but actual instructions "from above", explicit or implicit, that "encouraged" the behavior of those who spoke of "Insurance" policies designed to hamper, hinder, and harm the incoming administration.

Clearly, I am no fan of Trump, and while I honestly regard the Rule of Law as essentially a fairytale for the gullible (as the behavior of the "justice" system from the " qualified immunity" of the police, to the "absolute immunity" of prosecutors, judges, and the political class must make clear,to even the most giddy of childish believers in U$ purity, innocence, and exceptionalism, that the "law" serves to protect wealth and power and NOT the public), I should really like to consider that even in a pretend democracy, some things are simply not to be tolerated.

Things, like torture, like fully politicized law enforcement or "intelligence" agencies, like secret court proceedings, where judges may be lied to with total impunity and actual evidence is not required. As well as things like a media thoroughly willing to requrgitate blatant propaganda as "fact" (while having, again, no apparent need of genuine evidenc), or other things like total surveillance, and the destruction of habeas corpus.

One should like to imagine that such things might concern the majority.

Yet, a society that buys into forever wars, lesser-evil voting, and created Hitler like boogeymen, that countenances being lied into wars and consistently lied to about virtually everything, is hardly likely to discern the truth of things until the "Dream" collapses into personal pain, despair, and Depression.

Unless there is an awakening quite beyond that already tearing down statues, but yet still , apparently, unwilling to grasp the totality of the corruption throughout the entire edifice of "authority", of the total failure of a system that has no real legitimacy, except that given it by voters choosing between two sides of the same tyranny, it may be readily imagined, should Biden be "victorious", that Russiagate, Chinagate, Irangate, Venezuelagate, and countless other "Gates" will become Official History.

In which case, this is not a last gasp, of Russiagate, but a new and full head of steam for more of the same.

How easy it has been for the lies to prevail, to become "truth" and to simply disappear the voices of those who ask for evidence, who dare question, who doubt.

How easy to co-opt and destroy efforts to educate or bring about critically necessary change.

There are but a few months for real evidence to be revealed.

If Durham and Barr decide not to "criminalize policy differences", as Obama, the "constitutional scholar", did regarding torture, then what might we imagine will be the future of those who have an understanding of even those lies long being used, and with recent additions, for example, to torture Julian Assange?

All of the deceit has common purpose, it is to maintain absolute control.

If Russiagate is not completely exposed, for all that it is and was intended to be, then quaint little discussions about elite misbehavior will be banished from general awareness, and those who persist in questioning will be rather severely dealt with.

Antonia , June 30, 2020 at 11:43

ABSOLUTELY. Well said. NOW where to make the changes absolutely necessary?

Zalamander , June 29, 2020 at 18:47

Thanks Ray. There are multiple reasons for the continued existance of Russiagate as the Democratic party has no real answers for the economic depression affecting millions of Americans. Neoliberal Joe Biden is also an exceptionally weak presidential candidate, who does not even support universal healthcare for all Americans like every other advanced industrialized country has. That said, the Dems are indeed desperate to deflect attention away from the Durham investigation, as it is bound to expose the total fraud of Crossfire Hurricane.

Sam F , June 29, 2020 at 18:16

Thanks, Ray, a very good summary, with reminders often needed by many in dealing with complex issues.

[Jul 01, 2020] Outrage Erupts After NYT Uses Slain Marine's Photo For -Unsubstantiated- Propaganda -

Jul 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

As we noted earlier Tuesday, several pundits took the DNI and CIA statements as a clear denial that there was anything significant or worthy of briefing the president on regarding alleged "Russian bounties" -- meaning it was likely deemed "chatter" or unsubstantiated rumor picked up either by US or British intelligence -- and subsequently leaked to the press to revive the pretty much dead Russiagate narrative of some level of "Trump-Putin collusion".

In short, when your 'unsubstantiated chatter' hit-piece loses steam, prop it up with a slain Marine .

[Jul 01, 2020] Looks like the same people who used to push records up the pop charts are now manipulating the Amazon best sellers charts, though I wouldn't put this past Amazon themselves.

Jul 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

AlfieDolittle , 1 minute ago

Amazon's No 1 Bestseller?

Looks like the same people who used to push records up the pop charts are now manipulating the Amazon best sellers charts, though I wouldn't put this past Amazon themselves.

No one buys this garbage other than uni libraries.

scott157 , 2 minutes ago

Matt Taibbi hits ANOTHER grand slam!!!!! regarding robin diangelo, she should cease scissoring and try a penis........it would spread sunshine all over her place.......................

Michael Norton , 4 minutes ago

Someone should write a book called White Strength.

novictim , 4 minutes ago

And let us never forget the crackpot theory that only Blacks cannot be racist 'cuz P + P + R -> (Prejudice + Power) = Racism.

This social theory defines blacks as being definitionally incapable of possessing power over whites. Ya, that's not racist at all!

johnnyg , 5 minutes ago

Teaming up with Ruth Frankenberg to help attack "fellow whites"? Oy vey!

I wonder if it's "fragility" to need every university, multinational corp, media monopoly, and celebrity constantly patting you on the *** and silencing any criticism of your constant terrible behavior?

Shirley Yugest , 5 minutes ago

She should end her whiteness immediately.

[Jul 01, 2020] Enormity of problems within Russia exclude any possibilities of trying to emulate the imperial behavior of the USA. Also Russia does not have the printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has

Jul 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

@The Twisted Genius


Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now defunct Soviet Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of realpolitik like all other nations. Funny, Putin doesn't ascribe to this view. A short time ago, someone posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov

Bezmenov was trying to please new owners. Russia does not have resources to engage like USA in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said it is regional power.

Also why bother, in internal fight between two factions of neoliberal elite is really bitter and dirty fight. You can't do better that neoliberal Dems in dividing the country. Why spend money if you can just wait.

Enormity of problems within Russia exclude any possibilities of trying to emulate the imperial behavior of the USA. Also Russia does not have the printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has.

And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this limitation several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into senseless arm race with the USA again by Russian MIC, which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results -- further dissolution of Russia into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the EU, for which they do not spare money.

Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with its own severe problems related to "identity politics" (or more correctly "identity wedge") which both EU and the USA is actively trying to play. Sometimes very successfully.

Ukraine coup detat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a very strong kick in the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovish himself with his por-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government mostly by himself.

Now the same game can be repeated in Belarussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his usefulness and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems mounts and mounts. Which gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as by definition years of independence strengthens far right nationalist forces in the country (which were present during WWII probably is no less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries). Which like all xUUSR nationalists are adamantly anti-Russian.

Currently the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality this can't last forever and it might deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.

Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi (who after Medvedev's blunder in UN was completely unable to defend himself), and Yanukovich, who in addition to stupidly pandering to nationalists and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a despicable coward.

[Jun 30, 2020] 29 June 2020 at 05:26 PM

Jun 30, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
div Russia problems


@The Twisted Genius | 29 June 2020 at 03:55 PM


Many here seem to think Russia is a nation totally separate from the now-defunct Soviet Union, that Russia is incapable or unwilling to engage in the seamier aspects of realpolitik like all other nations. Funny, Putin does not ascribe to this view. A short time ago, someone posted a link to a lecture by the KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov

Bezmenov was trying to please the new owners. Russia does not have resources to engage like USA in Full Spectrum Dominance games. Like Obama correctly said, Russia now is a regional power.

Also, why bother to do petty dirty tricks in Afghanistan, if an internal fight between two factions of the neoliberal elite, is a really bitter and dirty fight. You cannot do better than neoliberal Dems in weakening and dividing the country. Why spend money, if you can just wait.

The enormity of problems within Russia itself also excludes any possibilities of trying to emulate the imperial behavior of the USA and CIA dirty tricks. Russia does not have the printing press for the world reserve currency, which the USA still has.

And Putin is the first who understands this precarious situation, mentioning this limitation several times in his speeches. As well as the danger of being pushed into senseless arms race with the USA again by the alliance of the USA neocons and Russian MIC, which probably would lead to similar to the USSR results -- the further dissolution of Russia into smaller statelets. Which is a dream of both the USA and the EU, for which they do not spare money.

Russia is a very fragile country -- yet another neoliberal country with a huge level of inequality and a set of very severe problems related to the economy and "identity politics" (or more correctly "identity wedge"), which both EU and the USA is actively trying to play. Sometimes very successfully.

Ukraine coup d'etat was almost a knockdown for Putin, at least a powerful kick in the chin; it happened so quick and was essentially prepared by Yanukovich himself with his pro-EU and pro-nationalist stance. Being a sleazy crook, he dug the grave for his government mostly by himself.

Now the same game can be repeated in Belorussia as Lukachenko by-and-large outlived his usefulness, and like most autocratic figures created vacuum around himself -- he has neither viable successor, not the orderly, well defined process of succession; but economic problems mounts and mounts. This gives EU+USA a chance to repeat Ukrainian scenario, as like in Ukraine, years of independence greatly strengthened far-right nationalist forces (which BTW were present during WWII ; probably in less severe form than in Ukraine and Baltic countries but still were as difficult to suppress after the war). Who, like all xUUSR nationalists are adamantly, pathologically anti-Russian. That's where Russia need to spend any spare money, not Afghanistan.

Currently, the personality of Putin is kind of most effective guarantee of political stability in Russia, but like any cult of personality, this cannot last forever, and it might deprive Russia of finding qualified successor.

But even Putin was already burned twice with his overtures to Colonel Qaddafi(who after Medvedev's blunder in the UN was completely unable to defend himself against unleashed by the West color revolution), and Yanukovich, who in addition to stupidly pandering to nationalists and trying to be the best friend of Biden proved to be a despicable coward, making a color revolution a nobrainer.

After those lessons, Putin probably will not swallow a bait in a form of invitation to be a "decider" in Afghanistan.

So your insinuations that Russian would do such stupid, dirty and risky tricks are not only naive, they are completely detached from the reality.

The proper way to look at it is as a kind of PR or even false flag operation which was suggested by David Habakkuk:


...we are dealing with yet another of the collusive 'information operations' practised by incompetent and corrupt elements in the 'deep state' in the U.S., U.K. and Western Europe.

[Jun 29, 2020] Afghanistan occupation is a part of Full Spectrum Dominance play and, as such is a blunder and Russians probably are wise enough to adhere to maxim never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake by TTG

Notable quotes:
"... Assuming this is based on true events for the moment, is there a significant chance this could've been a false flag cover for an op by someone else? Thinking along the lines of the Israeli's "We're CIA" assassination ops of nuclear engineers in Iran here. Would the Paki intell services or even Iran attempt this in Afghanistan, perhaps? ..."
"... I had thought the Russians fear radical Islam as much or more than we do, so I can imagine them paying bounties to Talibs for ISIL scalps much easier than US ones, were they interested enough to play in that sandbox at all. ..."
"... And it's disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for political gain. ..."
"... Let The NY Times show what it got! We'll be waiting with bated breath. Propaganda all the time. 24x7. There can be no rational discourse in the USA. ..."
"... This story seems like more of a non-story, instigated by those who are still trying to maintain the Russian Hoax: the MSM/Resistance, neocon warmongers/NeverTrumpers, et al. As the election grows nigh, Leftists and their allies on the Right are getting more and more shrill and unhinged, demanding conformity of thought and grasping for ways to maintain the perpetual outrage of their ranks over Any. Little. Thing. Sorest of losers, all. I have a feeling they'll still be filled with anger even if Biden wins -- I noticed a growing number of perpetually aggrieved even while Obama was still POTUS. Is it something in the water? ..."
"... This story is obvious crap and it is purveyed by obvious Democrat shills - the NYT, quoting obvious anti Trump sources that have a well earned reputation for lying - the Five eyes intelligence community. ..."
"... This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations. I happen to dislike Trump, Pompeo et al as much as the next person but here we have, yet again, another "scoop" with zero actual evidence, only the say-so of some nameless "intel officials," whose jobs might be described more accurately as state propaganda managers. ..."
Jun 29, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Likbez,

@ancientarcher , 28 June 2020 at 08:16 AM

Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth-telling!! .
...But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope others see that too.

You hit the nail. TTG sometimes sounds really like a Ukrainian nationalist on those issues.

TTG simply can't think strategically in this case due to his bias.

If Russia wanted to hurt the USA in Afghanistan then Strela launchers would be in hands of Taliban long ago with plausible deniability that they obtained them from Libya.

The problem with thinking of people like TTG is that for Russia, the USA presence in Afghanistan is actually useful.

As in "never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake".

Afghanistan occupation is a part of "Full Spectrum Dominance" play and, as such is a blunder. The USA simply does not has the resources for world control, despite the dominance of neocons who are ready to fight for it to the last dollar. The especially prominent attitude in the State Department and NSC (Bolton is a nice example of those MIC bottom-feeders)

It drains the USA resources, and it turns the people of Asian xUSSR republics (so called Stans) against the USA and as such, makes neocolonial policies in xUSSR republics more difficult.

The Twisted Genius , 28 June 2020 at 11:51 AM

Fred,

The DOJ only dropped charges against two of Prigozhin's companies. The case against the IRA and 13 trolls still stands. Prigozhin was able to use Concord's business status and his lawyers' "client, not client" status to dig out evidence on the case without exposing himself to the court. His strategy was both brilliant and cynical.

The K-pop and Tik-Tok trolling of Parscale and the Trump rally was brilliant and cost not a dime. It didn't limit the attendance of the rally since sign up was not limited. It did screw up Parscale's data collection and tricked him into believing there was more enthusiasm for Trump that there actually was. It embarrassed him and Trump. And yes, this methodology is closely related to what the Russians did in 2016 except the Tik-Tok trolling was masterminded by a 51 year old Iowan grandmother rather than a former Russian KGB officer.

The Twisted Genius , 28 June 2020 at 11:55 AM

Babak,

I'm not trying to deny USI involvement in any of this drug dealing. Or defend it in any way. It's despicable and shameful. All of it.

Larry Johnson , 28 June 2020 at 12:15 PM

Boy, I never thought I'd see TTG be so gullible. The NY Times story is being rolled out in conjunction with British reporting, which oddly claims the same thing. The provenance of this so-called intelligence is so thin and questionable that it is natural to ask who has the agenda and what is their goal? Creating and maintaining the Russian boogey man as the ultimate threat does not serve US National Security interests. The Russians have been pretty consistent over the last 20 years about eliminating radical Islamists. They, unlike many in the United States, understand the threat.
So, here is their "brilliant" super secret plan--ally themselves with the guys they spent ten years fighting in Afghanistan, pay them to kill Americans and Brits and other US allies with the understanding that their super secret plan will be discovered and will be used as justification for attacking Russia. Yeah, that makes total sense. Russians are stupid, don't cha know.

CK , 28 June 2020 at 12:23 PM

@srw
The USA needs its boogieman under the bed.
When it is under a child's bed the answer is warm milk cookies and a mommies hug.
When it is under a IC person's bed the answer is heroin, hookers and cold cash.
When we leave Afghanistan and its poppy fields to the Taliban they may just do what they had done 20 years ago close down the trade.
That would mean that the only readily available supply of nod juice would be Chinese Fentanyl or Mexican Brown.

etrog , 28 June 2020 at 12:28 PM

ancientarcher,

Long live anti semitism, where right and left are in concert. By the way, we Jews also control the US military industrial complex and most intelligence agencies. The moderator approved your comment, I doubt he will let mine get through.

turcopolier , 28 June 2020 at 01:36 PM

TTG et al

This Skynews report makes it sound like this is a British story based on British leaks of one of their own parliamentary documents. If that is so, then the story may have been rejected by the US IC and never briefed to the WH. https://news.sky.com/.../russia-paid-taliban-fighters-to...

turcopolier , 28 June 2020 at 01:41 PM

etrog

So thin skinned! And so intended to intimidate to achieve silence. Obvious troll.

Leith , 28 June 2020 at 02:01 PM

Three years ago General John Nicholson, Commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, testified before the Senate about Russian support to the Talibs.

Two years ago in an interview with BBC he repeated the charge that the Russians were supporting and arming the Taliban. He quoted stories written in Taliban media sources about support from the Russians. He also cited captured Russian-made night vision goggles, medium and heavy machine guns as well as small arms. He says that although the Russians and Talibs are not natural allies, they use the narrative of ISIS fighters in Afghanistan as justification for legitimizing support.

Mark Logan , 28 June 2020 at 02:14 PM

Assuming this is based on true events for the moment, is there a significant chance this could've been a false flag cover for an op by someone else? Thinking along the lines of the Israeli's "We're CIA" assassination ops of nuclear engineers in Iran here. Would the Paki intell services or even Iran attempt this in Afghanistan, perhaps?

A Russian motive is difficult to imagine in this for me. Mindless revenge for what happened forty years ago strikes me as just barely plausible. I had thought the Russians fear radical Islam as much or more than we do, so I can imagine them paying bounties to Talibs for ISIL scalps much easier than US ones, were they interested enough to play in that sandbox at all.

Jack , 28 June 2020 at 02:31 PM
I never heard this. And it's disgusting how you continue to politicize intelligence. You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for political gain.

https://twitter.com/richardgrenell/status/1277024942232530945?s=21

Ric Grenell responding to a accusatory tweet by Ted Lieu.

And there's the obligatory POTUS tweet.

The Fake News @ nytimes must reveal its "anonymous" source. Bet they can't do it, this "person" probably does not even exist!

Let The NY Times show what it got! We'll be waiting with bated breath. Propaganda all the time. 24x7. There can be no rational discourse in the USA.

JMH , 28 June 2020 at 02:45 PM

"The K-pop and Tik-Tok trolling of Parscale and the Trump rally was brilliant and cost not a dime. It didn't limit the attendance of the rally since sign up was not limited."

Are you sure? AOC for one applauded this is as well but remember, Congress shall not abridge the right of the people to peacefully assemble.

"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) credited "teens on TikTok" for the lower than expected turnout at President Trump's rally on Saturday night in Tulsa, Okla., his first since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic." The Hill

Leith , 28 June 2020 at 02:56 PM

@Mark Logan: "revenge for what happened forty years ago"

Well there are still a lot of sore hineys in Moscow for that and for the glorification of it in Hollywood stunts like RamboIII.

Or more likely it could be revenge for the deaths of the Wagner Group Mercs in Syria just two years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham#Unofficial_Russian_sources_version

Etrog , 28 June 2020 at 03:35 PM

Babak makkinejad,

Thanks for the laugh.

akaPatience , 28 June 2020 at 04:27 PM

Trump's been trying to get us out of Afghanistan for a long time. Yet there are those who are making a BFD over the report, as though we're supposed to impeach the POTUS or start WWIII because of the allegation. Who are all of the dead soldiers killed by Russian-paid bounty hunters anyway, and what proof is there that they were killed at Putin's directive?

This story seems like more of a non-story, instigated by those who are still trying to maintain the Russian Hoax: the MSM/Resistance, neocon warmongers/NeverTrumpers, et al. As the election grows nigh, Leftists and their allies on the Right are getting more and more shrill and unhinged, demanding conformity of thought and grasping for ways to maintain the perpetual outrage of their ranks over Any. Little. Thing. Sorest of losers, all. I have a feeling they'll still be filled with anger even if Biden wins -- I noticed a growing number of perpetually aggrieved even while Obama was still POTUS. Is it something in the water?

Fred , 28 June 2020 at 05:07 PM

TTG,

So you researched where all the people gathering tickets to that event came from, or just concluded the published press reports are accurate?

The Twisted Genius , 28 June 2020 at 05:13 PM

pl,

The Sky News story says a British security official is confirming the reports are true. It doesn't sound like this defense official originated the story. Some are now speculating whether Boris Johnson was briefed or if he was kept in the dark. The Brits will demand an in-person answer from their government on Monday. A CNN report refers to a British security official. Might be the same source. NYT and WaPo refer to US officials for their sources.

The Twisted Genius , 28 June 2020 at 05:17 PM

Fred,

I probably saw the same press reports you did. Who knows where they all live? It was done online.

turcopolier , 28 June 2020 at 05:25 PM

TTG

You are usually good at reading between the lines. Usually. It does not sound that way to me. The implication in the article is that this "story" exists in the report cited and that this is what has been planted in the US media. We will see.

walrus , 28 June 2020 at 06:04 PM

This story is obvious crap and it is purveyed by obvious Democrat shills - the NYT, quoting obvious anti Trump sources that have a well earned reputation for lying - the Five eyes intelligence community.

Why would anyone give this story a grain of credibility?

Even without that, I can think of a heap of perfectly acceptable Russian engagements with the Taliban - exactly like our own.

turcopolier , 28 June 2020 at 06:06 PM

TTG

You are repeating the same error in logic that Habakkuk criticized you for. You say there are many "stories" and then you treat these stories as proven facts. Are you the sole author of this line?

D , 28 June 2020 at 06:29 PM

This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations. I happen to dislike Trump, Pompeo et al as much as the next person but here we have, yet again, another "scoop" with zero actual evidence, only the say-so of some nameless "intel officials," whose jobs might be described more accurately as state propaganda managers.

How many more times are people gonna fall for this same routine? Even the Wapo, WSJ "confirmations" are a bait-and-switch. The only thing they confirm is that intel officials are indeed pushing this story, not its veracity. It's a circular claim -- like Cheney citing NYT "confirmation" of the unproven allegations his own office had passed on to Judy Miller.

You can only speculate as to why this, why now. Just six months ago it was Iranians -- per Pompeo and his own cadre of "intel officials" -- who were offering bounties and sponsoring their own spoiler wing of the Taliban. So maybe it's a pre-fab "story" already in the propaganda repertory. The motive? Obviously it's to revive the Russiagate zombie one more time and make it go the distance -- the full four years of the Trump admin. And it creates media bubble pressure to extend the Afghan occupation. The kind of pressure that seems to have worked like a charm in case of Syria -- where Trump's order somehow got modified from withdrawal to open-ended occupation and oil-thievery.

The relationship between flagship media and their contacts in the "intelligence community" isn't journalism. It's the relationship an advertising agency has to a client. They market the client's product and get paid in "scoops" and, with it, increased traffic.

Personanongrata , 28 June 2020 at 07:21 PM

Italicized/bold text was excerpted from Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says found at the Grey Lady Down:

The disclosure comes at a time when Mr. Trump has said he would invite Mr. Putin to an expanded meeting of the Group of 7 nations, but tensions between American and Russian militaries are running high.

What a startling coincidence.

What would the Russians hope to gain? Revenge?

If it was revenge the Russians sought they could have simply sat back and let the Taliban continue on with business as usual without having to break a sweat or get their hands dirty - while sitting back and snickering at the futility of US efforts in Afghanistan.

Has there been any evidence presented to support the anonymous European intelligence officials extraordinary claims?

The Gray Lady Down report only offers other Russia bad stories which are light on evidence and heavy on innuendo.

Serge , 28 June 2020 at 07:47 PM

My only question is, and I can't find any answer to this(please someone direct me if they know, which militants?

Fred , 28 June 2020 at 07:55 PM

Col.,

One more planted story like the Steele Dossier to give the left something to investigate.

FakeBot , 28 June 2020 at 08:05 PM

It sounds like more of the same old sabotage Trump has been dealing with since assuming office. Why else would this leak and why else would Trump be left out of the loop? This reminds me of what Harry Reid once said on CNN during the 2016 election: intelligence officials should lie to Trump in briefings.

Trump and these officials need to set aside the pettiness and do what's right. That means pulling out of Afghanistan in a timely and appropriate manner without putting lives at risk.

[Jun 29, 2020] After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the top intelligence sources

Petty scoundrels from NYT are not that inventive. They just want to whitewash Russiagate fiasco. This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods. ..."
"... On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job. ..."
Jun 29, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
"Russia offered bounties to Afghan militants to kill US troops" - TTG - Sic Semper Tyrannis

blue peacock | 27 June 2020 at 10:19 PM

After Iraq WMD and Russia Collusion, we should ask for real evidence instead of the "top intelligence sources". And we should not buy we can't provide any evidence because of sources & methods.

Be skeptical of anything published by Pravda on the Hudson and Pravda on the Potomac when it comes to intelligence matters. Especially months before a general election.

Fred | 27 June 2020 at 10:32 PM

On to Moscow! Where's Bomb'n Bolton when we need him? "a European intelligence official told CNN."..... "The official did not specify as to the date of the casualties, their number or nationality, or whether these were fatalities or injuries."

So, unknown official, unknown date, unknown if there were any actual casualties.

"The US concluded that the GRU was behind the interference in the 2016 US election and cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee and top Democratic officials."

Quick, someone tell the House Impeachment Inquiry Committee! Oh, wait, that was Ukraine. What did Mueller collude, I mean conclude, about that Russian interference?

Let me quote the former acting DNI: "You clearly don't understand how raw intel gets verified. Leaks of partial information to reporters from anonymous sources is dangerous because people like you manipulate it for political gain."

https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1277024942232530945

I believe he was tweeting that to the press, but then they are doing this for political reasons. Lockdowns and socialist revolutionary riots must not be working in the left's favor. I wonder why?

Yeah, Right | 28 June 2020 at 12:50 AM

On a practical note, how was a Taliban soldier militant meant to verify his claim to a bounty? I assume that scalping was not a feasible option, but if you are going to offer a bounty then you are going to want proof that the person claiming that bounty did, indeed, do the job.

So if a coalition soldier died on *this* day how was a Talibani supposed to confirm to the GRU that "Yep, I did that. Where's my money?"

TTG, I think you are being led away from the truth by your significant bias against Russia. Those with a blinkered vision see only what they want to see. No mystery there.

Now you want to portray NYT as the paragon of truth telling!! Haven't we seen enough examples of the lying by Jewish owned neocon media, especially the Times? Now that the Russia-gate fire is nearly put out, these guys are pumping this story.
You really need to understand the depth of hatred the Jews have for Russia and Russians that makes them like this. That's the only country /civilisation that got away from their grasp just when they thought have got it. Not once, but twice in the last century.

But then isn't your ancestry from Lithuania. Your hatred is strong. I get that - I see that all time with people from the ex-Soviet republics formerly ruled by Russia. Hope others see that too.

Barbara Ann , 28 June 2020 at 09:42 AM

Regardless of its veracity, this story will definitely hit Trump where it hurts - chapeau to the individual(s) who conceived this work of fiction, if indeed it is so.

Again, whether or not performance bonuses* were actually offered by the GRU, has anyone considered that this may still be a Russian Intelligence op?

Perhaps we should first ask whether the Kremlin wants to deal with a US under another 4 years of Trump. From their FP POV, the huge uncertainty and instability they see in the US now will surely be ramped up to a whole new level, in the event that he is re-elected. And of course all hope that Trump may be able to improve the relationship with Russia was dashed long ago, by Russiagate and the ongoing Russophobia among the Borg. Jeffrey's mission in Syria is a case in point. At least the US Deep State is the devil they know.

If the answer to the above question is "no" it must surely be a trivial matter for the GRU to feed such a damaging story to Trump's enemies in the USIC.

* "bounties" is an emotive word, useful to Trump's enemies, evoking individual pay for an individual death - real personal stuff. As others have pointed out the practicality of such a scheme seems improbable. Surely it is more likely that any such incentive pay would be for the group, upon coalition casualties confirmed in the aftermath of an attack. The distinction may not seem important, but the Resistance media can be relied upon to use language designed to inflict the most harm.

Flavius , 28 June 2020 at 09:48 AM

'Intel' without evidence is "bunk". Have we learned nothing from Chrissy Steele and the Russiagate fiasco - I know a guy who knows a guy who said... the Russians are bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Bob Mueller and 18 pissed off democrats have concluded that the Russians are systemically bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. 4 months before a Presidential election intel sources have revealed to the NYT that the Russians are very very bad and Donald Trump is an a......e. Ah yes, the New York Ridiculously Self Degraded Times has broken another important story. I wonder why? Enough already...and yes, we have made a systemic laughing stock of ourselves.

Oh, and remind me again of why we've been staying around Kabul - something about improving the lot of women, or gays, or someone?

Diana Croissant , 28 June 2020 at 09:51 AM

I'm personally not ready to "duck and cover" after reading this.

I have accepted the fact that Russia is no longer the Soviet Union. I am watching television news at night but no longer see the clock ticking as I turn it off and go to sleep. So far, no one I know has taken to building a fallout shelter in his back yard.

I want an answer to this question: Whatever happened to the pillow and blanket I had to bring to school and store in the school's basement in case we all had to retreat there and be locked down in it during the bombing? Who do I go to to get reparations for the cost of those items? (I was never given the opportunity to retrieve them when I graduated.) Did Khrushchev have to take his shoe to a cobbler after using it to pound on the table while threatening to bury us?

Babak makkinejad , 28 June 2020 at 10:19 AM

TTG

The rebuttal from Russia.

Which raises the ante by making very very serious accusations of drug trade by US Intelligence.

https://tass.com/russia/1172369/amp?__twitter_impression=true

Charlie Wilson , 28 June 2020 at 11:06 AM

I think the killing of soldiers should be strictly forbidden. Only civilians should be targeted. It is easier and no one gives a shit.

The Twisted Genius , 28 June 2020 at 11:17 AM

Babak,

There's a rich history of stories about USI involvement in the drug trade. CIA was involved in the heroin trade during the Viet Nam War. The Iran-Contra mess involved selling Columbian cocaine to help finance Nicaraguan anti-Communist rebels. US involvement in the Afghanistan drug trade has been talked about for years. As I said, there are no glitter fartin' unicorns here.

Babak makkinejad , 28 June 2020 at 11:42 AM

TTG

The Iranian statistics do not lie. Transhipment of drugs across Iran from Afghanistan has been increasing since the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

The US Office of Foreign Asset Control, the US DIA, the CIA etc. are powerless to do anything about that but are, evidently, all powerfull against USD transactions of the Iranian government.

[Jun 28, 2020] Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did Not Respond' - NYT, WaPo Publish It

Highly recommended!
Projection, yet another time. An old and very effective dirty propaganda trick. Fake news outlet are intelligence services controlled outlets.
Notable quotes:
"... Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with ' great reporting ' but are pure stenography. ..."
"... If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did: providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always unnamed of course. ..."
"... The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme: ..."
"... "The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere." ..."
"... We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS, occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s. ..."
"... Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already. ..."
Jun 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did Not Respond' - NYT , WaPo Publish It A. Pols , Jun 27 2020 14:34 utc | 1

There were allegations about emails that someone exfiltrated from the DNC and provided to Wikileaks . Russia must have done it. The FBI and other intelligence services were all over it. In the end no evidence was provided to support the claims.

There were allegations that Trump did not really win the elections. Russia must have done it. The various U.S. intelligence service, together with their British friends, provided all kinds of sinister leaks about the alleged case. In the end no evidence was provided to support the claims.

A British double agent, Sergej Skirpal, was allegedly injured in a Russian attack on him. The intelligence services told all kind of contradicting nonsense about the case. In the end no evidence was provided to support the claims.

All three cases had two points in common. The were based on sources near to the U.S. and British intelligence community. They were designed to increase hostility against Russia. The last point was then used to sabotage Donald Trump's original plans for better relations with Russia.

Now the intelligence services make another claim that fits right into the above scheme.

Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post were called up by unnamed 'officials' and told to write that Russia pays some Afghans to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. There is zero evidence that the claim is true. The Taliban spokesman denies it. The numbers of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan is minimal. The alleged sources of the claims are criminals the U.S. has taken as prisoners in Afghanistan.

All that nonsense is again used to press against Trump's wish for better relations with Russia. Imagine - Trump was told about these nonsensical claims and he did nothing about it!

The same intelligence services and 'officials' previously paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo Bay, tortured them until they made false confessions and lied about it. The same intelligence services and 'officials' lied about WMD in Iraq. The same 'intelligence officials' paid and pay Jihadis disguised as 'Syrian rebels' to kill Russian and Syrian troops which defend their countries.

The journalistic standards at the New York Times and Washington Post must be below zero to publish such nonsense without requesting real evidence. The press release like stories below from anti-Trump/anti-Russian sources have nothing to do with ' great reporting ' but are pure stenography.

The New York Times :

Cont. reading: Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did Not Respond' - NYT, WaPo Publish It

Posted by b at 13:43 UTC | Comments (3) If the Russians were truly inclined in a direction leading them to "pay bounties" for American scalps in Afghanistan, they would instead be doing what we once did: providing state-of-the-art Manpads to Afghan jihadis. Any sort of bar room or shit house rumor these days is attributed to "intelligence officials" or "intelligence sources", always unnamed of course.

JohnH , Jun 27 2020 14:45 utc | 2

Biden is the intelligence services' ideal candidate -- an easily manipulated empty suit. There's a reason why charges of Biden wrongdoing are as easily dismissed as nonsensical charges against Trump and Russia get fabricated. And that reason is that the media is as happy to be manipulated as Biden.
Piotr Berman , Jun 27 2020 15:03 utc | 3
Two puzzling and disturbing aspects.

The paragraph about "reasons to believe" is vacuous in the extreme:

"The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere."

We know from the past that US forces were torturing TOTALLY RANDOM INDIVIDUALS, occasionally to death. Needless to say, "officials did not describe the mechanics" of the interrogation, neither did not describe any corroborative details. The most benign scenario is that "captured Afghan militants and criminals" are pure fiction rather than actual people subjected to "anal inspections", "peroneal strikes", left overnight hanging from the ceiling etc. to spit out random incoherent tidbits about the Russians, like "it is also not clear".... A long list of "not clear"'s.

This is disturbing, although this is precisely the quality of "intelligence" that gets released to the public. The second disturbing aspect is that the article was opened to comments, and as usually in such cases, the comments are full of fury at Russians and Trump, and with the numbers of "recommend"'s reaching thousands. On non-Russian topics, if comments are allowed, one can see a much wider spectrum of opinion, sometimes with huge numbers of "recommend"'s to people who criticize and doubt the official positions. Here I lost patience looking for any skeptical comment.

Together, it is very crude "manufacturing of consent", and unfortunately, this is a workable technique of manipulation. Crudity is the tool, not a defect in this case. I will explain later what I mean, this post is probably too long already.

[Jun 28, 2020] Russian position for Start talks: "We don't believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever".

Highly recommended!
Jun 28, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

START. Talks began in Vienna with a childish stunt by the American side . I wouldn't expect any results: the Americans are fatally deluded . As for the Russians: " We don't believe the U.S. in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever ".Russian has a word for that: недоговороспособны and it's characterised US behaviour since at least this event (in Obama's time). Can't make an agreement with them and, even if you do, they won't keep it.

[Jun 28, 2020] Unsophisticated disinformation Moscow rebuffs NYT story alleging Russia offered Taliban money to kill US troops in Afghanist

Notable quotes:
"... "covertly offered rewards" ..."
"... On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information." ..."
"... This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense. ..."
"... "Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the ministry said. ..."
"... Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting" in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul. ..."
Jun 27, 2020 | www.rt.com

The Russian Foreign Ministry has rejected a US media report claiming Moscow offered to pay jihadi militants to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan. It said such 'fake news' merely betrays the low skill levels of US spy agencies. Citing US intelligence officials – unnamed, of course – the New York Times reported that, last year, Moscow had "covertly offered rewards" to Taliban-linked militants to attack American troops and their NATO allies in Afghanistan.

On Saturday, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the NYT story as "fake information."

This unsophisticated plant clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense.

"Then again, what else can one expect from intelligence services that have bungled the 20-year war in Afghanistan," the ministry said.

Moscow has suggested that this misinformation was "planted" because the US may be against Russia "assisting" in peace talks between the Taliban and the internationally-recognised government in Kabul.

US-led NATO troops have been fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2001. The campaign, launched in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has cost Washington billions of dollars and resulted in the loss of thousands of American soldiers' lives. Despite maintaining a military presence for almost two decades, the US has failed to defeat the Taliban, which is still in control of vast swaths of the country.

Moreover, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has compiled several reports detailing how tens of millions of US taxpayers' funds have been spent on dubious regeneration projects.

[Jun 28, 2020] It is the US intelligence s job to lie to you. NYT s Afghan bounty story is CIA press release by Caitlin Johnstone

This whole "story" stinks to high heaven. Judy Miller redux - regime-change info ops, coordinated across multiple media organizations.
Notable quotes:
"... To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral. ..."
"... "Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi. ..."
"... "So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" ..."
"... "It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," ..."
"... On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened. ..."
Jun 28, 2020 | www.rt.com
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her website is here and you can follow her on Twitter @caitoz

Whenever one sees a news headline ending in "US Intelligence Says", one should always mentally replace everything that comes before it with "Blah blah blah we're probably lying."

"Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill Troops, US Intelligence Says", blares the latest viral headline from the New York Times . NYT's unnamed sources allege that the GRU "secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan -- including targeting American troops", and that the Trump administration has known this for months.

To be clear, this is journalistic malpractice. Mainstream media outlets which publish anonymous intelligence claims with no proof are just publishing CIA press releases disguised as news. They're just telling you to believe what sociopathic intelligence agencies want you to believe under the false guise of impartial and responsible reporting. This practice has become ubiquitous throughout mainstream news publications, but that doesn't make it any less immoral.

Also on rt.com There they go again: NYT serves up spy fantasy about Russian 'bounties' on US troops in Afghanistan

In a post-Iraq-invasion world, the only correct response to unproven anonymous claims about a rival government by intelligence agencies from the US or its allies is to assume that they are lying until you are provided with a mountain of independently verifiable evidence to the contrary. The US has far too extensive a record of lying about these things for any other response to ever be justified as rational, and its intelligence agencies consistently play a foundational role in those lies.

Voices outside the mainstream-narrative control matrix have been calling these accusations what they are: baseless, lacking in credibility, and not reflective of anything other than fair play, even if true.

"Same old story: alleged intelligence ops IMPOSSIBLE to verify, leaked to the press which reports them quoting ANONYMOUS officials," tweeted journalist Stefania Maurizi.

America to end 'era of endless wars' & stop being policeman, Trump gives same old election promises he broke

"So we are to simply believe the same intelligence orgs that paid bounties to bring innocent prisoners to Guantanamo, lied about torture in Afghanistan, and lied about premises for war from WMD in Iraq to the Gulf of Tonkin 'attack'? All this and no proof?" tweeted author and analyst Jeffrey Kaye.

"It's totally outrageous for Russia to support the Taliban against Americans in Afghanistan. Of course, it's totally fine for the US to support jihadi rebels against Russians in Syria, jihadi rebels who openly said the Taliban is their hero," tweeted author and analyst Max Abrams.

On the flip side, all the McResistance pundits have been speaking of this baseless allegation as a horrific event that is known to have happened, with Rachel Maddow going so far as to describe it as Putin offering bounties for the "scalps" of American soldiers in Afghanistan. This is an interesting choice of words, considering that offering bounties for scalps is, in fact, one of the many horrific things the US government did in furthering its colonialist ambitions , which, unlike the New York Times allegation, is known to have actually happened.

It is true, as many have been pointing out, that it would be fair play for Russia to fund violent opposition the the US in Afghanistan, seeing as that's exactly what the US and its allies have been doing to Russia and its allies in Syria, and did to the Soviets in Afghanistan via Operation Cyclone . It is also true that the US military has no business in Afghanistan anyway, and any violence inflicted on US troops abroad is the fault of the military expansionists who put them there. The US military has no place outside its own easily defended borders, and the assumption that it is normal for a government to circle the planet with military bases is a faulty premise.

'Unsophisticated' disinformation: Moscow rebuffs NYT story alleging Russia offered Taliban money to kill US troops in Afghanistan

But before even getting into such arguments, the other side of the debate must meet its burden of proof that this has even happened. That burden is far from met. It is literally the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. The New York Times has an extensive history of pushing for new wars at every opportunity, including the unforgivable Iraq invasion , which killed a million people, based on lies. A mountain of proof is required before such claims should be seriously considered, and we are very, very far from that.

I will repeat myself: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. I will repeat myself again: it is the US intelligence community's job to lie to you. Don't treat these CIA press releases with anything but contempt.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

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

[Jun 28, 2020] Trump himself demolished NYT provocation -- the Russia/Taliban story

Jun 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Brendan , Jun 28 2020 14:18 utc | 4

Trump himself has rubbished the NYT's Russia/Taliban story on Twitter today:

"Nobody briefed or told me, @VP Pence, or Chief of Staff @MarkMeadows about the so-called attacks on our troops in Afghanistan by Russians, as reported through an "anonymous source" by the Fake News @nytimes. Everybody is denying it & there have not been many attacks on us..... "
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1277202159109537793

"The Fake News @ nytimes must reveal its "anonymous" source. Bet they can't do it, this "person" probably does not even exist! twitter.com/richardgrenell "
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1277215720418484224

Christian J. Chuba , Jun 28 2020 15:17 utc | 11

NYT exclusive: breaking, bombshell report, bombshell report, Russia pays Taliban to kill U.S. Troops

The puppets dance for their puppet masters yet again. I was struck that in all of the MSM responses on CNN and FOX every single host accepted it as an absolute fact that this was true. If an unnamed source said something to a reporter at the NYT then it must have happened in that way and the facts are irrefutable. Wow our 'journalists' are pathetic.

1. The guy who leaked this could be twisting a half or even quarter truth to embarrass Trump, derail our withdrawal from Germany or Afghanistan ... nahh impossible. Our CIA guys never have an agenda.

2. This could be disinformation against Russia ... nahh we are the good guys, that's not how we roll.

The guy on CNN could not believe the WH statement that they were not briefed, 'it strains credibility'. Maybe one POW made an outlandish claim to get better treatment and lower level staff did not think the claim itself had enough credibility. Nope, it was leaked by an Intelligence guy, therefore it must be true.

journalism is dead. buried, dug up, cremated and then scattered over a trash dump in the U.S.

[Jun 26, 2020] The Media War On Truthful Reporting And Legitimate Opinions - A Documentary

Notable quotes:
"... You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you can't fool a lot of people for a long time. That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie. ..."
"... I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. ..."
"... The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices. ..."
"... Obivously western intelligence servies, NATO leak stuff to western msm to intimidate and censor political oppostion in every western country. ..."
"... Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like MOA. ..."
"... The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. ..."
"... George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread. It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia. This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up for A ..."
"... I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other imperialist myths. ..."
"... For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too! ..."
Apr 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'.
George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War , Chapter 4

Last week saw an extreme intensifying of the warmongers' campaign against individuals who publicly hold and defend a different view than the powers-that-be want to promote. The campaign has a longer history but recently turned personal. It now endangers the life and livelihood of real people.

In fall 2016 a smear campaign was launched against 200 websites which did not confirm to NATO propaganda. Prominent sites like Naked Capitalism were among them as well as this site:

This website, MoonofAlabama.org , is now listed as "Russian propaganda outlet" by some neoconned, NATO aligned, anonymous " Friendly Neighborhood Propaganda Identification Service " prominently promoted by today's Washington Post . The minions running that censorship list also watch over our "Russian propaganda" Twitter account @MoonofA .

While the ProPornOT campaign was against websites the next and larger attack was a general defaming of specific content.

The neoconservative Alliance For Securing Democracy declared that any doubt of the veracity of U.S. propaganda stories discussed on Twitter was part of a "Russian influence campaign". Their ' dashboard ' shows the most prominent hashtags and themes tweeted and retweeted by some 600 hand-selected but undisclosed accounts. (I have reason to believe that @MoonofA is among them.) The dashboard gave rise to an endless line of main-stream stories faking concern over alleged "Russian influence". The New York Times published several such stories including this recent one :


bigger
Russia did not respond militarily to the Friday strike, but American officials noted a sharp spike in Russian online activity around the time it was launched.

A snapshot on Friday night recorded a 2,000 percent increase in Russian troll activity overall, according to Tyler Q. Houlton, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. One known Russian bot, #SyriaStrikes, had a 4,443 percent increase in activity while another, #Damsucs, saw a 2,800 percent jump, Mr. Houlton said.

A person on Twitter, or a bot, is tagged by a chosen name led with an @-sign. Anything led with a #-sign is a 'hashtag', a categorizing attribute of a place, text or tweet. Hashtags have nothing to do with any "troll activity". The use of the attribute or hashtag #syriastrike increased dramatically when a U.S. strike on Syria happened. Duh. A lot of people remarked on the strikes and used the hashtag #syriastrike to categorize their remarks. It made it easier for others to find information about the incident.

The hashtag #Damsucs does not exit. How could it have a 2,800% increase? It is obviously a mistyping of #Damascus or someone may have used as a joke. In June 2013 an Associated Press story famously carried the dateline "Damsucs". The city was then under artillery attack from various Takfiri groups. The author likely felt that the situation sucked.


bigger

The spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security Tyler Q. Holton, to which the Times attributes the "bot" nonsense, has a Twitter account under his name and also tweets as @SpoxDHS. Peter Baker, the NYT author, has some 150,000 followers on Twitter and tweets several times per day. Holton and Tyler surely know what @accounts and #hashtags are.

One suspects that Holton used the bizzare statistic of the infamous ' Dashboard ' created by the neoconservative, anti-Russian lobby . The dashboard creators asserted that the use of certain hashtags is a sign of 'Russian bots'. On December 25 the dashboard showed that Russian trolls and bots made extensive use of the hashtag #MerryChristmas to undermine America's moral.


bigger

One of the creators of the dashboard, Clint Watts, has since confessed that it is mere bullshit :

"I'm not convinced on this bot thing," said Watts, the cofounder of a project that is widely cited as the main, if not only, source of information on Russian bots. He also called the narrative "overdone."

As government spokesperson Holton is supposed to spout propaganda that supports the government's policies. But propaganda is ineffective when it does not adhere to basic realities. Holton is bad at his job. Baker, the NYT author, did even worse. He repeated the government's propaganda bullshit without pointing out and explaining that it obviously did not make any sense. He used it to further his own opinionated, false narrative. It took a day for the Times to issue a paritial correction of the fact free tale.

With the situation in Syria developing in favor of the Syrian people, with dubious government claims around the Skripal affair in Salisbury and the recent faked 'chemical attack' in Douma the campaign against dissenting reports and opinions became more and more personal.

Last December the Guardian commissioned a hatchet job against Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett . Beeley and Bartlett extensively reported (vid) from the ground in Syria on the British propaganda racket "White Helmets". The Guardian piece defended the 'heros' of the White Helmets and insinuated that both journalists were Russian paid stooges.

In March the self proclaimed whistle-blower and blowhard Sibel Edmonds of Newsbud launched a lunatic broadside smear attack (vid) against Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett. The Corbett Report debunked (vid) the nonsense. (The debunking received 59,000 views. Edmonds public wanking was seen by less than 23,000 people.)

Some time ago the CIA propaganda outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe started a 'fact-checking' website and named it Polygraph.info . (Some satirist or a clueless intern must have come up with that name. No country but the U.S. believes that the unscientific results of polygraph tests have any relation to truthfulness. To any educated non-U.S. citizen the first association with the term 'polygraph' is the term 'fake'.)

On April 4 the Polygraph wrote a smear piece about the Twitter account Ian56 (@Ian56789). Its headline: Disinfo News: Doing the Kremlin's Work: A Fake Twitter Troll Pushes Many Opinions :

Ben Nimmo, the Senior Fellow for Information Defense at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, studies the exploits of "Ian56" and similar accounts on Twitter. His recent article in the online publication Medium profiles such fake pro-Kremlin accounts and demonstrates how they operate.
...

Nimmo, and several other dimwits quoted in the piece, came to the conclusion that Ian56 is a Kremlin paid troll, not a real person. Next to Ian56 Nimmo 'identified' other 'Russian troll' accounts:

Ben Nimmo @benimmo - 10:50 UTC - 24 Mar 2018

One particularly influential retweeter (judging by the number of accounts which then retweeted it) was @ValLisitsa, which posts in English and Russian. Last year, this account joined the troll-factory #StopMorganLie campaign.

Nimmo's employer, the Atlantic Council, is a lobby of companies who profit from war .

Had Nimmo, a former NATO spokesperson, had some decent education he would have know that @ValLisitsa, aka Valentina Lisitsa , is a famous American-Ukrainian pianist. Yes, she sometimes tweets in Russian language to her many fans in Russia and the Ukraine. Is that now a crime? The videos of her world wide performances on Youtube have more than 170 million views. It is absurd to claim that she is a 'Russian troll' and to insinuate that she is taking Kremlin money to push 'Russian troll' opinions.

Earlier this month Newsweek also targeted the journalists Beeley and Bartlett and smeared a group of people who had traveled to Syria as 'Assad's pawns'.

On April 14 Murdoch's London Times took personal aim at the members of a group of British academics who assembled to scientificly investigate dubious claims against Syria. Their first investigation report though, was about the Skripal incident in Salisbury. The London Times also targeted Bartlett and Beeley. The piece was leading on page one with the headline: "Apologists for Assad working in universities". A page two splash and an editorial complemented the full fledged attack on the livelihood of the scientists.


bigger

Tim Hayward, who initiated the academic group, published a (too) mild response.

On April 18 the NPR station Wabenews smeared the black activists Anoa Changa and Eugene Puryear for appearing on a Russian TV station. It was the begin of an ongoing, well concerted campaign launched with at least seven prominent smear pieces issued on a single day against the opposition to a wider war on Syria.

On April 19 the BBC took aim at Sarah Abdallah , a Twitter account with over 130,000 followers that takes a generally pro Syrian government stand. The piece also attacked Vanessa Beeley and defended the 'White Helmets':

In addition to pictures of herself, Sarah Abdallah tweets constant pro-Russia and pro-Assad messages, with a dollop of retweeting mostly aimed at attacking Barack Obama, other US Democrats and Saudi Arabia.
...
The Sarah Abdallah account is, according to a recent study by the online research firm Graphika, one of the most influential social media accounts in the online conversation about Syria, and specifically in pushing misinformation about a 2017 chemical weapons attack and the Syria Civil Defence, whose rescue workers are widely known as the "White Helmets".
...
Graphika was commissioned to prepare a report on online chatter by The Syria Campaign , a UK-based advocacy group organisation which campaigns for a democratic future for Syria and supports the White Helmets.

The Syria Campaign Ltd. is a for profit 'regime change' lobby which, like the White Helmets it promotes, is sponsored with millions of British and U.S. taxpayer money.

Brian Whitaker, a former Middle East editor for the Guardian , alleged that Sarah Abdullah has a 'Hizbullah connection'. He assumes that from two terms she used which point to a southern Lebanese heritage. But south Lebanon is by far not solely Hizbullah and Sarah Abdallah certainly does not dress herself like a pious Shia. She is more likely a Maronite or secular whatever. Exposing here as 'Hizbullah' can easily endanger her life. Replying to Whitaker the British politician George Galloway asked:

George Galloway @georgegalloway - 14:50 UTC - Replying to @Brian_Whit

Will you be content when she's dead Brian?
...
Will you be content Brian when ISIS cut off her head and eat her heart? You are beneath contempt. Even for a former Guardian man

Whitaker's smear piece was not even researched by himself. He plagiarized it, without naming his source, from Joumana Gebara, a CentCom approved Social Media Advisor to parts of the Syrian 'opposition'. Whitaker is prone to fall for scams like the 'White Helmets'. Back in mid 2011 he promoted the "Gay Girl in Damascus", a scam by a 40 year old U.S. man with dubious financial sources who pretended to be a progressive Syrian woman.

Also on April 19 the Guardian stenographed a British government smear against two other prominent Twitter accounts:

Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts since the attack, – many of which were identifiable as automated bots.

Notice that this idiotic % increase claim, without giving a base number, is similar to the one made in the New York Times piece quoted above. It is likely also based on the lunatic 'dashboard'.

[C]ivil servants identified a sharp increase in the flow of fake news after the Salisbury poisoning, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.

One bot, @Ian56789, was sending 100 posts a day during a 12-day period from 7 April, and reached 23 million users, before the account was suspended. It focused on claims that the chemical weapons attack on Douma had been falsified, using the hashtag #falseflag. Another, @Partisangirl, reached 61 million users with 2,300 posts over the same 12-day period.

The prime minister discussed the matter at a security briefing with fellow Commonwealth leaders Malcolm Turnbull, Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau earlier this week. They were briefed by experts from GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre about the security situation in the aftermath of the Syrian airstrikes.

The political editor of the Guardian , Heather Steward, admitted that her 'reporting' was a mere copy of government claims:

Heather Stewart @GuardianHeather - 10:38 UTC - 20 Apr 2018

It's not my analysis - as the piece makes quite clear - it's the government's.

The government claim was also picked up by other British outlets like Sky News (vid).


bigger

A day earlier Ian56/@Ian56789 account with 35,000 followers had suddenly been blocked by Twitter. Ben Nimmo was extremely happy about this success. But after many users protested to the Twitter censors the account was revived.

Neither Ian, nor Partisangirl, are 'bots' or have anything to do with Russia. Partisangirl, aka Syria Girl, is the twitter moniker of Maram Susli, a Syrian-Australian scientist specialized in quantum chemistry. She was already interviewed on Australian TV (vid) four years ago and has been back since. She has published videos of herself talking about Syria on Youtube and on Twitter and held presentations on Syria at several international conferences. Her account is marked as 'verified' by Twitter. Any cursory search would have shown that she is a real person.

The claim of bots and the numbers of their tweets the government gave to the Guardian and Sky News are evidently false . With just a few clicks the Guardian and Sky News 'journalists' could have debunked the British government claims. But these stenograhers do not even try and just run with whatever nonsense the government claims. Sky News even manipulated the picture of Partisangirl's Twitter homepage in the video and screenshot above. The original shows Maram Susli speaking about Syrian refugees at a conference in Germany. The picture provides that she is evidently a living person and not a 'bot'. But Sky News did not dare to show that. It would have debunked the government's claim.


bigger

After some negative feed back on social media Sky News contacted the 'Russian bot' Ian and invited him to a live interview (vid). Ian Shilling, a wakeful British pensioner, managed to deliver a few zingers against the government and Sky News . He also published a written response:

I have been campaigning against the Neocons and the Neocon Wars since January 2002, when I first realised Dick Cheney and the PNAC crowd were going to use 9/11 as the pretext to launch a disastrous invasion of Iraq. This has nothing to do with Russia. It has EVERYTHING to do with the massive lies constantly told by the UK & US governments about their illegal Wars of Aggression.
...

Brian Whitaker could not hold back. Within the 156,000 tweets Ian wrote over seven years Whitaker found one(!) with a murky theory (not a denial) about the Holocaust. He alleged that Ian believes in 'conspiracy theories'. Whitaker then linked to and discussed one Conspirador Norteño who peddles 'Russian bots' conspiracy theories. Presumably Whitaker did not get the consp-irony of doing such.

On the same day as the other reports the British version of the Huffington Post joined the Times in its earlier smear against British academics, accusing Professor Hayward and Professor Piers Robinson of "whitewashing war crimes". They have done no such thing. Vanessa Beeley was additionally attacked.

Also on the 19th the London Times aimed at another target. Citizen Halo , a well known Finnish grandma, was declared to be a 'Russian troll' based on Ben Nimmo's pseudo-scientific trash, for not believing in the Skripal tale and the faked 'chemical attack' in Syria. The Times doubted her nationality and existence by using quotes around her as a "Finnish activist".

Meanwhile the defense editor of the Times , Deborah Haynes, is stalking Valentina Lisitsa on Twitter. A fresh smear-piece against the pianist is surely in the works.

The obviously organized campaign against critical thinking in Britain extended beyond the Atlantic. While the BBC , Guardian, HuffPo, Times and Sky News published smear pieces depicting dissenting people as 'Russian bots', the Intercept pushed a piece by Mehdi Hasan bashing an amorphous 'left' for rejecting a U.S. war on Syria: Dear Bashar al-Assad Apologists: Your Hero Is a War Criminal Even If He Didn't Gas Syrians .

Mehdi Hasan is of course eminently qualified to write such a piece. Until recently he worked for Al Jazeerah , the media outlet of the Wahhabi dictatorship of Qatar which supports the Qatari sponsored al-Qaeda in its war against Syria. The Mehdi Hasan's piece repeats every false and debunked claim that has been raised against the Syrian government as evidence for the Syrian president's viciousness. Naturally many of the links he provides point back to Al Jazeerah's propaganda. A few years ago Mehdi Hasan tried to get a job with the conservative British tabloid Daily Mail . The Mail did not want him. During a later TV discussion Hasan slammed the Daily Mail for its reporting and conservative editorial position. The paper responded by publishing his old job application. In it Mehdi Hasan emphasized his own conservative believes:

I am also attracted by the Mail's social conservatism on issues like marriage, the family, abortion and teenage pregnancies.

A conservative war-on-Syria promoter is bashing an anonymous 'left' which he falsely accuses of supporting Assad when it takes a stand against imperial wars. Is that a 'progressive' Muslim Brotherhood position? (Added: Stephen Gowans and Kurt Nimmo respond to Hasan's screed.)

On the same day Sonali Kolhatkar at Truthdig , as pseudo-progressive as the Intercept , published a quite similar piece: Why Are Some on the Left Falling for Fake News on Syria? . She bashes the 'left' - without citing any example - for not falling for the recent scam of the 'chemical attack' in Douma and for distrusting the U.S./UK government paid White Helmets. The comments against the piece are lively.

Those working in the media are up in arms over alleged fake news and they lament the loss of paying readership. But they have only themselves to blame. They are the biggest creators of fake news and provider of government falsehood. Their attacks on critical readers and commentators are despicable.

Until two years ago Hala Jabar was foreign correspondent in the Middle East for the Sunday Times . After fourteen years with the paper and winning six awards for her work she was 'made redundant' for her objective reporting on Syria. She remarks on the recent media push against truth about Syria and the very personal attacks against non-conformist opinions:

Hala Jaber @HalaJaber - 18:36 UTC - 19 Apr 2018

In my entire career, spanning more than three decades of professional journalism, I have never seen MSM resolve to such ugly smear campaigns & hit pieces against those questioning mainstream narratives, with a different view point, as I have seen on Syria, recently.

.2/ This is a dangerous manoeuvre , a witch hunt in fact, aimed not only at character assassination, but at attempting to silence those who think differently or even sway from mainstream & state narrative.

.3/ It would have been more productive, to actually question the reason why more & more people are indeed turning to alternative voices for information & news, than to dish out ad hominem smears aimed at intimidating by labelling alternative voices as conspirators or apologists.

.4/ The journalists, activists, professors & citizens under attack are presenting an alternative view point. Surely, people are entitled to hear those and are intelligent enough to make their own judgments.

.5/ Or is there an assumption, (patronizing, if so), that the tens of thousands of people collectively following these alternative voices are too dumb & unintelligent to reach their own conclusions by sifting through the mass information being dished at them daily from all sides?

.6/ Like it or hate it, agree or disagree with them, the bottom line is that the people under attack do present an alternative view point. Least we forget, no one has a monopoly on truth. Are all those currently launching this witch hunt suggesting they do?

The governments and media would like to handle the war on Syria like they handled the war in Spain. They want reports without "any relation to the facts". The media want to "retail the lies" and eager propagandists want to "build emotional superstructures over events that never happened."

The new communication networks allow everyone to follow the war on Syria as diligently as George Orwell followed the war in Spain in which he took part. We no longer have to travel to see the differences of what really happens and what gets reported in the main stream press. We can debunk false government claims with freely available knowledge.

The governments, media and their stenographers would love to go back to the old times when they were not plagued by reports and tweets from Eva, Vanessa, Ian, Maram and Sarah or by blogposts like this one. The vicious campaign against any dissenting report or opinion is a sorry attempt to go back in time and to again gain the monopoly on 'truth'.

It is on us to not let them succeed.

Posted by b on April 21, 2018 at 23:02 UTC | Permalink


bevin , Apr 21 2018 23:23 utc | 1

next page " Excellent.
The good news about both The Intercept and Truthdig pieces is that the comments quickly showed that readers knew what the publishers were up to. The Intercept seemed to have removed Hasan's obscene act of prostitution within a day.

The reality is that we simply have to expect the imperialists, now reduced to propaganda and domestic repression, to act in this way: there is no point in attempting to shame them and they never did believe in journalistic principles or standards or ethics. They are the scum who serve a cannibalistic system for good wages and a comfortable life style- that is what the 'middle class' always did do and always will.

Kaiama , Apr 21 2018 23:56 utc | 2
No longer is it possible to control TV, Radio and printed newspapers and use them to set the message. There are now an almost infinite set of channels including youtube, twitter, blogs, podcasts,streamed radio... It's like there is a public bitcoin/bitnewsledger where new information only gets written into the ledger if it is authenicated by sufficient endorsements.

In the past, a lie could travel around the world before the truth got its shoes on (Mark Twain I believe) but the truth is catching up. We are in the midst of the great changeover where older people still rely on traditional information channels yet younger internet enabled peoplecan leverage the new channels more effectively to educate themselves.

Cycloben , Apr 22 2018 0:01 utc | 3
Western propagandists are freaking out because nobody believes their lies anymore. The more they freak out, the more we know they have lost the narrative.

I just fear for the safety of these independent journalists. It is not beneath the deep state to assassinate their enemies. These people need to be very careful.

Michael Murry , Apr 22 2018 0:47 utc | 11
Orwell would have understood and loved this:
The 2018 Pulitzer Prize winner in National Reporting – Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post

For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation's understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect's transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)

The hysterical, side-splitting laughter over this chicken-choking, circle-jerking drivel will echo in eternity. Galactic stupidity simply doesn't get any more cosmic, except perhaps awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama.

C I eh? , Apr 22 2018 1:04 utc | 12
This is a fight between Deep States of the Rothschild-UK 'Octopus,' US-centric Rockefeller-Kochs, Russian (itself split between competing and intertwined Anglo-American clans/Eurasianists vs Altanticists) and China (also divided between sovereignty oriented Shanghai and Rothschild affiliated Hong Kong which was founded upon the opium trade in cooperation with the UK-Octopus).

The main point of contention is whether we have a hard or soft landing as the New World Order is born, with the UK-Octopus needing to instigate an epic crisis so as to bury countless trillions of worthless derivatives it sits upon, specifically seeking to collapse the USD as a global fiat and use the ensiung chaos to assist the Chinese as they establish an unasailable Yuan fiat. A war with Russia will bring the US-centric Deep State to it's knees and so this forms the basis of the not-so secret alliance between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, while China attempts to remain neutral since Xi prefers a smooth transition since the US-centric group may well launch a nuclear false flag attack on the Korean peninsula, thus irradiating the region and dooming the potential for a Chinese dominated century, should the interests of yhis group be ignored.

All gloves are off and the dispostions of various players are suddenly crystal clear after the firing of Octopus agent Tillerson by Trump via twitter led immediately to the launching of operation 'Novichok,' and was followed up with an attempted series of false flags in East Ghouta which were planned so as to bring the US and Russia to war.

Other important players include the US military (itself divided between Octopus NATO and US-centric Pentagon), the CIA, which is always on all sides of any conflict but was until recently headed by Koch protege Mike Pompeo, as well as smaller Arab, Persian and Turkish Deep States all jockeying for advantage and position. Even the Vatican is included and said to be divided between Polish Cardinals on one side, with German, Italian and many Spanish speaking Cardinals as opponents. There are other Deep States as well and in every instance they are divided between one of the two main parties and themselves to one or another degree.

Media and social control is mainly the preserve of the UK Octopus, so as all of us have understood for some time, anything included within it, from the NYTimes to most of Hollywood, is completely worthless. Alternative media was created as an alternative to Octopus media, while Trump takes to twitter so as to bypass their control.

I feel like a US voter forced to choose between Republicans and Democrats, but with the promised 'Blue Wave' coming in November when Congressional elections are due, certain to be impeached Donald Trump and his US-centric backers have a very short time frame in which to change the score.

S , Apr 22 2018 1:08 utc | 13
CNN also published a long smear piece against YouTubers, basically advocating for depriving them of ad income: http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/19/technology/youtube-ads-extreme-content-investigation/index.html . Among other things, it had this to say about a U.S. comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore:
Ads also appeared on The Jimmy Dore Show channel, a far-left YouTube channel that peddles conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Syrian chemical weapons attacks are hoaxes.

Syria is really the unifying theme in all these attacks.

Diana , Apr 22 2018 1:21 utc | 15
I congratulate Bernhard on yet another excellent piece of investigative journalism. My comment is not intended to criticise or take away from it, but only to point out that Orwell's quote was taken out of context, in the sense that although he remarks on partisan propaganda, he says that it is unimportant, since "the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were." On the other hand, the lies of the pro-NATO press are important because unlike the partisan lies told by leftist parties during the Spanish Civil War, today's NATO lies are the equivalent of the official fascist propaganda of that time: they distort and hide the main issues. Here is the full quote from the link that B has diligently provided:

I remember saying once to Arthur Koestler, 'History stopped in 1936', at which he nodded in immediate understanding. We were both thinking of totalitarianism in general, but more particularly of the Spanish civil war. Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines'. Yet in a way, horrible as all this was, it was unimportant. It concerned secondary issues -- namely, the struggle for power between the Comintern and the Spanish left-wing parties, and the efforts of the Russian Government to prevent revolution in Spain. But the broad picture of the war which the Spanish Government presented to the world was not untruthful. The main issues were what it said they were. But as for the Fascists and their backers, how could they come even as near to the truth as that? How could they possibly mention their real aims? Their version of the war was pure fantasy, and in the circumstances it could not have been otherwise.

Tyronius , Apr 22 2018 1:48 utc | 16
As a given group loses its grip on power, it tends to employ ever more extreme tactics. This explains the recent behavior of players like the US government, the UK government, the American mainstream media and various think tanks. What other extreme behavior should we expect from such a cabal? After all, they've already shown contempt for conditionally protected freedoms- all of them- and a willingness to manufacture any narrative they want in order to further their aims of conquest and profiteering. This whole mess could spiral out of control in countless ways with terrifying consequences.
dh , Apr 22 2018 1:49 utc | 17
@15 Yes but I'm not sure how relevant Orwell's quote is to today. Do we even have a 'left-wing' anymore? Or a Comintern for that matter? Even fascism wears a smiley face. Seems to me that what we have is a tightly controlled MSM. That control may be slipping but we have yet to see a replacement.
psychohistorian , Apr 22 2018 2:01 utc | 18
Those of us at MoA who are regulars may feel a certain level of complacency based on the level of discourse here but I assure you that most Americans are still very much zombie followers of whatever the TV and other media tell them. I believe that there is a strong possibility that MoA and like sites will become the focus of paid narrative pushers and if that is not successful there are other ways to make b and our lives difficult.

If b is ever knocked offline for some reason and needs help I encourage him to email his readers with potential strategies to show/provide support. Thanks again and again for your web site b.

Jackrabbit , Apr 22 2018 2:05 utc | 19
The first casualty of war is the truth. Many Westerners would recognize this phrase but many of them don't understand that there -IS- a war (the new Cold War). The longstanding law that prevented government propaganda in the US was revoked several years ago. U.S Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
Ken , Apr 22 2018 2:07 utc | 20
This type of tyranny has been going on forever in the US. Take A. Lincoln. More than 14,000 civilians were arrested under martial law during the war throughout the Union. Abraham Lincoln did so because they expressed views critical of Lincoln or his war. It's the same-o. Different faces same crap.
frances , Apr 22 2018 2:14 utc | 22
b- I am sorry to see their attacks on you, if things do go sideways please contact me if I can be of help in any way.
Do you know what has happened to Tucker Carlson, he has been such a strong voice for truth that I am concerned for him.
Stay strong and thank you for all you do in support of the truth.
Clueless Joe , Apr 22 2018 2:23 utc | 23
Sure, there are more people that see the lies and bullshit for what they are. Still, seeing it is not enough. What really matters now is to fully wipe out the mainstream media, to make it completely extinct, and therefore seeing they're full of shit is only the prerequisite to pondering how to actually bankrupt and destroy them. That's what everyone who's not fully on board with the Western regimes' and bankers' propaganda should be thinking about. How to convince people not only to stop buying their lies, but to stop buying them at all, how to cut down the vast majority of their readership/viewers to the point they don't matter anymore.
Tom , Apr 22 2018 2:26 utc | 24
Thank you b. This a very important subject. It wouldn't surprise me if a false flag happened that would be aimed at censuring all alternative news. This might be centered around a decoupling of east from west, perhaps when the current financial crisis explodes. Oh, has anyone heard from Tucker Carlson lately?
VK , Apr 22 2018 3:06 utc | 25
You can fool someone for a long time, you can fool a lot of people for a short time - but you can't fool a lot of people for a long time. That is, unless those people are willing to live the lie.

I think the reason the MSM's propaganda is so effective nowadays (and I'm thinking specifically about the world since the Iraq invasion in 2003) is that, deep down, maybe in the collective inconsciousness level, the working classes from the First World countries know their superior living standards depend on imperial brutality over the rest of the world. That's why, for example, the USG and Downing Street haven't lost significant credibility domestically after Iraq and after Libya. This is a dark social pact: people live the lies only to sleep well at night and claim plausible deniability after; they only wish it to be over quickly and at the least human cost from their side (every coffin that comes back to their community from the Middle East is a crack in the illusion). They believe in Russiagate because, deep down, they don't want to believe they were capable of electing someone like Trump and, mainly, because they know their economies are failing, and the only solution is to invade other countries/prop up the war industry.

Brian , Apr 22 2018 3:16 utc | 26
Smearing people for appearing on RT! Americans who prattle on about freedom and democracy are pressuring other not to do this or that which is to inhibit their freedom. Don't they know it makes them look like dictators without portfolio?
Fernando Arauxo , Apr 22 2018 3:34 utc | 27
The greatest martyr IMHO is Lisa Howard. If she were alive today she would have thrived on the Alt-media circuit. She is our patron saint.
Rob , Apr 22 2018 4:35 utc | 28
Great article, b. I am a relative newcomer to MoA, having found it through Caitlin Johnstone (Rogue Journalist), but in a short time, I have come to rely heavily on it for "hidden" news and incisive analysis. Yes, independent news outlets are vital sources of truth, but their reach is still tiny compared to that of the Empire and its toads in the media. The well organized smear campaign against those who refuse to bow down is a frightening development indeed.
karlof1 , Apr 22 2018 4:45 utc | 29
Thanks b for your outstanding dissecting! The Information War is complex yet still remains simple--all that's required is a critically thinking approach for any personally unconfirmed sources and the data presented followed by the willingness to ask questions, no matter how uncomfortable. Such a disciplined mind was once the paramount goal for those seeking wisdom, but such pursuits are deemed passé, unrequired in the Digital Age. But Big Lie Media's been working its evil for decades despite many calling out the lies. Funny how the two big former communist nations are now more credible than the West and expressly seek honest and open--Win-Win--relationships based on trust and equality. The Moral Table at play during Cold War 1 is flipped with the Outlaw US Empire being the Evil Empire. And the Evil Empire can't stand its own nakedness and its oozing social sores.

The liar is often agitated and nervous whereas one with the facts rests easy and remains calm. In the run up to their summit, note how Trump is already agitated and nervous, already prefacing his lies to come, whereas Kim is easy and calm, setting the table. Shrillness and hysteria are the similar signs provided by media liars and is almost always fact-free, supposed "sources" anonymous.

Grieved , Apr 22 2018 5:02 utc | 30
A magisterial piece of journalism, b. Congratulations, and thank you.

~~

Spain. Orwell. Fascism.

I was born decades after the Spanish Civil War, and to be very honest I never knew much about it, nor have ever learned since. But Guernica I knew about, even as a young teenager in school. The culture was shocked into remembering forever that there was a lie involved with Guernica. That's all I ever really knew, was that Spain was a lie, underneath which a massacre lay.

They say it was the humanitarian and artistic type of people who kept the truth of Spain alive against the propaganda of the fascists. I don't know. I believe as I said the other day that propaganda only works to crowd out the truth, so that people are not exposed to the truth. But propaganda doesn't work in a battle against the truth, when people are exposed to both sides of the story.

If you were running a scam based on fake news, and one day you had to make allegations using this very term, and play your "fake news" card on the table in a round of betting that was merely one round in a long game - if you did this, you'd be a bad card player, or one driven to the corner and getting extremely close to leaving the table.

If your playing partner suddenly had to show the "false flag" card on the surface of the table for the whole game to see - yet another secret hole card exposed and now worthless forever - you could well think your game was finished. And it is - barring a few nasty tricks...which will be recorded and placed into the game as IOU's.

Don't anybody be part of that collateral damage - be well. And instead, let's collect on those IOU's. The game is almost over. Many people will appear to say that the players cannot be beat. But they are with the losers. We are the players.

Merlin2 , Apr 22 2018 5:32 utc | 32
psychohistorian @17

I wholeheartedly second your suggestion. I think the battle against the truth by the deep States everywhere has only begun. They will not stop at smearing individual posters or sites.

I do think we all need to start becoming more aware of alternatives, to YouTube (how's DTube?), Twitter (gab?), Facebook, Google (several alternatives) etc. But that will not be enough because I fear that in time the IP providers will come under pressure too - in all the western countries, especially. And the domain providers 9we all know them), followed by blog platforms such as WorldPress. I am not saying it's easy to curtail all of those, but they will try, as sure as the sun sets in the West.

Of course, the biggest attacks will be mounted against anonymous commenters and posters. That's already in the works at several outlets. The idea is of course that by stripping off anonimity people will self-censor for fear of repercussions to their real life selves.

There are people working on alternative platforms of all sorts. I am somewhat hopeful about user owned sites though these efforts are nascent. I hope commenters here will share what they know of alternatives, even knowing this won't be an easy battle. After all, Twitter owes its popularity to well, its popularity. Same with Facebook or Instagram or youTube. Therein lies the rub - it won't be easy to wean users from these platforms as many start-ups found out. That however should not mean that we shouldn't try. More and more Twitter users for example are cross-posting on gab, and several youTubers started uploading also to Dtube. neither site is ideal, I know. But neither was Twitter when it started.

Antares , Apr 22 2018 5:50 utc | 33
The real aim of propaganda is to persuade the politicians and not the public. One man in their middle wants to start a war and the media make sure that his or her fellow politicians will hear no other story and make support the only possibility. That's why people like us have to be vilified, so that all these politicians can invent an excuse for themselves and turn their head away. What we think really doesn't matter because we are not the ones in control. They only have to convince the Colin Powells and Frank Timmermans's.
Al-Pol , Apr 22 2018 5:52 utc | 34
The current increased smear campaigns against the so called Russian Bots, Assad Apologists etc., is surely just the first part of of a an attempt to implement very serious censorship and control over the internet to attempt to completely block out any alternative voices.

Amber Rudd the UK Home Secretary has been banging on about Russian cyber attcks for the past couple of months. Whilst based on the history of UK Government IT projects I couldn't expect the UK alone to be capable of implementing any meaningful censorship scheme (they have a track record of producing so many multi-billion pound national IT project disasters) but with the coordinated help of the US and others they might just be able to put up enough censorship barriers to be able to get back to their original plans (removing Assad and whatever else they have in mind). False-flag chemical attacks haven't quite worked out to plan, but add in a false-flag cyber attack that apparently disables some of the UK (and/or US/EU) vital services and that should be enough for them to convince the plebs and sufficient MP's that it has become absolutely necessary to block Russain and other media and internet sites and force the owners of many social media channels to disable long lists of people with alternative views.

Dave , Apr 22 2018 6:32 utc | 36
Prop or Not is NOT a 'friendly neighbourhood' anything. It was exposed a while ago as being a joint state propaganda project between the CIA and West Ukraine, with the goal of spreading anti-Russia disinformation, and employing the collusion of some no-integrity US propaganda rags like The Daily Beast.

http://yournewswire.com/propornot-cia-ukrainian-operation/
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/28/unpacking-the-shadowy-outfit-behind-2017s-biggest-fake-news-story/

bobzibub , Apr 22 2018 7:14 utc | 37
Many thanks b for the hard work. This is what we wish our traditional media would invest the time and publish.

Instead, what we get is something like: Terry Glavin: Here's why some people choose not to believe in Assad's atrocities which seems to be a great example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Note the vitriol!

My question is their motivation and timing. Why does the rhetoric seem to increase after the latest attack? Why care if 10% of the population doesn't follow their narrative now? Are they preparing for a new round of kinetic action? Or do they simply believe their management of the narrative needs more investment?

ralphieboy , Apr 22 2018 9:38 utc | 41
If people are going to rely on social media feeds for anything other than information on what their friends and family are up to, then they are opening themselves up to being manipulated easily and with a minimum of actual effort.

You no longer need to own a newspaper or a broadcast network to do so.

JohnnyRVF , Apr 22 2018 11:23 utc | 49
Ultimately people with a concience and some integrity will realize that something is awry. I'm no spring chicken and have been on the net for nearly 20 years. There are more ' old ' people surfing the net than initially may be apparent. As life passes by people become much more attuned to bullsh*t. T. May's husband is on the board of a large British Armaments company. No doubt her ministers are all in on many scams. She is a very mediocre character, a fool as her time as home secretary demonstrated and was only voted in place so as to do the bidding of others. And in my opinion, when I say others I mean she is the western harlot who jumps when anyone pulls her string. They say that if you tell a lie often enough people believe it to be the truth. Not necessarily. There are so many holes in the Skripal and Syrian stories that only someone who doesn't want to have their view challenged will believe them. The stories are falling apart and as they do, so does the credibility and trust of the western MSM and Politik. The reason the Germans and others refused to join in, is I suspect, they realize that in part, because once that is lost, it takes a great deal more to recover it. The Skripal case and the latest Syrian faked gas attack is the start of the end for T. May and her govt.
fairleft , Apr 22 2018 11:25 utc | 50
Good comments, especially psychohistorian about being prepared to jump to alternative platforms ... Perhaps Russian ones?

What I was referencing in comment 5 is this relatively new desire by the 'powers that be' for purity, for absolutely no one from 'our side' dissenting against the mainstream (and completely bonkers in its anti-Russian extremism) narrative. This is not like the pre-digital age, when small-circulation real leftist publications were not subject to mainstream and official government extermination campaigns. And I don't think this is simply because of digital age reach, because the readership for the real alternative media's left/anti-imperial perspective doesn't engage enough people to be meaningful in terms of power and elections. At least in the US; less certain about elsewhere.

There's something angry, extreme, and extremely insecure about the psychology of the Western ruling class right now. My bet is that because of that insecurity they won't be so dangerous to Russia/China in the years to come, but instead the anger will be directed at internal left/anti-militarist dissenters. For some reason our reality bugs the sh!t out of them despite our small numbers.

deschutes , Apr 22 2018 11:33 utc | 51
Until recently I used to read articles at both The Intercept and at Truthdig, but have since realized both of these 'news' outlets actively censor posts that are too accurate, too insightful of what the US government and MSM are doing in Syria and how they are manipulating public opinion with the White Helmets, staged false gas attacks, etc. I don't trust Pierre Omidyar, the philanthropist behind The Intercept, he has questionable political alliances. I have had many of my posts at both Truthdig and The Intercept censored even though they were entirely within comment rules. The Intercept has a lot of really BAD journalists posting crap there, like this ass clown Mehdi Hasan. Even Glenn Greenwald, a multi millionaire, is suspect. Both of these websites are psuedo-left and should not be trusted!
From the resistance trench with love , Apr 22 2018 11:40 utc | 52
....attacks on critical readers and commentators are despicable..

Indeed, but "the one free of sin to throw the first stone" ....

From my experience at several supposed "alternative media", most of them somehow pro-Russian in the sense that they do not promote the sick warmongerism coming from the US and UK stablishments against Russia and its allies in Syria and against Syria herself, every site has its biases and slandering attacks by the owners of the blogs or by the "community" os sycophants residing there are everyday bread for any newcomer who could express a bit of dissent against the general editorial view.
I mayself have been obliged to change my nickname several times already to avoid attacks or banning/censorship, when my position about Syrai and Russia does not differ almost in the least with that of the people mentioned above who are being object of smearing campaign by the MSM....and this has happened to me in the supposed pro-Russian "alt-media"....

Thus, I would recommend to apply a bit of self-criticism and reflect about how anyone of us are probably contributing to the same effort of the bullies mentioned above against mainly common citizens who only try to commit themselves to spread some of the truth they are finding online through research and intensive reading, and try to offer an alternative point of view or simply debunk the usual nonsense especially against certain ideologies, mostly spreaded by US commenters.....

timbers , Apr 22 2018 11:50 utc | 53
I noticed the part about Ian Shillilng being accused of denying the Holocaust or implying it was a govt conspiracy.

I find that interesting, because a co-worker asked me out to the blue "Do you even believe the Holocaust happened?" It's a strange question with no relation to Russiagate, yet pops up a lot so it clearly has an agenda. The question made no sense but I did recognized it as a familiar attack by the warmongers. My response was to to respond to such a ridiculous, dishonest question and I ignored it.

He went to ask if I was "stupid" for not seeing that Mueller's indictments over lying to the FBI and tax evasion/money laundering in Ukraine are NOT are not same thing as proving Russia meddled to deny Hillary her Presidency.

Don Wiscacho , Apr 22 2018 12:07 utc | 54
Thanks for the article b.
As painful as it is to watch the increasing attempts at censoring non-msm voices, we can take solace in the fact that, like a cornered rat, the establishment has no other option left but an all-out, full-retard attack on anyone not toeing the line. While the damage they are doing is real, this should be balanced with the fact that this attack comes out of weakness and not strength: they are the ones "losing", and knowledge of that reality makes them increasingly unhinged.
partisan , Apr 22 2018 12:13 utc | 55
https://twitter.com/RealAlexRubi/status/966178001858826241

LOL

At first I thought this is some kind of joke. Than I watched few times, I still believe CNN guy is in some kind of mission here, let's say to distract its viewers from existential matters that grips ordinary people in the US. His insistence on the "Russians" is illogical at first...this woman appear to be serious but when it comes to CNN everything is set-up, not just everyone can come to CNN, period. No facts involved the conversation is about NOTHING, that is the US national narrative being imposed by the ruling class trough various media. Just like "attack" on Syria and Syria's gas attack. There were none, there were no cruise missile fired, there were no downed ones! CNN's role is also to entertain its audience as well, everything but not talk about social and economic issues. In other words to indoctrinate - shift attention, not to ask unpleasant questions.

fast freddy , Apr 22 2018 13:50 utc | 61
The NYT and NPR are warmonger institutions. It is sad that ppl who consider themselves to be liberals, democrats, blue team (anti-war?- that's a stretch!) embrace these institutions as purveyors of truth or even real news.

Has the NYT ever seen a war it didn't support?

Anonymous2 , Apr 22 2018 14:00 utc | 62
Great job b,

Obivously western intelligence servies, NATO leak stuff to western msm to intimidate and censor political oppostion in every western country.

Ben Nimmo is one of the most maniac propaganda dogs Nato/Neocons out there, he is a propaganda agent for NATO.

Levcek , Apr 22 2018 14:06 utc | 63
@ Diana 15

I don't feel that the quote is out of context. Yes, you show that Orwell clearly didn't consider it a big deal at that time, but what is happening now is that what he describes is omnipresent, the main stream of information we get, there is nothing else if you don't search for alternatives. It is beyond doubt that Orwell, in the present context, would never have added what he added in that book.
So in that light I feel the quote is extremely relevant and a good start of the article.

I want to express my thanks for this site and am really glad I was pointed towards MoA by other sources of real information.

Anonymous2 , Apr 22 2018 14:14 utc | 64
Meanwhile, the same western media give free pass to liberal warcriminals like Macron's France that just today call for permanent illegal occupation of Syria - after illegally bombing it.

France's Macron Urges US, Allies to Stay in Syria Even After Daesh Defeat
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201804221063800226-macron-daesh-us-france-syria/

But no, it is people like us who call out this BS that gets silenced and harassed by the same ignorant western media/"journalists" along with the western deep state spy networks!

Eric , Apr 22 2018 14:28 utc | 66
What an excellent source of information the MoA site offers those of us who are seeking the truth and living in an Empire full of lies.Over the past few months, I have perused this site regularly and always find it very helpful in gaining a better and more concise understanding of
what is really going on in our world.

I am also astounded at how helpful it is for me to read the comments of so many who are regulars here.
The courtesy and level of intellectual dialog that goes on here in the comments section is a rare thing indeed! We all must fight for truth for the sake of our families and loved ones.

Levcek , Apr 22 2018 14:45 utc | 68
@ somebody | Apr 22, 2018 7:01:49 AM | 46

"Fake" and "Genuine" are used to describe the video with the water being poured over people. Fisk calls them genuine because the video was taped in the place where it pretends to be, not in a film set or a location where nothing was going on. It was filmed in the real hospital with real doctors, nurses and victims.
The video therefore is real (not staged), but the claim that people are suffering from gas wounds is false.

You can thus also say that the video is fake: it is said to show victims of a gas attack, while the doctor says they were suffering from suffocation, and only when someone shouted "gas", did people start hosing each other down (which as someone posted in another article, would have only made things worse if they had chlorine on them). As evidence of a gas attack, the video is fake.

As long as a person is not claiming that the video shows victims of a real gas attack aftermath, we're all on the same side I guess.

Anonymous2 , Apr 22 2018 14:51 utc | 70
The response is of course to more eagerly call out the neocons propangada, western media propaganda and so forth, get a twitter account, get a blog, lets multiply this movement, because these people will of course not stop at destroying peoples lives in the newspapers, they will call for censorship, registrations and sooner or later jail for these views.
dh , Apr 22 2018 14:54 utc | 71
Orwell's great fear was totalitarianism. Either from the left or the right. What we have now is much more subtle. The MSM retains the illusion of freedom and most people go along with it. We may even realize we are being manipulated but the only alternative is posting on sites like MOA.
Bevin Kacon , Apr 22 2018 15:49 utc | 76
@ 75

The UK has no credibility left now. May's farcical handling of the Brexit negs has exposed her as little more than a Tory mouthpiece, parroting party bon mots whilst having no clue where she is heading. And I suspect her civil servants haven't, either!

The Skirpal charade was a front for several things but mainly, I think, to turn the focus away from Brexit and to opening the Cold War front again. But what is alarming was her open support for attacks on Syria. It's been known for some time that the UK has special forces operating in Syria covertly; May's tub-thumping pretty much clarified that the Uk is as determined as Washington and that Rothschild puppet Macron to force a regime change in Syria.

You said she must go. I said the same thing last September after the fall-out from the June election and other foot-in-mouth incidents: she'd be gone before year end. How wrong I was. She has figures in the background protecting her.

majobrs , Apr 22 2018 19:10 utc | 78
Crushing dissent goes completely against 'liberal values' which is about the only high ground left for the humanitarian regime changers a.k.a the Franquistas. So that is not going to happen. On the other hand, social media is the easiest place to use covert operatives, even MSM has other sponsors and actors, social media can be directly controlled by governments , and the 'intelligence community'. So they are just using the net for what they set it up for.
Propaganda for domestic consumption in the USA, isn't really meant to convince as much as to scare people into submission. People don't obey Big Brother because they like him or believe him, but because they cannot talk back to him and are scared of him. Media Scare tactics work less if people can talk back, hear their own voice, not just Big Brother from every loudspeaker.

Martin Luther (not King) said that "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it the bigger it becomes." The snowball is melting because there is shift in the narrative given what is happening on the ground in Syria. I find it fascinating that as it melts down layer by layer, the first trojan horse outfits to implode are left humanitarian ones like the Intercept, Newsbud, Democracy Now. The right wing ones like Fox, Young Turks, just concentrate on dumbing down the conversation to reduce reality to bombastic and misleading 'political' points. This is a another way to control the conversation, to scare people into thinking that facts or not facts but partisan political 'opinions'. Look at how Jimmy Dore's in the interview mentioned by B with Carla Ortiz, is trying to dumb down the conversation and keeps feigning ignorance. Thankfully she blows him out of the water. Good job Carla!
The snowball is big and melting slowly. Who's next?

Grieved , Apr 23 2018 1:47 utc | 84
@b

Vesti has a great 10-minute clip dated yesterday from a Russian talk show with Margarita Simonyan of RT doing much of the talking. What she says is really encouraging about how she's trying to talk, not to power (which already knows the real truth that it's obscuring) but to common people, because there are those among the common people who do speak up and who really do shape public opinion - not governments.

She cited Roger Waters as an example, who was speaking at a concert and telling the truth about the White Helmets. She said, someone has to read in order to speak. And someone has to write so someone can read. And that's what RT is doing, and that's how it works. And it is working.

The panel agreed that the truth from Tony Blair finally came out 15 years later. So we have only to persist and stay safe for 15 years and we win:
The Tony Blair Rule: The Truth Takes 15 Years to Come Out, Skripal Countdown Starts Now - Simonyan

David Park , Apr 23 2018 2:16 utc | 87
Thanks for introducing us to Valentina Lisitsa! Her playing is magnificent with exquisite dynamics and timing.
ashley albanese , Apr 23 2018 3:52 utc | 89
George Orwell has been a presence throughout this thread. It was unfortunate he was hurried by MI6 to finish the last pages of 'Animal Farm' so it could be translated into Arabic and be used to discredit Communist parties in Western Asia. This always raised the ire of Communist organisations through following decades .This being said he wrote some great text especially for me the revealing 1939 novel - Coming up for A
Steve , Apr 23 2018 8:54 utc | 91
What many people don't realize is that fascism is a greedy habit, it expands to finally swallow up those who think they are protected by silence or looking the other way. The individuals and organizations villified today are the real heroes, and even if they suffer today, they will be vindicated in the end. But unfortunately the gullible masses would by then be in the open prison of fascism.
MichaelK , Apr 23 2018 15:00 utc | 94
I don't know if wars are really an extension of diplomacy by other means, but they certainly seem to be... an extension of ideology and propaganda. Ideas are very important in preparing and fighting wars; especially today, though, in reality the way we think about our western imperial war-fighting, goes back well over a century, back to the Whiteman's Burden and other imperialist myths.

For the last thirty years we've essentially been fighting 'liberal crusades for freedom and democracy.' That, at least, was the 'cover story' the pretext presented to the people. There's an irony here. Just like Islamic State, we've been engaging in 'holy warfare' too!

The reason our media is so full of lies and distortions and propaganda is because the harsh realities of our New Imperialism wars are so out of synch with the reality of what's happening and crucially the attitudes of the general public who don't want to fight more overseas wars, and especially if they are 'crusades' for democracy and freedom. But what's happened recently is that dissent is being targeted as tantamount to treason. This is rather new and disturbing.

It's because the ruling elite are... losing it and way too many people are questioning their ideas about the wars we are fighting and their legitimacy and 'right to rule.'

In many ways the Internet is bringing about a kind of revolution in relation to the people's access to 'texts' and images that reminds one of the great intellectual upheavals that the translation of the Bible had on European thought four hundred years ago. Suddenly Bibles were being printed all over the place and people could read the sacred texts without having to ask the educated priests to 'filter' and translate and explain what it all meant. In a way Wikileaks was doing the same thing... allowing people access to secret material, masses of it, bypassing the traditional newsmedia and the journalistic 'preists.'

[Jun 24, 2020] Advice to Russigaters of the Democratic Party

Jun 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

JoaoAlfaiate , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMT

Before confronting the Russians, it might be a good idea to regain control of Minneapolis and Seattle ..

[Jun 23, 2020] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ( soft neoliberals ) to counter the defection of trade union members from the party

Highly recommended!
divide and conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful, so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
Dec 28, 2019 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 12.27.19 at 10:21 pm

John,

I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment. In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new.

You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.

See discussion of this issue by Professor Ganesh Sitaraman in his recent article (based on his excellent book The Great Democracy ) https://newrepublic.com/article/155970/collapse-neoliberalism

To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.

When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.

Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society.

The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.

Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.

Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.

Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups. On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.

Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.

They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.

If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.

Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.

So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the "soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.

The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups, such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals, etc)

That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.

[Jun 23, 2020] Surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real or not)

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is real and what isn't any more. ..."
"... Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the country. ..."
"... Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527 ) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage to a crumbling US. ..."
"... Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't exist. ..."
Jun 23, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com
    1. Gerald says: June 20, 2020 at 5:34 pm surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real or not) of course if you are a kind of despotic dictatorship (as appears to be happening in terms of western neoliberal capitalism) then you will merely do as you wish regardless until confronted with overwhelming opposition at which point you will infiltrate and co-opt said opposition, pay lip service to their vague claim for 'rights' and continue on your merry way.

      I always thought that the greatest thing that the capitalists did in the 20th century was to get the slaves to love their slavery, its all advertising, hollywood, TV that's all that politics has become, certainly in the West. Edward Bernays has a lot to answer for.

      Of course ultimately you reach a point where no one truly understands what is real and what isn't any more.

      Boris Johnson PM of the UK? Surely not, Theresa May? I can barely wipe the smirk from my face. 4th and 5th rate politicians relying on SPADs to run the country.

      There is no wonder that Putin looks like the greatest 21st century leader, the last of a dying breed. Reading his recent essay on the truths of WWII ( http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/63527 ) yet again sees him posting uncomfortable realities to a West knee deep in vassalage to a crumbling US.

      Change is coming whether we like it or not, with or without Putin, we'd best tend our own garden and stop worrying about an opposition that simply doesn't exist.

[Jun 23, 2020] Putin Tries To Set Record Straight by

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump in the throat?" ..."
"... no matter what anyone is trying to prove today ..."
"... War Against Civilians ..."
Jun 22, 2020 | www.antiwar.com
"Why does life almost come to a halt on June 22? And why does one feel a lump in the throat?"

This how Russian President Vladimir Putin chose to address the fateful day in 1941, when Germany invaded Russia, with an extraordinarily detailed article on June 19: "75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future."

Citing archival data, Putin homes in on both world wars, adding important information not widely known, and taking no liberties with facts well known to serious historians. As for the "lump in the throat", the Russian president steps somewhat out of character by weaving in some seemingly formative personal experiences of family loss during that deadly time and postwar years. First, the history:

"On June 22, 1941, the Soviet Union faced the strongest, most mobilized and skilled army in the world with the industrial, economic, and military potential of almost all Europe working for it. Not only the Wehrmacht, but also Germany's satellites, military contingents of many other states of the European continent, took part in this deadly invasion.

"The most serious military defeats in 1941 brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. By 1943 the manufacture of weapons and munitions behind the lines exceeded the rates of military production of Germany and its allies. The Soviet people did something that seemed impossible. the Red Army. no matter what anyone is trying to prove today , made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives, one in seven of the population the USA lost one in 320." [ Emphasis added .]

Somber factual recollections. Significant, too, is Putin's explicit criticism of "crimes committed by the [Stalin] regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions." Nor does he spare criticism of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, denouncing its "secret protocols as "an act of personal power" which in no way reflected "the will of the Soviet people."

Putin notes that he asked for "the whole body of materials pertaining to contacts between the USSR and Germany in the dramatic days of August and September 1939," and found facts "known to very few these days" regarding Moscow's reaction to German demands on carving up Poland (yet again). On this key issue, he cites, "paragraph 2 of the Secret Protocol to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of August 23, 1939", indicating that it throws new light on Moscow's initial foot-dragging and its eventual decision to join in a more limited (for Russia) partition.

Look it up. And while you're at it, GOOGLE Khalkhin Gol River and refresh your memory about what Putin describes as "intense fighting" with Japan at the time.

The Russian president points out, correctly, that "the Red Army supported the Allied landing in Normandy by carrying out the large-scale Operation Bagration in Belorussia", which is actually an understatement. ( See: " Who Defeated the Nazis: a Colloquy and " Once We Were Allies; Then Came MICIMATT ."

"No matter what anyone is trying to prove today," writes Putin, who may have had in mind the latest indignity from Washington; namely, the White House tweet on V-E day this year, saying "On May 8, 1945, America and Great Britain had victory over the Nazis."

Lump in Throat

And why does one feel a lump rise in the throat? Putin asks rhetorically.

"The war has left a deep imprint on every family's history. Behind these words, there are the fates of millions of people Behind these words, there is also the pride, the truth and the memory.

"For my parents, the war meant the terrible ordeals of the Siege of Leningrad where my two-year old brother Vitya died. It was the place where my mother miraculously managed to survive. My father, despite being exempt from active duty, volunteered to defend his hometown. He fought at the Nevsky Pyatachok bridgehead and was severely wounded. And the more years pass, the more I treasure in my heart the conversations I had with my father and mother on this subject, as well as the little emotion they showed.

"People of my age and I believe it is important that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren understand the torment and hardships their ancestors had to endure how their ancestors managed to persevere and win. We have a responsibility to our past and our future to do our utmost to prevent those horrible tragedies from happening ever again. Hence, I was compelled to come out with an article about World War II and the Great Patriotic War."

Putin was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) eight years after the vicious siege by the German army ended. Michael Walzer, in his War Against Civilians , notes, "More people died in the 900-day siege of Leningrad than in the infernos of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken together."

Putin notes that the "human truth" of war, "which is bitter and merciless, has been handed down to us by writers and poets who walked through hell at the front. For my generation, as well as for many others, their piercing trench prose and poems have left their mark on the soul forever." He calls particular attention to a poem by Alexander Tvardovsky , "I was killed near Rzhev," dedicated to those who fought the formidable German Army Group Center.

Putin explains, "In the battles for Rzhev from October 1941 to March 1943, the Red Army lost 1,342,888 people, including wounded and missing in action. For the first time, I call out these terrible, tragic and far from complete figures collected from archive sources. I do it to honor the memory of the feat of known and nameless heroes", who were largely ignored in the postwar years.

The Germans were hardly the first to invade Russia. It was occupied for more than two centuries beginning in 1240 by Mongols from the east, after which its western neighbor was Europe, the most powerful and expansionist region in world history into the 20th century. After the Mongols were finally driven out, in came invaders from Lithuania, Sweden, the Hanseatic League, Napoleon and, 79 years ago today, Hitler.

"The Poet of Russian Grief"

Out of this history (and before the Nazi attack on June 22, 1941) came the deeply compassionate 19th century poet Nikolay Nekrasov, who, after Pushkin, became my favorite Russian poet. His poem, "Giving Attention to the Horrors of War") moved me deeply; I have carried it with me from my college days when I committed it to memory.

I visited Moscow in April 2015 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the meeting of American and Russian troops on the Elbe at the end of WWII. It was a heartwarming observance of the victory of our wartime Grand Alliance and a reminder of what might be possible seven decades later. I was asked to speak at the ceremony celebrating the meeting on the Elbe, and was happy to be able to feature Nekrasov's poem to compensate for my out-of-practice Russian.

On June 22, 2016, the 75th anniversary of the Nazi attack on Russia, I was in Yalta, Crimea, with an American citizens' delegation and was again asked to speak. It was an even more appropriate occasion to recite Nekrasov's "Giving Attention to the Horrors of War," and I shall never forget the poignant experience of personally witnessing, and feeling, just why Nekrasov is called "the poet of Russian grief." There were several people in the audience old enough to remember.

Finally, I recited Nekrasov again, in Brussels, at the annual EU Parliament Members' Forum on Russia in early December 2015. My talk came on the second day of the Forum; until then, almost all of the talks were pretty much head-speeches. So I tried a little heart therapy and called my presentation "Stay Human." The late Giulietto Chiesa, one of the Forum moderators recorded my speech and posted it on his website.

The poem can be heard from minute 11:00 to 17:00 . There is some voice-over in Italian, but I spoke mostly in English and some of that is intelligible – audible, I mean. There is no voice-over for the Nekrasov poem. I shall provide a translation into English below:

Heeding the horrors of war,
At every new victim of battle
I feel sorry not for his friend, nor for his wife,
I feel sorry not even for the hero himself.

Alas, the wife will be comforted,
And best friends forget their friend;
But somewhere there is one soul –
Who will remember unto the grave!

Amidst the hypocrisy of our affairs
And all the banality and triviality
Unique among what I have observed in the world
Sacred, sincere tears –
The tears of poor mothers!

They do not forget their own children,
Who have perished on the bloody battlefield,
Just as the weeping willow never lifts
Its dangling branches

Suffice it to add that I confess to being what the Germans call a "Putin Versteher" – literally, one who understands Putin. (Sadly, most Germans mean no compliment with this appellation; quite the contrary.) As one who has studied Russia for half a century, though, I believe I have some sense for where Russian leaders "are coming from."

That said, like almost all Americans, I cannot begin to know, in any adequate sense, what it is actually like to be part of a society with a history of being repeatedly invaded and/or occupied – whether from East or West. In my view, U.S. policy makers need to make some effort to become, in some degree, Putin Verstehers, or the risk of completely unnecessary armed confrontation will increase still more.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This originally appeared at Consortium News .

[Jun 22, 2020] Vladimir Putin The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II

Jun 18, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

The Russian president offers a comprehensive assessment of the legacy of World War II, arguing that "Today, European politicians, and Polish leaders in particular, wish to sweep the Munich Betrayal under the carpet. The Munich Betrayal showed to the Soviet Union that the Western countries would deal with security issues without taking its interests into account."

by Vladimir Putin ,

[Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'.

Highly recommended!
Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J. Chuba , Jun 21 2020 14:18 utc | 78

Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran and Venezuela?

In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes that it condemned publicly in court.

[Jun 21, 2020] I believe Stalin and the Central Commity decision to occupy those countries on its periphery and absolutely crush the likely fascist resurgence was the correct decision. I gather they recognized the oligarchic forces who financed and supported Hitler. Those same forces are at it again today.

Notable quotes:
"... It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow. ..."
"... The US began arming Afghan warlords and mujaheddin as early as August 1979, as part of the then US State Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to push the USSR into an Afghan version of the Vietnam War. The plan passed muster with the Carter government. The funding and arming of the mujaheddin by the CIA was what led Kabul to request help from Moscow. The Soviets arrived in December 1979. ..."
"... The Russians suffered and endured horrific sacrifices during WWII while simultaneously turning the tide against the Third Reich. An heroic tale much unappreciated by many in the West. The Russians did participate in the Lend-Lease program although the benefits are debated especially for the early and decisive years. ..."
"... https://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm ..."
Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Jun 20 2020 21:25 utc | 25

@ Posted by: Ike | Jun 20 2020 20:17 utc | 20

For the events of the 1930s, I recommend reading Micheal Jabara Carley's The Alliance that Never Was and the Coming of World War II.

This book is essential to understand the intricate politics that ultimately triggered WWII because it focus on the people that really had the power to stop it: the Nation-States themselves (through their diplomats).

The politics of the 1930s were very complex, but can be based on one main contradiction: during the 1930s, there was the widespread belief in France and the UK that a new world war would result in a worldwide communist revolution. The equation was war=communism in Europe, according to the conservative governments of those two nations.

Another important reason WWII happened the way it happened was very simple, but is denied by the Western nations until modern times: fascism was very popular in Western Europe and the USA during the 1930s. In France in particular, the local MSM was waging a vicious propaganda war against the USSR, and we could guess the country was essentially polarized. The British MSM was also waging it in their home country.

Poland was 100% against the USSR. Their preference would be to preserve their alliance with the UK-France, but they (i.e. their chief of staff of the Armed Forces) also explicitly stated to Litvinov that, if it came to choose between Germany and the USSR, they would choose Germany. It was because of Poland that the USSR wasn't able to fly around Germany in order to form an alliance with the West (Romania, however, agreed to extraofficially allow Soviet planes to cross their airspace).

Chamberlain used Poland to officially legitimize his non-alliance with the USSR, but we now know from his personal letters (many of them to his sister) that the real reason he didn't do it was his fear of the equation war=communism (in Western Europe). He was literally "taking one for the team" of capitalism and was very aware of that. His position was unsustainable, because we now know that it never crossed Hitler's mind to not wage war against France and the UK, even though his main goal was the USSR. The thing is the Nazis rose to power with the promise of revenging the Army for WWI.

Churchill was a capitalist and a staunch anti-communist, and, in another universe, he certainly would do an alliance with the Nazis to crush the USSR. The problem is that the UK's military doctrine already was completely directed towards Germany, and the British people already was brainwashed for decades that Germany was the UK's main enemy. You can't call a total war against an enemy your own people doesn't want to fight against. Changing a military doctrine of a country takes decades - it simply wasn't possible for Churchill to shift the British people's minds from an anti-German mode to an anti-Soviet mode in such a short time. It would only be during the Cold War that it was made possible (as they had the time to do so), and, nowadays, we can comfortably say most of the British people is germanophile (at least, the British left) and russophobe. Plus, Churchill could see Hitler right into his soul, and knew he would wage war from the beginning.

The Americans were completely out of the picture in the 1930s. They were divided among the isolationists and the interventionists. Exception to the rule were the American industrialists, who helped mainly Nazi Germany, but also the USSR, in rebuilding themselves. They did so not because of ideology, but because they were desperate for new markets after the collapse of 1929. American loyalty was on the cheap in the 1930s.


Innocent Civilian , Jun 20 2020 21:27 utc | 26

The humanity owes a big debt to USSR for defeating Nazi Germany and saving the earth from their unholy empire. While Angela Merkel, instead of Putin, makes the rounds and poses in photos in the 75th anniversary D-Day in London, the history is being rewritten in front of our eyes and we have ended up with a majority that fails to question why it took more than two years to plan and execute the Normandy invasion. As for capitalists funding the build-up of the Wehrmacht, the saying goes "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
uncle tungsten , Jun 20 2020 21:37 utc | 27
bystander 04 #23

I am inclined that way right now.

I believe Stalin and the Central Committees decision to occupy those countries on its periphery and absolutely crush the likely fascist resurgence was the correct decision. I gather they recognized the oligarchic forces who financed and supported Hitler. Those same forces are at it again today.

The foresight and analysis of those Russian thinkers was correct then and remains relevant now.

karlof1 , Jun 20 2020 21:41 utc | 28
I guess I need to again remind people that all history is revisioned --it is seen or read about, then processed through the historian's mind-- revisioned --then written. Even an event that's 100% written about as it genuinely occurred is revisioned in the above manner because that's how the human mind works. Before it was discovered how to doctor them, photographs and film were deemed to be superior recorders of events than descriptive words because there was no revisioning to alter the content, but that ceased to be the case 100+ years ago. In today's world, the live broadcast is the closest thing that avoids the revisioning dilemma--that's why live streams sent via cell phones and webcams are powerful and hated by those seeking control--they're deprived of the opportunity to shape the narrative or manipulate the evidence.

In his essay, I expected Putin to write more about International Law and why adherence to it is so important in the maintenance of peace. Instead, he sent a backhanded message to those managing the Outlaw US Empire about the fate they'll face if they continue on their path and exit the UN.

Tom , Jun 20 2020 21:43 utc | 29
#14 Steve

USSR was invited, and didn't invaded Afghanistan. Ronnie Ray gun's freedom fighters, the mujahidin were already there.

Jen , Jun 20 2020 21:50 utc | 30
That so many people in the West believe that the US did the most to defeat Nazi Germany is understandable due to decades of repeated Hollywood propaganda starring the likes of John Wayne (who never actually went near anything resembling a tank or a nav asl ship) and others. But what explains the 50% of British people who believe the British did the most to beat the Nazis?

Is it all that constant blagging about the Battle of Britain (which incidentally was won for Britain by pilots representing something like 25 different nationalities with the most significant hits being made by Polish pilots) or the ceaseless propaganda about what a great warmonger and mass murderer ... er, "hero" Winston Churchill was, in crap media like The Daily Mail and the BBC?

H.Schmatz , Jun 20 2020 21:51 utc | 31
It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow.

@Posted by: Ike | Jun 20 2020 20:17 utc | 20

Indeed, it is disturbing... May be the Russians should turn to the Western people and invite them to represent their countries?

I am currently available for traveling...I would feel most grateful of having the opportunity, still have not visited Lenin Mausoleum.... although for being in Moscow for June 24th, I should be carried by a "Moscow Express" flight...

Anonymous , Jun 20 2020 21:56 utc | 32

"At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented that another clash on a global scale has happened since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish that system."

b, what is your opinion about Germany becoming a permanent member of the UNSC since it is now, arguably, the most powerful nation in Europe?
Do you think it threatens security/stability by excluding it from the UNSC, while the UK and France are included? (I think it does, but I'm Canadian, what do I know? :-)

Jen , Jun 20 2020 22:08 utc | 34
Victor @ 17:

If you are referring to the massacre of Polish POWs and Polish intellectuals, musicians and artists whose bodies were found in the forests of Katyn by Nazi German soldiers, bear in mind that Nazi Germany stood to benefit from blaming the massacre directly on the Soviets. While Russia under President Yeltsin did accept responsibility for the Katyn massacre - after all, the Soviets did hold the victims as prisoners and should have evacuated them - one still has to be wary of a narrative shaped and dictated by an enemy nation who milked the propaganda value of the massacre against the Soviets. That in itself might tell you who the real murderers were.

Jen , Jun 20 2020 22:18 utc | 35
Steve @ 14, Tom @ 29:

The US began arming Afghan warlords and mujaheddin as early as August 1979, as part of the then US State Secretary Zbigniew Brzezinski's plan to push the USSR into an Afghan version of the Vietnam War. The plan passed muster with the Carter government. The funding and arming of the mujaheddin by the CIA was what led Kabul to request help from Moscow. The Soviets arrived in December 1979.

snow_watcher , Jun 20 2020 22:18 utc | 36
Thanks, I'll read Putin's essay.

I'm almost done reading "Life And Fate" by Vasily Grossman, translated by Robert Chandler. The defense of Stalingrad and the eventual defeat of Field Marshal Paulus, commander of the 6th army, is instructive.

The Russians suffered and endured horrific sacrifices during WWII while simultaneously turning the tide against the Third Reich. An heroic tale much unappreciated by many in the West. The Russians did participate in the Lend-Lease program although the benefits are debated especially for the early and decisive years.

https://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

Ghost Ship , Jun 20 2020 22:41 utc | 37
Vk @ 3
even though it has the victory against Japan
Nah, sorry mate, doesn't even have that. The Soviet Union scared the Japanese high command into surrendering after the US dropped its demand for unconditional surrender because it was scared that the Soviet Union would invade the main islands of Japan before it could.
BraveNewWorld , Jun 20 2020 22:43 utc | 38
I have been following the latest shit show between POTUS, DOJ & SDNY. Are Americans really sure they are ready to go to war with China because I have to be honest. I'm not entirely convinced you guys have your act together.
Senalis , Jun 20 2020 22:45 utc | 39
Stalin foresaw attempts to belittle the USSR's role in WWII. For example, during the Battle of Stalingrad there was a team of cinephotographers that filmed different aspects of the battle, from the siege to the envelopment of the beseigers.

When the battle ended a documentary was compiled, many copies were made, some of which were shown to enthusiastic audiences in North America. I saw that film in, I believe, March 1943 when I was a 12 year old living in Toronto.

You have to know that 1942 had been a terribly demoralizing year for the Allied side. Japan was unstoppable running over SE Asia; U-boats were sinking lots of supply ships headed to the UK in the North Atlantic; there was the fiasco of Dieppe which hit Canadian pride hard; Rommel and assorted British generals were playing tag back & forth across North Africa; but the biggest disaster was unfolding across the USSR from Leningrad down to the lower Volga. So when that documentary opened with a shot of Reichsmarschall von Paulus trudging through knee-deep snow leading a seemingly endless column of bedraggled German soldiers to an imprisonment camp, it was a most uplifting moment, unmatched until May 1945.

The ferocity of the Soviet counterattack was awesome: Katyusha rockets; great swarms of troops under air cover, including women, in white camouflage on skis, heading to the front.

I and hundreds of thousands of others who saw that film in 1943 know damn well who really won the war and how. Putin has had enough of insults directed against Russia's record during WWII from UKUS, but especially from Poland, and has responded forcefully.

I found most interesting his reference to still-locked archives outside of Russia dealing with the shenanigans that led to WWI. We can only hope that historians will get to them before the mice!

Real History , Jun 20 2020 22:54 utc | 40
Why is it there is no mentions that Churchill tasked his Chiefs of Staff to come up with a plan to attack the Soviet Union and start WW Three in April 1945, a month before the end of World War Two.

The plan his Chiefs developed was called Operation Unthinkable. It called for the Great Britain and the allies to attack the Soviet Union on July 1, 1945. This plan went nowhere.

Then Truman came up with a plan in August 1945 called Operation Totality which called for dropping atomic bombs on Moscow and 20 of the most important cities in the USSR. This plan too didn't go anywhere but this marked the end of the Great Britain, America alliance with Stalin and from this point on, in a 180 degree turn, Stalin and the Communists became the West's mortal enemies and the Cold War was born.

Why does this development and the reasons for this 180 degree about turn not get any mention and analysis? Why did the allies turn on a dime and go from being best of buddies with the Marxist Communists to being worst of enemies with the West desiring to annihilate the Soviet Union? Why?

Real History

H.Schmatz , Jun 20 2020 22:55 utc | 41
May be Mr. Putin aimed at trying a last intend on appeasement, his own Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact ....May be, even knowing this time it will not work either...
"The great criminal who has ordered the murder, transforms his joy for the crime committed into currency, giving a reward worthy of a prince. Now that he has ordered the looting and murder of the two thousand richest men in Italy, Antonio can finally be generous. For the bloody sack containing Cicero's hands and head, pay the centurion a brilliant million sesterces. But with it his revenge has not yet cooled, so that the stupid hatred of this bloodthirsty man still creates a special ignominy for the dead, without realizing that with himself he will be debased for all time. Antonio orders that the head and the hands are nailed in the tribune from where Cicero incited the city against him to defend the freedom of Rome.

The next day a disgraceful spectacle awaits the Roman people. In the speakers' gallery, the same from which Cicero delivered his immortal speeches, the severed head of the last defender of liberty hangs discolored. An imposing rusty nail pierces the forehead, the thousands of thoughts. Livid and with a rictus of bitterness, the lips that formulated the metallic words of the Latin language more beautifully than those of any other. Closed, the blue eyelids cover the eyes that for sixty years watched over the republic. Powerless, they open his hands that wrote the most splendid letters of the time.

But all in all, no accusation made by the great orator from that rostrum against brutality, against the delirium of power, against illegality, speaks as eloquently against the eternal injustice of violence as that silent head of a murdered man .

Suspicious the people gather around the desecrated rostra . Dejected, ashamed, it turns away again. No one dares - it is a dictatorship! - to express a single reply, but a spasm oppresses their hearts. And dismayed, they lower their heads at this allegory of the crucified republic...."

Sternstunden der Menschheit , by Stefan Zweig....

https://twitter.com/shanevanderhart/status/1274372422859448324

bystander 04 , Jun 20 2020 23:15 utc | 42
Thanks, „b" for this article and the links - I read Putin´s essay and am impressed with the depth , insight, humanity in his words. I would like to share my views, gained from living for many years under soviets and their Jewish helpers (like Jakub Berman, Zambrowski, Fejgin, to name a few). Here my amplifications and few other important details, omitted by Putin:

1). regarding his description of decisions by different governments - he does not mention that the Polish government had good reasons not to trust Stalin - because Soviet Union cooperated with Germany for many years before - in form of having Germans (disguised as some kind of para military, in order to circumvent the prohibitions following Versailles treaty) training in the Soviet Union.

2). Another detail is that the British, French and Americans were trying to gain time before confrontation with Nazis, just the same reasoning Putin allows to Soviet Union.

3).It also can be interpreted that Stalin decided to join the partition of Poland only after Germany was victorious, similar tactic Stalin used in starting war against Japan after USA won the war in Pacific and occupied the Kurile Islands.

4). Putin is disguising the aggressive action of USSR vis-a-vis Baltic states by saying „In autumn 1939, the Soviet Union pursuing its strategic military and defensive goals, started the process of incorporation of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia." If Hitler would have stopped at that and not march on Moscow like Napoleon - this action would have mutate into pure aggression. „incorporation" - my foot!

5). Putin does not mention any Polish names along Petain, Quisling, Vlasov and Bandera -- because there were none, and this is significant, showing that not a single Pole was found to work - in a quasi government - with Nazis.

6). The spirit of independence he claims for Russian people (earlier in the essay), he is not giving the People of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland.

7). Putin mentions „burnt Khatyn" in one breath with Babi Yar - I wonder, is there a different Kathyn from „the" Katyn, where over 22 Tsd. Polish officers and officials were butchered on orders of Stalin, Beria, Kaganovich (and one or two more whose names escape me now).

8). Putin is knowingly or otherwise pushing the antisemitic mantra on Polish nation - mentioning the ´splendid monument´ for Hitler to be erected in Warsaw, quoting ambassador Lipski in 1938 this is a blow below the waist line and I did not expect it to be repeated in this essay, as he used it already on a previous occasion. It is in jarring contrast with the otherwise solid and even-handed exposition.

In my humble opinion Putin´s essay is a big wink to Poland to stay away from Ukraine and Belarus and not be a stooge of others (oligarchs, as uncle tungsten says in #27) to try undermine Russia!

The insinuations about polish antisemitism (as if Poles had monopoly in this subject!!!) is in line with the possible use of Jewish „forces" in dealing with Polish nationalism, and unpredictability of events in Eastern Europe, if the color revolutions continue, say in Belarus..

The possible role of Israeli political calculus should also be kept in mind, as their ´plan B´, when Islam will get too dangerous for many Jews and who will suddenly discover love to the land of their polish antisemites That is why Poland is mentioned that many times.

Victor , Jun 20 2020 23:31 utc | 43
Jen @ 34

Putin and the Russian Duma have previously accepted that the Katyn massacre occurred under orders of Stalin and Beria. It's not Western of Polish propaganda.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11845315

Putin also condemned the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230387.stm?fbclid=IwAR3bH6muxpRxGYqjUDgiDP9hVY2W143HYLWrsyBmi4E_pW5AgWOsUq2s-V4

While I understand that a lot has changed in the last 10 years with regards to the level of anti-Russia hysteria, and I also understand that this essay is meant to bring forward the Russian point of view on WW2 as opposed to the propaganda of the West, I stand by my earlier statement that glossing over the bad things that happened under the orders of Stalin and simply giving a generic "Stalin was a bad man" statement only leaves an otherwise excellent historical essay open to be dismissed as propaganda.

Clueless Joe , Jun 20 2020 23:40 utc | 44
Bystander 04

There was a deal between US and Stalin that the Red Army would attack Japan 3 months after the end of the war in Europe, which actually happened on time - the Manchurian campaign which utterly destroyed the Japanese army in N. China/Manchukuo/Korea began on the 9th of August. Japan wasn't prepared for this and still assumed the non-aggression agreement with USSR that had been made in 1939 was still valid.

This wasn't Stalin trying to take advantage, the US were so far from invading the Main Islands that everyone assumed the war would last another year. This was Stalin doing exactly what Roosevelt had begged him to do at Yalta. And opening a 2nd front against Japan worked far better than expected - and far better than when the Western Allies opened a 2nd front in Europe against the Reich.

H.Schmatz , Jun 21 2020 0:03 utc | 45
Debunking the Polish trolls here...

What really happened at Katyn? (I)

Historians, political scientists, Western "experts" and anti-communist "liberals" in Russia have always attributed the Katyn massacre to the NKVD, the secret police of the Soviet Union, providing alleged evidence and documents that would prove such authorship. However, all indications suggest that the Katyn massacre is another historical falsification similar to the Ukrainian Holodomor or to the figures given on the "millions of deaths" of Soviet communism. The responsibility for what happened in Katyn, in light of the evidence and testimonies provided, was the work of the Nazis.

80 years after the events of Katyn (supposedly happened in April 1940) near the city of Smolensk (border with Belarus), where more than 20 thousand Polish soldiers were executed in a nearby forest, the propaganda of the cold war returns with force, and the renewed counterfeits of the West against Russia and the former USSR.

Definitely, there is not a single consistent proof of Soviet authorship in the Katyn massacre.

Interestingly, on June 18, 2012, the European Communities Court of Justice for Human Rights, following a claim by Polish relatives of the soldiers executed in Katyn, made a surprising decision: the "documents" provided by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, after the fall of the USSR (which we will talk about in the second part of this entry), indicating that Stalin and the Soviets were guilty of the execution of tens of thousands of Polish officers near Katyn, were false. A historical slap to the propagandists of the "Russian Katyn".

The alleged documents on the mass execution of Katyn, which appeared in the late 1980s, were gutted by one of the members of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Alexander Yakovlev (a more than likely US agent who trained in North American Columbia University in the late 1950s), turned out to be false. The European court did not even accept them for consideration.

The European Court was also unable to clearly decide who was responsible for the massacre since the judges did not have enough documentary evidence, although they spent more than a year studying all kinds of historical documents and archival evidence. Until around 1990, everyone was convinced that the Poles had been killed by the Germans. This decision of the EECC Court of Justice has been completely ignored by the propagandists of the Katyn myth.(...)

In the early 19th century, fueling the illusory hope of restoring Greater Poland, the Poles sided with Napoleon in the war of 1812. The Polish army, created with the help of the French, became part of the "Great Army "Of Bonaparte as the most reliable foreign contingent. This was the third Polish invasion of Russia.

The Polish uprising of 1830 began with the widespread extermination of the Russians. In all the churches they called for the indiscriminate murder of the Russians. In Warsaw, on Easter night, an entire battalion of the Russian army was taken by surprise in a church. 2,265 Russian soldiers and officers died.

The Polish state, born in November 1918, immediately showed its hostility towards Soviet Russia. With the help of the Entente, Poland begins preparations for a war against Russia. Polish politicians had the possibility that a forceful blow from the Polish army would be dealt to the Russian army.

Poland accompanied its aggressive intentions with a set of propaganda stereotypes about the aggressiveness of the Bolsheviks. Numerous proposals from the young Soviet state to conclude a peace treaty and establish diplomatic relations were rejected. Polish military operations against Russia in the spring of 1920 were undertaken by Poland, not Soviet Russia.

After tripling numerical superiority, Polish troops, along with the army of the Ukrainian nationalist military man Simon Petliura, launched a full-scale offensive along the entire Western Front from Pripyat to Dniester. This was the fourth Polish invasion of Russian lands. In early May 1920, Polish and Petliura fighters captured Kiev. The invasion of the allied forces of Poland and Petlyura was accompanied by brutal and inhuman retaliation against the civilian civilian population.

In the occupied regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, Polish invaders established bloody local governments, insulted and robbed civilians, or burned innocent people. Orthodox churches became Polish Christian churches, national schools closed.(...)

The total number of prisoners of war who died in those concentration camps is not known with certainty. However, there are various estimates based on the number of Soviet prisoners of war who returned from Polish captivity - there were 75,699 people. Russian historian Mikhail Meltiukhov estimates the number of prisoners killed at 60,000 people. Mortality among prisoners of war reached 50 people per day and as of mid-November 1920 it was 70 people per day. In the Tukholsky concentration camp alone, during the entire time of its existence, 22 thousand Red Army prisoners of war died.

In other words, the Poles established in their concentration camps a systematic policy of extermination with the Russians that reached the character of genocide, something that has been systematically silenced or hidden by the West in favor of Polish propaganda. For these crimes, the Poles today neither feel guilty nor have any remorse and disparagingly call it "Russian propaganda".

In the period between the two world wars, Poland repeatedly threatened to destroy Bolshevism and Russia as a state. Instead, as General Vladyslaw Anders, an active participant in Pan-Poland's intervention against Soviet Russia in 1919-1920, admitted, "There was never a real threat from the USSR to Poland."

Poland was never reluctant to attack Russia to hold, alongside Nazi Germany and Japan, a parade of victorious Polish-German troops on Moscow's Red Square. Marshal and national hero of Poland, the dictator Jozéf Pilsudsky, responsible for the mass extermination of Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and Jews, dreamed of coming to Moscow and writing "It is forbidden to speak Russian on the Kremlin wall!"

In January 1934, Poland was the first, five years before the USSR, to conclude a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. In late 1936, the Anti-Komintern Pact was concluded with the signing of Germany and Japan, which were later joined by Italy, Spain, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and the Republic of China (a state puppet formed by the Japanese empire in occupied territory).

The Poles, at that time, flatly refused to sign any agreement with the USSR, a country that despite having been throughout the history of countless Polish aggressions reached out to Poland. As early as mid-August 1939, the Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck, in whose office there was a portrait of Hitler, declared that "we have no military agreement with the USSR, nor do we want to have one."

In developing the plan of attack against Poland in early 1939, Hitler did not take into account the overtly anti-Soviet policies of the Polish government before the war. He and his entire circle despised and hated the Poles as a nation (even though they had been his allies in the 1930s), which was natural since his supremacist ideology did not take into account other nations than the German one.

In August 1939, before the attack on Poland, Hitler ordered that all Polish women, men, and children be ruthlessly exterminated. During the years of occupation, the Nazis murdered more than 6 million Poles, representing 22 percent of the Polish population. 95% of genetically defective Poles were planned to be evicted from their homeland.

Soviet troops, by contrast, did not allow the Nazis to wipe Poland off the face of the earth. No other force in the world could do this. "Poles must be very stupid, Winston Churchill wrote in January 1944, if they don't understand who saved them and who for the second time in the first half of the 20th century gives them the possibility of true freedom and independence." These surprising statements by Churchill, a confessed anti-communist, had nothing to do with the Cold War preparations that the British premier against the USSR and the socialist countries subsequently devised and that was reflected in his famous speech by Fulton (USA).

More than 600,000 Soviet soldiers gave their lives, saving the cities and towns of Poland in battles with the Nazis. On the contrary, during the three weeks of the Polish-German war of 1939, there were attacks by Polish troops against units of the Red Army. As a consequence of these attacks, the Soviet army lost more than a thousand of its men.

The Polish troops, who were in the midst of the Second World War in the territory of the Soviet Union, refused to fight together with the Red Army against which it should be a common Nazi enemy and left for Iran in the summer of 1942 While in the USSR, Polish troops engaged in robbery in cities and towns and committed atrocities in them.

During World War II, up to half a million Polish volunteers fought on the eastern front against the USSR, as part of the Nazi Wehrmacht (the regular army). In fact, the Germans did not carry out a forced mobilization of Polish fighters to fight alongside Nazi Germany. In the SS, the Poles acted voluntarily and in the Wehrmacht, they posed as "Germans" or "semi-Germans".

During the four years of the war, the Red Army captured 4 million Wehrmacht soldiers and volunteers from 24 European nationalities. The Poles on that list were in seventh place (over 60,000 mercenaries), ahead of the Italians (about 49,000).

It should be noted that the mortality of German refugees in Polish camps in 1945-1946. reached 50%. In the Potulice camp in 1947-1949 half of the prisoners died of starvation, cold and harassment by the Polish guards. At the end of the war, four million Germans lived in Poland. According to estimates by the Union of German Exiles, the loss of the German population during the expulsion from Poland amounted to some 3 million people.

After the unmitigated defeat of the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad, it became clear that if nothing extraordinary happened in favor of the Hitler regime, nothing would change the course of events and the Third Reich would eventually implode in the very near future.

So the Nazis "discovered" in 1943, in the Katyn forest near Smolensk, a mass grave with Polish officers. The Germans immediately declared that, as a result of the opening of the graves, all those buried there had been executed by members of the Soviet Union's secret police, the NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs), in the spring of 1940. .

The official statement on the Katyn massacre was made by the Nazi government and released by its Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, on April 13, 1943, in a statement speaking about the "terrible discovery of the crimes of the Jewish commissioners of the NKVD "in the Katyn Forest. With this propaganda device, Nazi Germany sought to divide the anti-Hitler coalition and win the war.

The significance of such a declaration by the Goebbels Department had a cunning undercurrent: the Polish government-in-exile would strongly oppose Moscow and thereby pressure the British who sheltered them in London to stop supporting the Kremlin. According to Berlin's calculations, the Poles would push the British and Americans to fight Stalin, which could imply a completely different development from the events in World War II.

But Goebbels' calculation was not justified: Britain at the time did not consider it profitable to believe in the "crime of the Bolsheviks". At the same time, the head of London's "Polish government", General Wladyslaw Sikorski, took a relentless position and began to truly become an obstacle to the great international policy of alliances between the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.

The Vladislav Sikorsky government in London supported Goebbels's version and began to distribute it diligently, hoping that this would help regain power in Warsaw and spark a war between the USSR and its anti-Hitler coalition allies. Sikorsky supported the Germans' proposal to send to the Katyn region an "International Medical Commission" created by them under the auspices of the International Red Cross (IRC) with doctors selected by Germany, as well as experts from 13 allied countries and the German-occupied countries.

When his CRI commission reached Katyn, Goebbels demanded that his subordinates prepare everything, including a medical report tailored to the Nazis. Under pressure from the Nazis and so that events such as the terrible fate of Polish officers would not be repeated in the future, the agreement was signed by the majority of the members of the international commission.

Members of the commission, such as the doctor from the Department of Forensic Medicine at Sofia University, Marko Markov, and the Czech professor of forensic medicine, Frantisek Gajek, did not support Goebbels's version. The representatives of Vichy, France, Professor Castedo, and Spain, Professor Antonio Piga and Pascual, did not put their signature on the final document. After the war, all members of the international commission of forensic experts abandoned their conclusions in the spring of 1943.

The Polish Red Cross Technical Commission, which worked in Katyn in specially "prepared" places and under the control of the Germans, was unable to reach unequivocal conclusions about the causes of death of the Polish officers, although they discovered German cartridges used in the shooting of victims in the Katyn forest. Joseph Goebbels demanded to keep this a secret so that the Katyn case would not collapse.

A few weeks later, on July 4, 1943, General Sikorsky, his daughter Zofya, and the head of his cabinet, Brigadier General Tadeusz Klimecki, were killed in a plane crash near Gibraltar. Only the Czech pilot, Eduard Prchal, survived, who was unable to clearly explain why he put on a life jacket during this flight, when he generally did not.

The position of the "Western Allies" of the USSR in World War II on the Katyn issue began to change along with the deterioration of relations between Washington-London and Moscow, once the "cold war" began by the United States and its allies. The accusations against the USSR were continued by the American Madden commission in 1951-1952.

juliania , Jun 21 2020 0:08 utc | 46
Again, Victor@43, you make your point well, but perhaps we need to pay attention to what karlof1 is saying at the end of his post at 29:

"Instead, he sent a backhanded message to those managing the Outlaw US Empire about the fate they'll face if they continue on their path and exit the UN."

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this (perhaps Karlof will elucidate when he has time) but I do note that the essay has a slightly different focus than b's first link as its title begins "The Real Lessons..."

So, what, we may ask, are those real lessons? Apparently the instances of Stalin's bad behavior are not such, or are not what we need to learn.

And further, what is the importance of the final paragraphs of the essay, which call for the Security Council leaders,(having agreed to do so) representing the nations which were allied successfully during WWII, to meet as soon as possible? Putin has given in his essay the example of the League of Nations, the failure of that body to prevent the second great war. I saw his final statement more as an urgent call for unity in present crisis than as a threat, but then I'm always a polyanna.

Patroklos , Jun 21 2020 0:39 utc | 47
And here I thought it was Tom Hanks and Brad Pitt who beat the Nazis on D-Day playing Call of Duty.
Kay Fabe , Jun 21 2020 1:13 utc | 48
Putin glosses over Stalins aggressions against Finland and his annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, northern Bukovina and the Hertza region), the latter in violation of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact , are overlooked

He justifies Russia taking back land in Poland because he claimed that was theirs was but Hitler doing the same was not , and justified as a defensive measure against Germany while ignoring Poland was a threat to Germany , as they sought alliance with UK/US

Stalin had a very large and well equipped military and was resource rich unlike Germany.

Stalin began his buildup long before the war, perhaps anticipating Germanys military expansion, or perhaps he had designs on Europe himself. Remember one of FDR's first moves as President was recognizing Stalin and providing loans for trade in 1933

From Icebreaker (Suvorov)

In the early 1930s, American engineers traveled to the Soviet Union and built the Uralvagonzavod (the Ural Railroad Car Factory). Uralvagonzavod was built in such a manner that it could at any moment switch from producing railroad cars to producing tanks.

The most powerful aviation factory in the world was built in the Russian Far East. The city Komsomolsk-na-Amure was built in order to service this factory. Both the factory and the city were built according to American designs and furnished with the most modern American equipment.

Western technology was the main key to success. The Soviet Union became the world's biggest importer of machinery and equipment in the early 1930s, at a time when millions were starving due to his bloody war against peasants, which was called collectivization. The Soviet collectivization of 1932-1933 is estimated to have resulted in 3.5 to 5 million deaths from starvation, and another three to 4 million deaths as a result of intolerable conditions at the places of exile.

Cargo warplanes are used to deliver assault forces with parachutists to the enemy's rear. Soviet war-transport aviation used the American Douglas DC-3, which was considered to be the best cargo plane in the world at the start of World War II, as its primary cargo plane. In 1938, the U.S. government sold to Stalin the production license and the necessary amount of the most complex equipment for the DC-3's production. The Soviet Union also bought 20 DC-3s from the United States before the war.

In 1939, the Soviet Union produced six identical DC-3 aircraft; in 1940, it produced 51 DC-3 aircraft; and in 1941, it produced 237 DC-3 aircraft. During the entire war 2,419 DC-3s or equivalent planes were produced in Soviet factories.

In the years 1937-1941, the Soviet Army grew five-fold, from 1.1 million to 5.5 million. An additional 5.3 million people joined the ranks of the Red Army within one week of the beginning of the war. A minimum of 34.5 million people were used by the Red Army during the war. This huge increase in the size of the Soviet Army was accomplished primarily by ratification of the universal military draft in the Soviet Union on Sept. 1, 1939.

According to the new law, the draft age was reduced from 21 to 19, and in some categories to 18. This new law also allowed for the preparation of 18 million reservists, so that the Soviet Union continued to fill the ranks of the Red Army with many millions of soldiers as the war progressed.

The 9th Army appeared on the Romanian border on June 14, 1941, in the exact place where a year ago it had "liberated" Bessarabia. If the Soviet 9th Army had been allowed to attack Romania, Germany's main source of oil would have been lost and Germany would have been defeated. Hitler's attack of the Soviet Union prevented this from happening. The concentration of Soviet troops on Romanian borders presented a clear danger to Germany, and was a major reason for the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Looking for blame one must not forget to look home. US finance and industrialists built up the Stalin and Hitler both with money, tech transfers, cartel agreements.

FDR pushed both the British and Poland into decisions which would lead to War.

When Germany tried to negotiate for Free Danzig , which was mostly German , Poland succumbed to US and British pressure/promises of aid, so they took a hardline and took measures to assume control over Free Danzig from the League of Nations. As a result Poles began to persecute ethnic Germans of which there were many , forcing some to flee Poland into Germany while those who wanted to protect their property stayed and faced the violence.

Yeah, Right , Jun 21 2020 1:43 utc | 49
Everyone in the West knows about the D-Day landings in Normandy on 6 June 1944.
150,000 men on the first day, building up to 2 million men during the peak of Operation Overlord.

Nobody in the West knows about Operation Bagration in the Eastern front, launched two weeks after the D-Day landings.
Vastly bigger in every way, and it ended in the complete annihilation of Army Group Centre and the severe mauling of Army Group North and Army Group South.

Operation Bagration was much more important to the defeat of Germany than Operation Overlord.

Indeed, the Red Army would have succeeded even if the Normandy landings had not taken place, whereas it is very, very unlikely that Operation Overlord would have succeeded if it were not for the Germans being hamstrung by the carnage that was taking place in the East.

Antonym , Jun 21 2020 1:51 utc | 50
Putin's own words in the center article of B: Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. Lets keep that in mind and praise the USSR for defeating the Nazi regime, never Stalin.
As for Churchill; he was a typical upper class imperialist most of his life but did save GB in the critical early years of the Battle for Britain with his moral boosters.

Hitler showed how powerful a force nationalism can be to unite a people but simultaneously demonstrated that by focusing on a country's Ego and not its Soul how wrong it can end up. His "National Sozialismus" fouled both notions in the West and lead many to embrace globalism and uncontrolled capitalism, of which we see the results today. He had Germany under his black magic speeches for just one decade, but these after effects had Europe twisted for many.

Antonym , Jun 21 2020 2:11 utc | 51
Putin holds on to the existing choice of the 5 permanent UNSC veto holders, probably not to complicate matters now. The PRC was added in 1972 and the ROC (Taiwan) removed.

The next change should be the UK out, India in.

Victor , Jun 21 2020 2:14 utc | 52
H.Schmatz @ 45

There is a lot of cherry picking of history going on when it comes to who did what to whom in the lead up to WW2. All countries are a lot less innocent than they claim to be.

But I'm not sure why you are posting revisionist history about Katyn since the Russians already admitted that the Soviets were responsible for the crime.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/released-at-last-the-katyn-execution-order-signed-by-stalin-1957315.html

james , Jun 21 2020 2:19 utc | 53
@ victor... a lot of posters here are suspect of wikipedia, and any number of media outlets offering up their take on russia...

unfortunately if i was to believe the independent.co.uk - i would believe all the lies and bulshit around skripal and for the record - i don't... a better source to back up your viewpoint is needed.. thanks..

bystander 04 , Jun 21 2020 4:05 utc | 54
Schmatz@45 - as Victor at 52 says, there is no need to suspect anyone else for massacre in Katyn (and other places btw), Russians admitted it. If you wish to see the signatures, a book by Pavel Sudoplatov "Special Tasks" (available on Amazon) has a facsimile copy of the order signed by Beria, Stalin and 2 or 3 more - to liquidate the Polish POW´s...
Oscar Peterson , Jun 21 2020 4:09 utc | 55
@17 Victor

"No real errors in Putin's excellent essay, but some glossing over of certain major incidents, including the arrests, deportations and executions of thousands of Poles committed by the Soviets when they invaded Poland, the absorption of the Baltic countries, and the war with Finland. Unfortunately, omitting important details just gives ammunition to the many Putin haters to claim that this is just more Russian historical revisionism and propaganda."

I agree on the Baltic states. I think it's the one part of Putin's essay I'd take issue with.

He should have made the strategic case for why the USSR felt compelled to take control of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The Baltic coastline and approach to Leningrad were both very significant. Of course it's true that Russia lost control of all three for most of the war, but that doesn't change the strategic validity of Soviet policy in 1940.

The same thing goes for Soviet demands to control some coastal area and islands in Finland which led to the Soviet-Finnish War of 1939-40.

Instead of making a strategic case, Putin tries to whitewash the Russian takeover by claiming "consent." That is a weak argument and the only real point of weakness I see in his essay.

Mariátegui , Jun 21 2020 4:34 utc | 56
Victor @ 52

There is certainly enough amount of evidence to be suspicious of the Katyn events

Here is some

[Jun 21, 2020] The Miracle of Salisbury. The Skripals Affair - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Jun 21, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

The Miracle of Salisbury. The Skripals Affair By Craig Murray Global Research, June 17, 2020 Craig Murray 16 June 2020 Region: Europe Theme: Intelligence , Law and Justice , Media Disinformation

It turns out that the BBC really does believe that God is an Englishman. When the simple impossibility of the official story on the Skripals finally overwhelmed the dramatists, they resorted to Divine Intervention for an explanation – as propagandists have done for millennia.

This particular piece of script from Episode 2 of The Salisbury Poisonings deserves an induction in the Propaganda Hall of Fame:

Porton Down Man: I've got the reports from the Bailey house

Public Health Woman: Tell me, how many hits?

Porton Down Man: It was found in almost every room of the house. Kitchen, bathroom, living room, bedrooms. It was even on the light switches. We found it in the family car too. But his wife and children haven't been affected. I like to think of myself as a man of science, but the only word for that is a miracle.

Well, it certainly would be a miracle that the family lived for a week in the house without touching a light switch. But miracle is not really the "only word for that". Nonsense is a good word. Bullshit is a ruder version. Lie is entirely appropriate in these circumstances.

Because that was not the only miracle on display. We were told specifically that the Skripals had trailed novichok all over Zizzis and the Bishops Mill pub, leaving multiple deadly deposits, dozens of them in total, which miraculously nobody had touched. We were told that Detective Bailey was found to have left multiple deadly deposits of novichok on everything he touched in a busy police station, but over several days before it was closed down nobody had touched any of them, which must be an even bigger miracle than the Baileys' home.

Perhaps even more amazingly, as the Skripals spread novichok all over the restaurant and the pub, nobody who served them had been harmed, nobody who took their payment. The man who went through Sergei's wallet to learn his identity from his credit cards was not poisoned. The people giving first aid were not poisoned. The ducks Sergei fed were not poisoned. The little boy he fed the ducks with was not poisoned. So many miracles. If God were not an Englishman, Salisbury would have been in real trouble, evidently.

The conclusion of episode two showed Charlie Rowley fishing out the perfume bottle from the charity bin at least two months in the timeline before this really happened, thus neatly sidestepping one of the most glaring impossibilities in the entire official story. I think we can forgive the BBC that lie – there are only so many instances of divine intervention in the story the public can be expected to buy in one episode.

It is fascinating to see that the construction of this edifice of lies was a joint venture between the BBC and the security services' house journal, the Guardian. Not only is all round pro-war propagandist "Colonel" Hamish De Bretton Gordon credited as Military Advisor, but Guardian journalists Caroline Bannock and Steven Morris are credited as Script Consultants, which I presume means they fed in the raw lies for the scriptwriters to shape into miracles.

Now here is an interesting ethical point for readers of the Guardian. The Guardian published in the last fortnight two articles by Morris and Bannock that purported to be reporting on the production of the drama and its authenticity, without revealing to the readers that these full time Guardian journalists were in fact a part of the BBC project. That is unethical and unprofessional in a number of quite startling ways. But then it is the Guardian.

[Full disclosure. I shared a flat with Caroline at university. She was an honest person in those days.]

Again, rather than pepper this article with links, I urge you to read this comprehensive article , which contains plenty of links and remains entirely unanswered.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

The original source of this article is Craig Murray

[Jun 20, 2020] The symphony orchestra of Austin, Texas has fired their lead trombonist for politically incorrect Twit

People who post of Twitter are stupid by definition, but people who fire employees for posting on Twitter are trying to replicate excesses of Stalinism (and, in way, McCarthysm) on a farce level. As in Marx "history repeats: first as tragedy, the second as farce"
By classifying the (somewhat incorrect; Obama was elected not only because he was half black, but also because he was half--CIA ;-) Twit below as the cry "fire" in crowded theater, we really try to replay the atmosphere of Stalinist Russia on a new level.
Notable quotes:
"... Austin Symphony Trombonist Fired Over Racist Comments , The Violin Channel, June 1, 2020 ..."
Jun 20, 2020 | www.unz.com

Here's some darkness: the symphony orchestra of Austin, Texas has fired their lead trombonist. This is a white lady named Brenda Sansig Salas, 51 years old and a U.S. Army veteran. Austin Symphony Trombonist Fired Over Racist Comments , The Violin Channel, June 1, 2020 She'd been posting comments on social media. The comment that precipitated her firing was apparently this one:

The BLACKS are looting and destroying their environment. They deserve what they get.

Brenda Sansig Salas

Have you checked out the 1/2 black president swine flu H1N1, and EBOLA?

What has your 1/2 black president done for you??

The ONLY REASON he was elected was because he is 1/2 black.

People voted on racist principles, not on the real issues . The BLACKS are looting and destroying their environment. They deserve what
they get. Playing the RACE CARD IS RACIST.

Symphony orchestra spokes-critter Anthony Corroa [ Email him ]announced the firing of Ms. Salas in the dreary schoolmarmish jargon of corporate wokeness: This language is not reflective of who we are as an organization." And "there is no place for hate within our organization."

[Jun 20, 2020] "If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants."

Jun 20, 2020 | taibbi.substack.com

Check Jun 13

"If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants."

Edward R. Murrow

[Jun 20, 2020] Putin On World War II

Jun 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Putin On World War II james , Jun 20 2020 17:16 utc | 1

Due to decades of Hollywood propaganda many people in "western" countries believe that the U.S. did the most to defeat the Nazis during World War II.

bigger

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The President of Russia Vladimir Putin has taken the opportunity of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II to describe the build-up to the war, the diplomatic and military considerations Russia took into account during that time, and the results of the allies' victory.

His essay was published in multiple languages on the Website of the Kremlin:

75th Anniversary of the Great Victory: Shared Responsibility to History and our Future .

The English version is also published in the National Interest magazine:

Vladimir Putin: The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II .

The part with the Russian view of the behavior of various nation in the late 1930s is most interesting. But this passage, related to the graphic above, is also very relevant:

The Soviet Union and the Red Army, no matter what anyone is trying to prove today, made the main and crucial contribution to the defeat of Nazism.
...
This is a report of February 1945 on reparation from Germany by the Allied Commission on Reparations headed by Ivan Maisky. The Commission's task was to define a formula according to which defeated Germany would have to pay for the damages sustained by the victor powers. The Commission concluded that "the number of soldier-days spent by Germany on the Soviet front is at least 10 times higher than on all other allied fronts. The Soviet front also had to handle four-fifths of German tanks and about two-thirds of German aircraft." On the whole, the USSR accounted for about 75 percent of all military efforts undertaken by the Anti-Hitler Coalition. During the war period, the Red Army "ground up" 626 divisions of the Axis states, of which 508 were German.

On April 28, 1942, Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his address to the American nation: "These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies – troops, planes, tanks, and guns – than all the other United Nations put together." Winston Churchill in his message to Joseph Stalin of September 27, 1944, wrote that "it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine "

Such an assessment has resonated throughout the world. Because these words are the great truth, which no one doubted then. Almost 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives on the fronts, in German prisons, starved to death and were bombed, died in ghettos and furnaces of the Nazi death camps. The USSR lost one in seven of its citizens, the UK lost one in 127, and the USA lost one in 320.

As a German and former officer who has read quite a bit about the war I agree with the Russian view. It was the little acknowledged industrial power of the Soviet Union and the remarkable dedication of the Red Army soldiers that defeated the German Wehrmacht.

At the end of his essay Putin defends the veto power of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. In his view it has prevented that another clash on a global scale has happened since World War II ended. Putin rejects attempts to abolish that system.

I have found no major flaw with the historic facts in the essay and recommend to read it in full.

Posted by b at 17:07 UTC | Comments (22) thanks for highlighting this b.... the graph at the top is very telling of how many people remain fairly ignorant of the reality on the ground.. putins speech and text are well worth the read... s and karlof1 posted a link on the open thread and some of us were talking about it their.... i found putins comments on the UN especially interesting...

I wonder if the brainwashing going on in the usa about how bad the UN is, is another example of americans being dumbed right down into believing the UN is useless? that is what it looks like to me... some of us aren't buying that and i am glad to see putin make some comments on that as well... thanks for highlighting this.. revisionist history seems to be a speciality of some..


james , Jun 20 2020 17:16 utc | 1

Babyl-on , Jun 20 2020 17:25 utc | 2
When I read here and in the article the quotes from Churchill and the "west" praising Russia's conduct of the war against fascism I can't help but translate them into praise for Hitler should he have won. British and US oligarchs were funding and supporting Hitler all along, which is well documented. For the oligarchy it made little difference who won.

The strategy of the imperial oligarchy was to let all its potential competitors deplete their resources then move in with its full power when the outcome had already been determined and pray on their weakness. It worked as we see in the global imperial power of the Western oligarchy as engineered by Roosevelt after the war which has ruled now for 75 years.

vk , Jun 20 2020 17:27 utc | 3
What Putin wrote already was common sense among historians, but it is good to see it becoming more mainstream.

My theory about the USA trying to get the credit for defeating the Third Reich - even though it has the victory against Japan (an empire that made the Third Reich look like Human Rights lovers) - comes from the fact that the European Peninsula became the major theater of the Cold War. The USA had then to create a narrative that could justify its supremacy over Western Europe, and its attempts to "liberate" Eastern Europe.

Yes, the Korean War happened in the early 1950s, but Japan was secured, Soviet access to warm water port in Asia was thus blocked and, after the Mao-Nixon pact of 1972, China (and thus North Korea) was out of the Soviet sphere. That made the European Peninsula even more important. Indeed, the threat of invading and occupying West Berlin was one of the greatest leverages the Soviets had and used against the USA during the whole Cold War. This leverage became even more pronounced after the Soviets successfully crushed the Hungarian counter-revolution of 1956, which sobered up the CIA and the hampered the USG's ambitions on absorbing Eastern Europe by propaganda and subversion warfare.

Prof K , Jun 20 2020 17:29 utc | 4
Putin's main arguments are fully in accord with British historian, Richard Overy's very important book, Russia's War.
Dirk , Jun 20 2020 17:37 utc | 6
The most baffling news to me recently was when I found out that Poland invaded the CSSR together with Hitler and occupied a part of the Czech Republic in March 1939 - and I went through several decades of WW2 "education" just as everyone. Not even Wikipedia mentions the Polish contribution to the invasion and occupation of the CSSR, which is very telling.

It sheds an entirely new light on the entire development right before WW2, in which Hitler went all-in to give Poland something for the future return of Danzig. Poland took it, but didn't realize that it was part of a deal, so Hitler activated Plan B. The process was certainly aggressive and kicked the Czechs interests as a people/nation, but the overall plan (I guess developed by Ribbentrop) makes a lot of sense. It is by far not irrational as it is usually portrayed.

I guess, I am now a "revisionist".

Joshua , Jun 20 2020 17:40 utc | 7
I read the article when it was posted (in full) on Southfront.
It is excellent. Detailed, accurate, insightful, as well as well composed and written.
I recommend that everyone who is able to do so read this article in its entirety.
I also fully agree with the position of Mr. Putin, as stated in his writing.
bevin , Jun 20 2020 17:41 utc | 8
You are quite correct. All historians know that the role of the Soviet Union in the war was decisive. When I was a child, growing up in British military circles, nobody troubled to deny it, while the role of the United States was generally regarded as very minor.
I recall, passing through the Suez Canal on a troopship bound for Malaya, the immense enthusiasm and loud cheering of the British troops for the crew of a Soviet destroyer, parading on deck while at anchor in the sweetwater lake. It drove the senior officers mad but the troops, mostly young working class conscripts, understood that the Red Army had saved millions of British lives.
As b says, however, by far the most interesting part of Putin's summary is that outlining the facts of the gyrating foreign policies of the United Kingdom in the 1930s.
Again most of what Putin relates is well known to honest historians. It used to be well known-thanks largely to the work of the Left- that the well understood strategy of the Tories, and most of the US business class, was to support a German invasion of the Soviet Union. Which is why the Nazi economy rested so heavily on US capital- it was expected to pay political as well as financial dividends by erasing the Communist threat (and, by implication that of socialism too).
I saw not a single error in Putin's history. It coincides precisely with the analysis I learned, as a young socialist, from German emigres. One of them, Hans Hess, who was a long time director of an Art Gallery in the north of England, told us that he, at the time in Paris, had greeted the news of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with relief. He understood that it meant that the policy of appeasement had failed, and that the Soviet Union would survive and prevail.
It needs to be understood that, before the US Cold War, based on the support it got from the isolationist, ultra right wing Republicans who had never really warmed to the World War, the view that Putin gives was widely shared by all 'patriotic' (anti collaborationist) political currents in western Europe. The contempt with which Baldwin, Chamberlain and their ilk were regarded in the UK used to be enormous- they were held to be little short of traitors. Seventy years later they and their US equivalents, the Vichy supporters in France and Nazi collaborators from all over Europe (including Mussolini's political heirs) dominate European politics.
It is a badge of honour for Russians to be hated by these scum.
vk , Jun 20 2020 17:48 utc | 9
@ Posted by: Dirk | Jun 20 2020 17:37 utc | 6

Yeah, Wikipedia is close to useless for WWII. Too much propaganda.

JCC , Jun 20 2020 17:57 utc | 10
The Soviet Union put together a 20 part documentary, The Unknown War, with the assistance of the U.S in 1978 to tell their part of the story. Mandatory watching for any history buffs, or those who want to expand their horizons. An incredible 30 hours of footage from the Soviet perspective. Narrated by Burt Lancaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI3rqO42lVc

oldhippie , Jun 20 2020 18:39 utc | 11
When I was a history student, undergrad and grad, at University of Illinois in 1970s, students of European history were taught exactly Putin's view. Students of American history were taught the Hollywood view. The American side of the History department viewed the entire faculty and student body on the European side as a pack of disloyal Communists. The European side saw the American side as exactly what they were - schoolteachers and future schoolteachers. Most of my old profs were glad to get out. Any profs known since retired early as precisely this issue made the job impossible. Of course at U of I there was and remains a large contingent of Eastern European descendants of Nazi collaborators who are very vocal and completely immune to criticism. A protected class. Open display of Nazi regalia, memorabilia, salutes, songs were always 100% approved because these are after all the victims of Soviet oppression.
Constantine , Jun 20 2020 19:50 utc | 19
Posted by: Babyl-on | Jun 20 2020 17:25 utc | 2

While it is true that numerous folks among the Anglo-American elites would be okay with a German victory (particularly if it didn't involve the trashing of their own imperial regimes), Churchill wasn't one of them. For all his odious aspects, this was a defining characteristic of his as a British nationalist: he wouldn't countenance any compromise with the Axis. In fact, it is safe to say that he played a very important role in keeping Britain in the war and not making any sort of peace with Germany after the fall of France.

On the other hand, it is an absolute truth that Hitler and Mussolini were highly respected among western capitalists who supported the military reinvigoration of the Third Reich. Mussolini was treated with more favour, but Hitler was also seen positively, not least for his racialist and racist views which coincided with those of the official Anglo-sphere.

Ike , Jun 20 2020 20:17 utc | 20
It is interesting to see in Putin's essay confirmation that the roots of WW11 were the greedy and inhumane attitudes of France and The UK to German reparations for WWI. Today we have The UK France and the USA losing the war in Syria and now imposing sanctions on the Syrian people. In Libya they have created chaos and the same bunch of war criminals do f--- all to assist the country. I have read elsewhere that Churchill could have stopped WWII much earlier and saved many lives' including the thousands killed in the Dresden firebombing, but wanted a complete surrender from Germany rather than a conditional one and that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped as the Soviet Army was poised to invade Japan after cleaning up China. The USA needed a quick resolution and an extravagant display of power to establish its global supremacy however so dropped the bombs anyway killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
All facts that are glossed over by most western publications.
It is disturbing that no Western leaders are attending the 75th anniversary celebrations of the end of WWII in Moscow.
I am very grateful that at least one of the current super-powers is led by the humane, diplomatic, non-empire building Vladimir Putin.
juliania , Jun 20 2020 20:18 utc | 21
Victor@17, you cannot be blamed for wanting to add to the essay important details, but I don't think the charge of revisionism is warranted. In the essay, Putin says this:
"...Stalin and his entourage, indeed, deserve many legitimate accusations. We remember the crimes committed by the regime against its own people and the horror of mass repressions. In other words, there are many things the Soviet leaders can be reproached for, but poor understanding of the nature of external threats is not one of them..."

That's a pretty strong statement. Putin is making clear his essay focuses on misrepresented aspects of Russia's involvement in the war. This is not a blanket endorsement of all that took place, but a template for careful study of events and increased understanding as documents pertaining to them become available.

Thanks for your input.

lgfocus , Jun 20 2020 20:51 utc | 22
As an American student with a class in "Soviet History" in the 1960's during the Cold War, what President Putin said about the War is what I was taught at the time.

I don't know when things changed. Probably just Americans lack of knowledge of history and belief in their exceptionalism.

[Jun 16, 2020] It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future (incorrectly attributed to Yogi Berra)

Jun 16, 2020 | carnegieendowment.org

... There are no signs that the [USA-Russia] relationship will improve in the near future.

[Jun 16, 2020] Veteran CIA Analyst- How An Internet 'Persona' Helped Birth Russiagate -

Jun 16, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Veteran CIA Analyst: How An Internet 'Persona' Helped Birth Russiagate


by Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2020 - 19:25 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

Four years ago on June 15, 2016, a shadowy Internet persona calling itself "Guccifer 2.0" appeared out of nowhere to claim credit for hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee on behalf of WikiLeaks and implicate Russia by dropping "telltale" but synthetically produced Russian "breadcrumbs" in his metadata.

Thanks largely to the corporate media, the highly damaging story actually found in those DNC emails – namely, that the DNC had stacked the cards against Bernie Sanders in the party's 2016 primary – was successfully obscured .

The media was the message; and the message was that Russia had used G-2.0 to hack into the DNC, interfering in the November 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

me frameborder=

Almost everybody still "knows" that – from the man or woman in the street to the forlorn super sleuth, Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, who actually based indictments of Russian intelligence officers on Guccifer 2.0.

Blaming Russia was a magnificent distraction from the start and quickly became the vogue.

The soil had already been cultivated for "Russiagate" by Democratic PR gems like Donald Trump "kissing up" to former KGB officer Vladimir Putin and their "bromance" (bromides that former President Barack Obama is still using). Four years ago today, "Russian meddling" was off and running – on steroids – acquiring far more faux-reality than the evanescent Guccifer 2.0 persona is likely to get.

Here's how it went down :

about:blank

me frameborder=

Adding to other signs of fakery, there is hard evidence that G-2.0 was operating mostly in U.S. time zones and with local settings peculiar to a device configured for use within the US , as Tim Leonard reports here and here .)

Leonard is a software developer who started to catalog and archive evidence related to Guccifer 2.0 in 2017 and has issued detailed reports on digital forensic discoveries made by various independent researchers – as well as his own – over the past three years. Leonard points out that WikiLeaks said it did not use any of the emails G2.0 sent it, though it later published similar emails, opening the possibility that whoever created G2.0 knew what WikiLeaks had and sent it duplicates with the Russian fingerprints .

As Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) told President Trump in a memorandum of July 24, 2017, titled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?":

"We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been ready to publish and to 'show' that it came from a Russian hack."

We added this about Guccifer 2.0 at the time:

"The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original 'Guccifer 2.0' material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the 'hand-picked analysts' from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the misnomered 'Intelligence Community' Assessment dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics."

Guccifer 2.0 Seen As a Fraud

In our July 24, 2017 memorandum we also told President Trump that independent cyber investigators and VIPs had determined "that the purported 'hack' of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. Information was leaked to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. " [Emphasis added.].

Right. Ask the FBI. At this stage, President Trump might have better luck asking Attorney General William Barr, to whom the FBI is accountable – at least in theory. As for Barr, VIPs informed him in a June 5, 2020 memorandum that the head of CrowdStrike had admitted under oath on Dec. 5, 2017 that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 were hacked – by Russia or by anyone else. [Emphasis added.] This important revelation has so far escaped attention in the Russia-Russia-Russia "mainstream" media (surprise, surprise, surprise!).

Back to the Birth of G-2

It boggles the mind that so few Americans could see Russiagate for the farce it was. Most of the blame, I suppose, rests on a thoroughly complicit Establishment media. Recall: Assange's announcement on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton-related emails came just six weeks before the Democratic convention. I could almost hear the cry go up from the DNC: Houston, We Have a Problem!

Here's how bad the problem for the Democrats was. The DNC emails eventually published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, just three days before the Democratic convention, had been stolen on May 23 and 25. This would have given the DNC time to learn that the stolen material included documents showing how the DNC and Clinton campaign had manipulated the primaries and created a host of other indignities, such that Sanders' chances of winning the nomination amounted to those of a snowball's chance in the netherworld.

Clinton at the 2016 convention, via Wikimedia Commons.

To say this was an embarrassment would be the understatement of 2016. Worse still, given the documentary nature of the emails and WikiLeaks' enviable track record for accuracy, there would be no way to challenge their authenticity. Nevertheless, with the media in full support of the DNC and Clinton, however, it turned out to be a piece of cake to divert attention from the content of the emails to the "act of war" (per John McCain) that the Russian "cyber attack" was said to represent .

The outcome speaks as much to the lack of sophistication on the part of American TV watchers, as it does to the sophistication of the Democrats-media complicity and cover-up. How come so few could figure out what was going down?

It was not hard for some experienced observers to sniff a rat. Among the first to speak out was fellow Consortium News columnist Patrick Lawrence, who immediately saw through the Magnificent Diversion. I do not know if he fancies duck hunting, but he shot the Russiagate canard quite dead – well before the Democratic convention was over.

Magnificent Diversion

In late July 2016, Lawrence was sickened, as he watched what he immediately recognized as a well planned, highly significant deflection. The Clinton-friendly media was excoriating Russia for "hacking" DNC emails and was glossing over what the emails showed ; namely, that the Clinton Dems had pretty much stolen the nomination from Sanders.

It was already clear even then that the Democrats, with invaluable help from intelligence leaks and other prepping to the media, had made good use of those six weeks between Assange's announcement that he had emails "related to Hillary Clinton" and the opening of the convention.

The media was primed to castigate the Russians for "hacking," while taking a prime role in the deflection. It was a liminal event of historic significance, as we now know. The "Magnificent Diversion" worked like a charm – and then it grew like Topsy.

Lawrence said he had "fire in the belly" on the morning of July 25 as the Democratic convention began and wrote what follows pretty much "in one long, furious exhale" within 12 hours of when the media started really pushing the "the Russians-did-it" narrative.

Patrick Lawrence

Below is a slightly shortened text of his article :

"Now wait a minute, all you upper-case "D" Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections

Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters?

Clowns. Subversives. Do you know who you remind me of? I will tell you: Nixon, in his famously red-baiting campaign – a disgusting episode – during his first run for the Senate, in 1950. Your political tricks are as transparent and anti-democratic as his, it is perfectly fair to say.

I confess to a heated reaction to events since last Friday [July 22] among the Democrats, specifically in the Democratic National Committee. I should briefly explain

The Sanders people have long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale, as one of them put it the other day, in favor of Hillary Clinton's nomination. The prints were everywhere – many those of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has repeatedly been accused of anti-Sanders bias. Schultz, do not forget, co-chaired Clinton's 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. That would be enough to disqualify her as the DNC's chair in any society that takes ethics seriously, but it is not enough in our great country. Chairwoman she has been for the past five years.

Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof that Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC officers, proposed Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in name only and an atheist by conviction.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Wasserman fell from grace on Monday. Other than this, Democrats from President Obama to Clinton and numerous others atop the party's power structure have had nothing to say, as in nothing, about this unforgivable breach. They have, rather, been full of praise for Wasserman Schultz. Brad Marshall, the D.N.C.'s chief financial officer, now tries to deny that his Jew-baiting remark referred to Sanders. Good luck, Brad: Bernie is the only Jew in the room.

The caker came on Sunday, when Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, appeared on ABC's "This Week" and CNN's "State of the Union" to assert that the D.N.C.'s mail was hacked "by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." He knows this – knows it in a matter of 24 hours – because "experts" – experts he will never name – have told him so.

What's disturbing to us is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.

Is that what disturbs you, Robby? Interesting. Unsubstantiated hocus-pocus, not the implications of these events for the integrity of Democratic nominations and the American political process? The latter is the more pressing topic, Robby. You are far too long on anonymous experts for my taste, Robby. And what kind of expert, now that I think of it, is able to report to you as to the intentions of Russian hackers – assuming for a sec that this concocted narrative has substance?

Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger, then associates Trump with its own mess – and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave).

Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having absolutely none of it. There is no "Russian actor" at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You will never, ever be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.

Reluctantly, I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well enough such that they may make this junk stick. In a clear sign the entire crowd-control machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook's lead faithfully: not one properly supported fact, not one identified "expert," and more conditional verbs than you've had hot dinners – everything cast as "could," "might," "appears," "would," "seems," "may." Nothing, once again, as to the very serious implications of this affair for the American political process.

Now comes the law. The FBI just announced that it will investigate – no, not the DNC's fraudulent practices (which surely breach statutes), but "those who pose a threat in cyberspace." it is the invocation of the Russians that sends me over the edge. My bones grow weary

We must take the last few days' events as a signal of what Clinton's policy toward Russia will look like should she prevail in November. Turning her party's latest disgrace into an occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her commitment to the new crusade.

Trump, to make this work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code. Does this not make Hillary Clinton more than a touch Nixonian?

I am developing nitrogen bends from watching the American political spectacle. One can hardly tell up from down. Which way for a breath of air?"

A year later Lawrence interviewed several of us VIPs, including our two former NSA technical directors and on Aug. 9, 2017 published an article for The Nation titled, "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack."

Lawrence wrote, "Former NSA experts, now members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs), say it wasn't a hack at all, but a leak – an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system."

And so it was. But, sadly, that cut across the grain of the acceptable Russia-gate narrative at The Nation at the time. Its staff, seriously struck by the HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, rose up in rebellion. A short time later, there was no more room at The Nation for his independent-minded writing.


Drop-Hammer , 2 hours ago

His name was (((Seth Rich))).

zoomie92 , 1 hour ago

Direct USB download to chip or portable HD was the only way to get those download speed shown on the file metadata. This has been proven in multiple independent ways. But the press is filled with ******* retards - and so is the country.

Franko , 1 hour ago

Rest in Peace Mr Seth.

I believe many US officials have enough and want to tell the others about this.

Question:were they should be go to spread the news?To which country before been assasinated?

To end like Julian Assange or like Snowden?

belogical , 2 hours ago

...Gucifer had much less to do with this than the Obama admin. They were using the intelligence community for no good and as their crimes became visible they had to commit bigger and bigger crimes to cover them up. In the end a large part of the DOJ, FBI and Obama admin should be held accountable for this, but when you get this high they likely won't. You can already see Lindsey Graham of the deep state finally holding hearing to spin the narrative before the Durham probe becomes public. Unfortunate but only a few will get their hands slapped and the true person, Obama who deserve to be prosecuted will likely skate.

PedroS , 2 hours ago

Crowdstrike. The owners should be in jail for their role.

Slaytheist , 2 hours ago

Crowdstrike IS Guccifer.

They were ordered by the criminal DNC org to cover the fact that the data was downloaded internally, in order to hide the connection to the Podesta/Clinton ordered hit on person who did it - Seth Rich.

Weedlord Bonerhitler , 3 hours ago

The computer of a DNC operative named Warren Flood was used to disseminate the Guccifer 2.0 disinfo tranche. Adam Carter had the analysis IIRC.

Giant Meteor , 3 hours ago

Always good to hear from Ray!

philipat , 39 minutes ago

Tick tock, still no indictments and soon the campaign will be in full swing so that everything will be attacked as "political". Is Durham done?

[Jun 16, 2020] Saagar Enjeti- Obamagate is real and the media can't just ignore it

They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it. This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Jun 16, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning America.

Maniachael Productions , 1 month ago

Lmao a war criminal complaining about the rule of law not being upheld

C.I.A. , 3 weeks ago

It's disgusting to me how news sources say that Obama gate isn't real.

[Jun 16, 2020] Saagar Enjeti- BOMBSHELL reveals Biden at center of Obamagate, media ignores

They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
Jun 16, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Columbus1152 , 1 month ago

Dementia comes in handy at a time like this.

RayC1 , 1 month ago

Biden just described his entire political career, "I was there, but i had nothing to do with it"

Arthur Sprong , 1 month ago

He's not senile, he's getting ready to be "unfit for trial".

Charles Jannuzi , 1 month ago

Bad Brain Joe was Obomber's point man in the Ukraine coup and all the grifting and grafting that followed.

john smith , 1 month ago

"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"

Jeff Zekas , 1 month ago (edited)

The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.

[Jun 16, 2020] Intellectual trends which may affect Putin

Jun 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Jun 15 2020 23:35 utc | 66

Very interesting article by Vladimir Odintsov:

Vestiges of the American Dream

It brings this very curious information that I wasn't aware of:

On May 15, the US Department of the Treasury released Treasury International Capital (TIC) data for March 2020. It showed that total foreign ownership of Treasuries dropped by $256.6 billion to $6.81 trillion.

I already knew there was a race to the Renminbi since China recovered from the first wave of the pandemic (it is mentioned in at least two op-pieces in the Asia Times), but I didn't know there was a correspondent race from the USD. Let's remember: in 2008, there was a race to the USD; the USD became stronger than ever with that crisis, and America's dominance in the financial sector strengthened, not weakened.

Now it may be different. The USD is getting weaker, not stronger. Faith in the USA is weaning.

Also there's this nice little piece, very poetic, whose only value is in the fact that it was written by an American who loves his country and served in the Army:

America Without the Sugar Coating: Wishing Ill Will On Our World

--//--

@ Posted by: juliania | Jun 15 2020 22:55 utc | 61

What will become of "Putin's Russia" is a very interesting topic.

Pepe Escobar's interview with Karaganov made it look like Russia's plan is to serve as some kind of leader of the "non-aligned" countries in a future China-USA bipolar world order. I found it too vague, could mean anything.

However, there's another, much more interesting, phenomenon: the rise of some right-wing intellectuals from Russia and the USA who are trying to revive what we call nowadays as "paleoconservatism". They are the Martyanovs, Dugins, Korybkos the guys who write for Unz and The Saker, the Russia Insider team around there.

Those "new paleoconservatives" differentiate themselves in the sense that they really try very hard to be intellectuals -- that is, they do not adopt the irrational methodology of the typical far-right/neofacism, they abhor the neocons/neoliberals, they abhor the so-called "woke left/cultural marxists/pluralists/SJWs" (which they frequently associate, if not equate, to the neoliberals), they believe in some kind of a concept of race or racially determined culture based on geography and climate, they certainly abhor scientific socialism (some of them even, under absurd and extremely dumbed down arguments, directly stating Marx's theory was wrong) but they also abhor Nazism - albeit for reasons that are not, let's say, "orthodox". They are also against imperialism as the USA is practicing right now, but not against "self-defense" imperialism, that is, the line is blurry.

But the most important factor that unites this group is their blind faith in Christianism. They somehow believe that if you fuse capitalism (which, for many of them is not even a system, but human nature itself) with Christian values (it doesn't need to be Christian religion per se, you don't need to be a practicing Christian), you somehow get the perfect mix between man's animal side (capitalism) and spiritual side (Christianism). It's like your traditional post-war social-democracy, with the difference that they put Christianism in socialism's place. As a result, you go back to the good ol' times, more or less in the 1950s, where everything was, allegedly, "in their place".

This obsession with Christianism makes me, jokingly, to call this coterie as the "Neobyzantines" - a bizarre postmodern chimera born from the degeneration of late stage capitalism.

But this is the boring part. The cool part about the Neobyzantines is the fact that they have a geopolitical policy. What's this policy? You guessed it right: they want a Christian confederation composed of the entire Northern Atlantic (NATO countries)... plus Russia. This, the Neobyzantines say, will save Christianism (and the correspondent white race) from subjugation and hegemony of the socialist Yellows (some of them also have a racial-based theory about why socialism/communism naturally occurs in East Asia; for some of them, South Korea and Japan are even communist themselves already).

We know Putin was raised as a Neobyzantine. He's an Ocidentalist that believed in the concept of an European civilization. That's why, in my opinion, he plays such a good sport with the Orthodox Church, as it is a living fossil of the times of Peter the Great etc. etc. However, as time passed, he became increasingly disillusioned with the USA and the EU, and the ties were definitely broken with the invasion and partition of the Ukraine in 2014. His policies, therefore, clearly became more Eurasianist, but that certainly was the result of necessity, not free will.

Is Putin may be converting himself to "Neobyzantism"? Will Neobyzantism really become a thing, or will it just be thrown to the dustbin of History, as was many other ideologies of the past of which only a Historian knows nowadays?


ptb , Jun 16 2020 1:28 utc | 78

@vk 66

re: neo-Byzanyines. Clever. And there may be something to that idea. Certainly the general flavor of Christian conservatism you describe holds some real currency among the national security types. However, despite ideological commonality across borders, I think it is clearly nationalist and not internationalist.

The more theatrical "paleo" versions stand out, if only for being one of the few cohesive alternatives to neoliberalism (socialism and socdem being sadly moribund). But if you dial down the drama and take away the contrarian personalities, then pan-nationalist Christian conservatism (and for that matter, the Islamic or Hindu analogs) can be integrated into neoliberalism too. I don't see why not.

Considering the post-millennial generations may well end up in a Byzantium of some kind in some decades, this is worth following up on.

Richard Steven Hack , Jun 16 2020 1:53 utc | 80
Posted by: vk | Jun 15 2020 23:35 utc | 66 Will Neobyzantism really become a thing, or will it just be thrown to the dustbin of History, as was many other ideologies of the past of which only a Historian knows nowadays?

I've noticed that trend as well - the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church and the rise of conservatism in Russia. I see it reflected in the attitudes on the Crosstalk show that I used to watch regularly.

I agree that trying to resurrect Christianity is a major error. It will just lead to even greater anti-intellectualism and irrational belief systems, and possibly even eventually into a "theocracy" - hardly conducive to freedom. As a rabid atheist myself, I despise all of this.

vk , Jun 16 2020 2:26 utc | 83
@ Posted by: ptb | Jun 16 2020 1:28 utc | 78

I think that, if we take it from your approach, the problem with the neobyzantines is more related to the fact that they can't accept being juniors to the "yellows" (i.e. a non-white, non-Christian people) than with Chinese-style socialism. They are like the reverse Chicoms in this sense (and, if that's indeed the case, they are very different than the American Bannonist far-right).

The Bannonists (I think Bannon himself coin his ideology as "Neopopulism" or something like that) believe in the reverse case: it is good that the Chinese are to hegemonize the world in the 21st Century - as long as they do so in a capitalist form, not in a socialist one, that is, without the CCP at the helm.

Indeed, neoliberalism is very malleable, and for one very simple reason: it is not an ideology per se, but a doctrine. Doctrines are not as much incisive as ideologies, but they have the advantage of being very adaptable and quickly digestible. For example: who, at the beginning of the 1970s, would think that - of all places - neoliberalism would find its most fertile ground in Latin America? Theoretically, Latin America should be the anti-neoliberalism area of the world par excellence, as it was the subcontinent that suffered the most (except, maybe, Africa - but Africa was razed to the ground, there's no material there to any doctrine or ideology to sprout) under the hands of American neocolonialism. But here we are: the lack of a strong revolutionary movement in Latin America gave birth to a strong inferiority complex, which created a political vacuum in which neoliberalism fitted perfectly (Mexico, then Ménem's "Peripheral Realism", then FHC's "we must be the last of the top" in Brazil).

Neoliberalism's success story in Latin America is a warning example for historians to never stick to a sociological formula either for trying to explain History or to try to predict History. There's always the human factor, that "x" factor that only good old method of studying History can decipher.

--//--

@ Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Jun 16 2020 1:53 utc | 80

I use the term "Neobyzantine" as some kind of pejorative joke (my humor is very dark). I don't think those who I would classify as "neobyzantine" feed any illusions about the real Byzantine Empire - which, as a Christian Empire, was an absolute farce: it was plagued with schisms after schism inside Christianism that castigated them with endless drama, exiles, executions, dead emperors and civil wars. No Byzantine citizen ever believed Christianity would rise someday to become a world religion: it was under the hands of the Western European medieval lords and their descendants that it became so (conquests of America, Africa, Oceania and SE Asia).

It is a myth Christianism ever brought unity to the Roman Empire, but it may be true that the early Christian emperors (from Constantine the Great onward) thought it would. If Constantine and his successors really thought that, then they were to be proven completely wrong - as today's schism between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox are to serve as living evidence.

ptb , Jun 16 2020 3:15 utc | 86
@vk 83

I think that, if we take it from your approach, the problem with the neobyzantines is more related to the fact that they can't accept being juniors to the "yellows"

Well, not sure how that fits into the byzantine analogy, but I do think it is a central unifying theme of conservatives in the west who are taking an anti-neoliberal position.

I think the position toward capitalism is something between nuanced and contradictory, or at least very heterogenous. There is plenty of awareness of its ills of a state captive to private $ and corps. Yet the ideal of free enterprise is celebrated without reservation, with a real hope for markets that could in theory become non dysfunctional. So no, IMO anti-neoliberal conservatives in the US are not socialist in the slightest (except the military has universal health and education). Basically very sympathetic to the "libertarian" side of it. But that may be unique to the US vs the rest of the "west". I mean this is all stereotyping very much, everyone has their own emphasis. Also the economic idea are maybe not so important to the byzantium / historical analogy, we might happen to prioritize them higher ourselves.

Where does the Chinese socialism fit in? That is contradictory too. One has to make a judgment of capitalism with Chinese characteristics, and also Socialism with Chinese characteristics. Neither of those is a direct translation of the European versions of them. You also have a strong and intimate state power, which the nationalists might actually be jealous of but I find off-putting. I do think the commonality there, for the would-be neobyzantines is, again, simple national power.

Kindof like Bannonites, except he represents just one version of this. Specifically, his version of a conservative anti-neoliberal position is especially uninteresting IMO. And I dont take most of what he says at face value anyhow. Just a particularly unattractive nationalist IMO... Finally, I don't think he would make a good byzantine, but maybe I am romanticizing the idea in my head a little.

vk , Jun 16 2020 4:02 utc | 90
@ Posted by: ptb | Jun 16 2020 3:15 utc | 86

Yes, I agree: the Bannonites are certainly not Neobyzantines. They are more like the traditional fascists: radical in form, conservative in essence. They are like agents of chaos - a domesticated chaos, of course.

The unifying factor of the Neobyzantines, in my opinion, is the fact that they believe a universalized (forced upon the masses) Christian moral code can save capitalism. In their opinion, it is greed by the rich and the depravity of the leftists that is the problem.

They believe that the end of the USSR and the slow rise of China (plus, I guess, the failure of the West in Christianizing the Middle East and Asia) put an end or proved wrong the existence of economic systems. In this sense, they lowkey agree with Fukuyama in essence, albeit kot in form. This would also make the Neobyzantines part of the Postmodern constellation of ideologies, which preach absolute relativism.

--//--

@ Posted by: A User | Jun 16 2020 3:36 utc | 87

Yes, if you think about it, the American Revolution was a petite-bourgoeis revolution: it was just a bunch of small planters not wanting to pay taxes.

Thomas Jefferson certainly didn't imagine he was building the world's future sole superpower. None of the founding fathers imagined that.

However, the American Revolution was important in the sense it was the first European colony to achieve independency without consent of it metropolis. It showed the other colonies it was possible. We know the American case would never be replicated, but it inspired the colonised a world without metropoleis was possible, and opened way for the end of the old colonial system in 1945.

King Lear , Jun 16 2020 4:08 utc | 91
Vk #66
I don't understand your ridiculous concern that their will be some grand alliance of the "White Christian" world (the U$, Russia, and the NATO/EU puppets) along with some assorted Non-White, Non-Christian, countries (India, Japan, South Korea, etc.), against "Yellow Socialist China". In reality the only "Prominent" person who has entertained this anachronistic lunacy is the wannabe fascist Drunkard known as Steve Bannon, who has no real impact on anything beyond grifting illiterate Trump supporters (The last I heard of him, he was drunkenly proclaiming the creation of a "New Federal State of China's" with some former Chinese "Communist" billionaire on a dingy boat in New York Harbor, LMAO". In reality most of the "Neobyzantine" fools you mentioned in both the U$ and Russia, are big advocates of the phony idea that China is a "rising", "Socialist", superpower that is an alternative to the Unipolar, U$-led, world order, as evidenced that the "Unz Review" and "The Saker" are filled with articles by Pro-China hacks such as Pepe Escobar. Personally, I view the "Neobyzantines" as a bunch of hacks and grifters who in Russia seek to brainwash the population into believing that the USSR was an evil "Judeo-Bolshevik" abomination while Putin's Russia is an "Orthodox Christian" paradise and rising Superpower, that is In alliance with the "good Socialist" China, in a "New Cold War" with the U$, all while covering up the fact that Putin's Russia is a utter joke compared to the USSR, due to its population wallowing in poverty and degeneracy (so much for those Orthodox values,
LOL), and it losing half its territory and all its Geopolitical alliances and ideological support (due to its rejection of Marxism-Leninism). In the U$, these quacks appeal to a very narrow group of disenfranchised U$ right-wingers who seem to believe that Russia and China represent some Conservative utopia, LOL. In conclusion, these people are much less significant then you make them out to be and just serve as mere propagandists for the phony New Cold War" of the U$ vs. Russia and China which like I said in my previous post is Fake wrestling to confuse and distract the populations of all three countries as they are oppressed by the same Neoliberal policies that all three governments implement.

[Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded

Highly recommended!
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable" Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Jun 14, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens, the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that "there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S. Constitution and government."

One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W. Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored from the actual Constitution.

In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."

She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."

In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.

Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted: "it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."

When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment, she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe." Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge, multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States. We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is entirely appropriate."

She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and become again an unusually successful, open American republic."

Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979 article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse."

While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.

Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W. Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."

The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president) make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast. That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.

William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.

[Jun 14, 2020] Putin's World: Russia against the West and with the Rest

The author is neoliberal apologists, who use idiotic cliché about democratization to cover neoliberal wolfs teens and appetite. Neoliberalism means impoverishment of countries like Russia. so Putin actions are logical: he defends interests of Russian people against international financial oligarchy. Experience of countries like Ukraine and Libya are vivid examples of what financial oligarchy can do to the countries which do not resists conversion into debt slaves.
McFaul of course was a color revolution specialist, who tried to unleash White color revolution in 2011-2012. But he was actually a gift to Russians, as he proved to be a complete and utter idiot, not a skillful diplomat. After EuroMaydan in 2014 neoliberal fifth column in Russia was decimated and seized to exist as a political force.
Jun 14, 2020 | networks.h-net.org

"Russians," says Stent, "have at best been reluctant Europeans" (45). They need and admire Western technology but managed to miss the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, and never developed a middle class and a democracy. Putin himself is a "wary European," who fails "to understand that Europe's successful modernization was a product of both a free market economy and a democratic political system based on the rule of law." More appealing to him is China's model of "authoritarian modernization" (52).

Moreover, he is suspicious of the expansion of the European Union, its Eastern Partnership Initiative (EPI, 2009), and its overtures for former Soviet states to join the EPI or EU. Disputes over the signing of such an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2013 exploded into the Maidan movement, the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the war in eastern Ukraine, and economic sanctions against Russia. China soon replaced Europe as Russia's largest trading partner. Instead of President Mikhail Gorbachev's dream of a 'common European home,' Russia has become the major opponent of European unity, a promoter of Brexit, and an ally of the anti-liberal axis of 'take-our-country-back' right-wing populist and neo-authoritarian European parties and governments. Putin is indiscriminate about cultivating allies and has established friendly relations with a rogues' gallery of strongmen and authoritarian politicians that includes among others Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, Silvio Berlusconi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Bashar al-Assad, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mohammad bin Salman, Narendra Modi, and Donald J. Trump. But at the same time he has worked to establish ties with moderate and centrist leaders like Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel.

As scholar and practitioner, Angela Stent is at her best when elaborating the specificities of Russian dealings with friends and foes. Her chapter on NATO expansion -- "The 'Main Opponent'" (Putin's words) -- is a judicious and critical review of policies that redivided Europe and propelled Russia through the logic of a security dilemma to re-engage in offensive strategies from rearmament to hybrid warfare. Yet while acknowledging that Russia has genuine security concerns about NATO's moves eastward, she reverts to the notion that Russian ideological constants are key to the conflict between East and West.

Russia has not, over the past quarter century, been willing to accept the rules of the international order that the West hoped it would. Those included acknowledging the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the post-Soviet states and supporting a liberal world order that respects the right to self-determination. Russia continues to view the drivers of international politics largely through a nineteenth-century prism. Spheres of influence are more important than the individual rights and sovereignty of smaller countries. It is virtually impossible to reconcile the Western and Russian understanding of sovereignty. For Putin, what counts is power and scale, not rules (137-138).

Stent does not share the default view of some of her fellow Putinologists, among them Masha Gessen and Michael McFaul, who see almost every malevolent deed of Russian policy as stemming from one grim personality. She argues instead that Putin and more generally Kremlin policies are the effusion of something deeply Russian. Like the work of many other analysts of Soviet and Russian foreign policy behavior, however, the book often neglects or underplays the intersubjective effects on Kremlin actions, the ways in which initiatives by the more powerful West precipitate reactions by the East -- NATO expansion and European and American recognition of Kosovo independence being among the clearest examples.

Losing the West, much of East Central Europe, the Baltic countries, Georgia, and Ukraine, Russia turned eastward toward Eurasia, to the former South of the USSR, a region that Stent argues "has been an essential component of [Putin's] main goal restoring Russia as a great power" (142). He wants, as did Yeltsin, the West to recognize Russia's "sphere of privileged interests" in the so-called "Near Abroad," where it has "civilizational commonalities" with former Soviet states (144-145). To the Kremlin the Near Abroad is contested with the West, and losing it would severely jeopardize Russia's security. Military arrangements, like the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and economic collaboration in the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) have bound several republics, notably Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, to Russia. In recent years several states, notably Moldova, have gravitated closer to Moscow, while others, like Turkestan, maintain a guarded distance.

Substantive chapters review Russian relations with Ukraine, China, Japan, the Middle East, and the United States. Putin's greatest success came in Syria, where he took advantage of the Obama and Trump administrations' ambivalence about their role in the civil war. Putin sided with Assad and, along with Iran and its proxies, propelled the brutal dictator to victory over myriad rebels. For a time he solidified relations with Erdoğan's Turkey, but by 2019 the two potential allies were at loggerheads both in Syria and Libya. Playing a relatively weak hand vis-à-vis Europe, China, and the United States, Putin managed to deploy limited resources to become the principal extra-regional player in the conflict-riven Near East. Given Trump's reluctance to go to war or remain on the front line, Putin deftly filled the vacuum left by American confusion and incompetence.

Reading Putin's World , one can see how Putin, successful in some places, bogged down in others, and threatened in still others, has both increased Russian prestige and extended his influence while deepening Russia's economic and diplomatic isolation and elevating global suspicions as to its nefarious actions, from poisonings to election interference. Benefiting from the gullibility and ignorance of the occupant of the White House, he can sit back and observe the chaos launched by the Trump administration. But unpredictability should not calm a realist's mind, and Putin is forced to deal with the contradictory cascade of attitudes and activities emanating from Washington: friendly personal relations between the two leaders, the series of sanctions placed on the Russians, the bizarre actions of Trump and his cronies in Ukraine, unilateral abrogation of arms controls, withdrawal from the Paris Accords on climate control and the Iranian nuclear agreement, the precipitate withdrawal from Syria, and the impulsive assassination of high Iranian and Iraqi officials.

Stent ends the book with an assessment of how Russia's strongman has reasserted his country's role on the world stage while at the same time worsening relations with the West and facing a renewed arms race and the resurrection of harsh Cold War-like representations of his country. "Putin has achieved his major objectives . The world can no longer ignore [Russia]. It is respected -- and feared" (346). In much of the world he is a more attractive figure than his "partner" Trump. Stent is confident that the West can work with Putin, but "the West has to recognize what Russia is -- and not what it would like Russia to be" (356). Russia's views of the world and of its interests have to be taken seriously, even when the West is unwilling to accede to or compromise with them; "Engagement must be realistic and flexible" (361). Expect the unexpected. After all, you are dealing with a wiry, wily judo master.

[Jun 14, 2020] Putin Says US Social Unrest Show Deep-Seated Internal Crises

Jun 14, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Putin Says US Social Unrest Show "Deep-Seated Internal Crises" by Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2020 - 11:51 The Rubin Report's Pavel Zarubin interviewed Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday, where he said social unrest across the US reveals the deep internal crisis in the country, reported TASS News .

"What has happened [in the US] is the manifestation of some deep domestic crises," Putin said, noting that this crisis was festering well before President Trump took office. "When he won, and his victory was absolutely obvious and democratic, the defeated party invented all sorts of bogus stories just to call into question his legitimacy," he added.

Putin pointed out the biggest problem of the US political system is the parties and their special interest of people behind the scenes.

"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people," Putin said.

While commenting on domestic issues, Putin said his government has been combating the virus with minimal losses. He said that was not the case in the US, adding the failures of the US' "management system" led to poor response and widespread destruction. He said the best strategy has been Moscow's top-down approach as all parts of government operated as a single team.

Putin further expanded on the US social unrest by linking it to the pandemic: "It shows there are problems. Things connected to the fight with the coronavirus have shone a spotlight on general problems."

He criticized the lack of strong leadership of virus response efforts, saying that "the president says we need to do such-and-such, but the governor somewhere tells him where to go."

In Russia, "I doubt anyone in the government or the regions would say 'we're not going to do what the government says, what the president says, we think it's wrong,'" Putin said.

Putin believes American democracy will work to end the twin crisis: public health and social unrest, which have engulfed the country lately.

"I expect that the fundamental basis of US democracy will still allow and help this country to end this crisis period where it certainly finds itself," he said.

Watch Full Interview

[Jun 13, 2020] Korea is just another distraction: false conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year

Highly recommended!
The saying "War is racket" means not only that conquered nations are loots, but the the USA taxpayers will be looted as well
Jun 13, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Kay Fabe , Jun 13 2020 0:10 utc | 35
Just another distraction.

Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars, although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't have a problem.

I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and South Korea, not to mention Guam.

False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.

If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs. China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents

[Jun 12, 2020] China and Russia as the civilisational states

This guy does not understand the term "neoliberalism" and process of rejection of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of neoliberal globalization. As such his analysis is by-and-large junk. Still some quotes are interesting enough to the readers. Undeniably Russia and China are poses both features of the nationa-states and distinct civilizations, but that changes nothing in their fight against American Imperialism and global neoliberalism.
The weakness of both Russia and China is that they are neoliberal states themselves, so while fighting American neoliberal imperialism (to a certain extent) externally, they promote neoliberalism internally. China implements something like NEP (New economic Policy) installed in Russia after revolution. It leads to tremendous level of corruption. Putin promotes something like a New Deal Capitalism, but that contradicts the logic of neoliberalism and the fact of existince of Russian oligarchs. Political balance relies just of the power of Putin personality. That might lead to the collapse of state when current leaders are gone, as this is a very fine balance which requires exceptional political agility. Putin does possessed it, but that does not mean that Russia can find another Putin. Then what? A new Yeltsin?
Notable quotes:
"... today we are witnessing the end of the liberal world order and the rise of the civilisational state, which claims to represent not merely a nation or territory but an exceptional civilisation ..."
"... Western civilisation is much less able to confront both internal problems such as economic injustice, social dislocation and resurgent nationalism, ..."
Jun 12, 2020 | www.newstatesman.com

Such states define themselves not as nations but civilisations – in opposition to the liberalism and global market ideology of the West. By Adrian Pabst The 20th century marked the downfall of empire and the triumph of the nation state. National self-determination became the prime test of state legitimacy, rather than dynastic inheritance or imperial rule.

After the Cold War, the dominant elites in the West assumed that the nation-state model had defeated all rival forms of political organisation. The worldwide spread of liberal values would create an era of Western hegemony. It would be a new global order based on sovereign states enforced by Western-dominated international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.

But today we are witnessing the end of the liberal world order and the rise of the civilisational state, which claims to represent not merely a nation or territory but an exceptional civilisation. In China and Russia the ruling classes reject Western liberalism and the expansion of a global market society. They define their countries as distinctive civilisations with their own unique cultural values and political institutions. The ascent of civilisational states is not just changing the global balance of power. It is also transforming post-Cold War geopolitics away from liberal universalism towards cultural exceptionalism.

****

Thirty years after the collapse of totalitarian state communism, liberal market democracy is in question. Both the West and "the rest" are sliding into forms of soft totalitarianism as market fundamentalism or state capitalism creates oligarchic concentrations of power and wealth. Oligarchies occur in both democratic and authoritarian systems, which are led by demagogic leaders who can either be more liberal, as with France's president Emmanuel Macron, or more populist, such as Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán. In both the older democracies of western Europe and in the post-1989 democracies of the former Soviet Union, fundamental freedoms are in retreat and the separation of powers is under threat.

The resurgence of great power rivalry, especially with the rise of Russia and China, is weakening Western attempts to impose a unified set of standards and rules in international relations. The leaders of these powers, including the US under Donald Trump, reject universal human rights, the rule of law, respect for facts and a free press in the name of cultural difference. The days of spreading universal values of Western enlightenment have long since passed.

Globalisation is partly in reverse. Free trade is curtailed by protectionist tariff wars between the US and China. The promotion of Western democracy has been replaced by an accommodation with autocrats such as North Korea's Kim Jong-un. But more fundamentally, geopolitics is no longer simply about the economy or security – Christopher Coker describes it in The Rise of the Civilizational State (2019) as largely sociocultural and civilisational. The non-Western world, led by Beijing and Moscow, is pushing back against the Western claim to embody universal values.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping champions a model of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" fusing a Leninist state with neo-Confucian culture. Vladimir Putin defines Russia as a "civilisational state", which is neither Western nor Asian but uniquely Eurasian. Trump rails against the European multicultural dilution of Western civilisation – which he equates with a white supremacist creed. Common to these leaders is a hybrid doctrine of nationalism at home and the defence of civilisation abroad.

It reconciles their promotion of great-power status with their ideological aversion to liberal universalism. States based on civilisational identities are bound to collide with the institutions of the liberal world order, and so it is happening.

Civilisations themselves might not clash, but contemporary geopolitics has turned into a contest between alternative versions of civilised norms. Within the West, there is a growing gap between a cosmopolitan EU and a nativist US. And a global "culture war" is pitting the West's liberal establishment against the illiberal powers of Russia and China. Cultural exceptionalism is once again challenging, and arguably replacing, liberalism's claim to universal validity. The powers redefining themselves as state civilisations are gaining strength.

****

A new narrative has taken hold among the ruling classes in the West: that the aggressive axis of Russia and China is the main threat to the Western-dominated international system. But the liberal world order is also under unprecedented strain from within. The Iraq invasion of 2003, the 2008 global financial crash, austerity and the refugee crisis in Europe, which began in earnest in 2015 and was partly the result of Western destabilisation in Libya and Syria, have all eroded public confidence in the liberal establishment and the institutions it controls. Brexit, Donald Trump and the populist insurgency sweeping continental Europe mark a revolt against the economic and social liberalism that has dominated domestic politics and neoliberal globalisation. The ascent of authoritarian "strongmen" such as Putin, Xi Jinping, India's prime minister Narendra Modi, Turkey's President Erdogan and Brazil's new leader Jair Bolsonaro are a major menace to liberal dominance over international affairs. But the principal danger to the West is internal – namely the erosion of Western civilisation by ultra-liberalism.

The dominant idea of the last four decades is the belief that the West is a political civilisation that represents the forward march of history towards a single normative order. But experience has shown that this force, with its tendency towards cartel capitalism, bureaucratic overreach, and rampant individualism, is devastating the West's cultural civilisation. Part of the legacy of this civilisation is the postwar model of socially embedded markets, decentralised states, a balance of open economies with protection of domestic industry and a commitment to the dignity of the person, enshrined in human rights.

It is a legacy that rests on a common cultural heritage of Greco-Roman philosophy and law, as well as Judeo-Christian religion and ethics. Each, in different ways, stress the unique value of the person and free human association independent of the state. Western countries share traditions of music, architecture, philosophy, literature, poetry and religious belief that make them members of a common civilisation rather than a collection of separate cultures.

This civilisational heritage and its principles are under threat from the forces of liberalism. In the name of supposedly universal liberal values, the Clinton administration adopted as its civilising mission the worldwide spread of market states and humanitarian intervention. After the 9/11 attacks, left-liberal governments such as Tony Blair's New Labour waged foreign wars and curtailed civil rights in the name of security.

Emmanuel Macron, the latest cheerleader for Western progressives, has led a crackdown of the gilets jaunes protesters in France that threatens fundamental freedoms of speech, association and public demonstration. As Patrick Deneen, the Catholic legal scholar and author of Why Liberalism Failed (2018), and others have shown, liberalism is undermining the principles of liberality on which Western civilisation depends, such as free inquiry, free speech, tolerance for dissent and respect for political opponents.

At the heart of the West is a paradox. It is the only community of nations founded upon the political values of self-determination of the people, democracy and free trade. These principles were codified in the 1941 Atlantic Charter signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt, and enshrined in the post-1945 international system. Yet liberalism is eroding these cultural foundations, and we are now living with the consequences. Western civilisation is much less able to confront both internal problems such as economic injustice, social dislocation and resurgent nationalism, and the external threats of ecological devastation, Islamist terrorism and hostile foreign powers.

After the fall of communism, the liberal West sought to recast reality in its progressive self-image. As Tony Blair put it, only liberal culture is on the "right side of history". The US and western Europe viewed themselves as carriers of universal values for the rest of humanity. Liberal leaders mutated into what Robespierre called "armed missionaries". They exported Western cultural norms of personal self-expression and individual emancipation from family, religion and nationality. Nations were seen by Western liberals as egos writ large that desire nothing but to adapt to the imperatives of globalisation and a world without borders or national identities.

The shallow culture of contemporary liberalism weakens civilisation in the West and elsewhere. Liberal capitalism promotes cultural standards that glorify greed, sex and violence. Too many liberals in politics, the media and the academy are characterised by a "closing of the mind" that ignores the intellectual, literary and artistic achievements that make the West a recognisable civilisation.

Some cosmopolitan liberals even repudiate the very existence of the West as a civilisation. In one of his BBC Reith Lectures in 2016, the British-born Ghanaian-American academic Kwame Anthony Appiah, the grandson of the former Labour chancellor Stafford Cripps, maintained that we should give up on the idea of Western civilisation. "I believe," Appiah said, "that Western civilisation is not at all a good idea, and Western culture is no improvement."

****

The rejection of Western universalism by the elites in Russia and China challenges the idea of the nation state as the international norm for political organisation. The Chinese and the Russian ruling classes view themselves as bearers of unique cultural norms, and define themselves as civilisational states rather than nation states because the latter are associated with Western imperialism – and in the case of China a century of humiliation following the 19th-century Opium Wars. Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules the World (2009), argues that, "The most fundamental defining features of China today, and which give the Chinese their sense of identity, emanate not from the last century when China has called itself a nation state but from the previous two millennia when it can be best described as a civilisation state."

... ... ...

Adrian Pabst is a New Statesman contributing writer and the author of "Liberal World Order and Its Critics" and "The Demons of Liberal Democracy"

[Jun 12, 2020] Russia, Russia, Russia - Obama Apparatchiks Blame Moscow For America's Riots

Jun 12, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Russia, Russia, Russia - Obama Apparatchiks Blame Moscow For America's Riots by Tyler Durden Thu, 06/11/2020 - 22:45 Authored by Phillip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

If one ventures into the vast wasteland of American television it is possible to miss the truly ridiculous content that is promoted as news by the major networks. One particular feature of media-speak in the United States is the tendency of the professional reporting punditry to go seeking for someone to blame every time some development rattles the National Security plus Wall Street bubble that we all unfortunately live in. The talking heads have to such an extent sold the conclusion that China deliberately released a lethal virus to destroy western democracies that no one objects when Beijing is elevated from being a commercial competitor and political adversary to an enemy of the United States. One sometimes even sees that it is all a communist plot. Likewise, the riots taking place all across the U.S. are being milked for what it's worth by the predominantly liberal media, both to influence this year's election and to demonstrate how much the news oligarchs really love black people.

As is often the case, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. If one looks at the numerous photos of the protests in many parts of the country, it is clear that most of the demonstrators are white, not black, which might suggest that even if there are significant pockets of racism in the United States there is also a strong condemnation of that fact by many white people. And this in a country that elected a black man president not once, but twice, and that black president had a cabinet that included a large number of African-Americans.

Also, to further obfuscate any understanding of what might be taking place, the media and chattering class is obsessed with finding white supremacists as instigators of at least some of the actual violence. It would be a convenient explanation for the Social Justice Warriors that proliferate in the media, though it is supported currently by little actual evidence that anyone is exploiting right-wing groups.

Simultaneously, some on the right, to include the president, are blaming legitimately dubbed domestic terrorist group Antifa , which is perhaps more plausible, though again evidence of organized instigation appears to be on the thin side. Still another source of the mayhem apparently consists of some folks getting all excited by the turmoil and breaking windows and tossing Molotov cocktails, as did two upper middle class attorneys in Brooklyn last week.

Nevertheless, the search goes on for a guilty party. Explaining the demonstrations and riots as the result of the horrible killing of a black man by police which has revulsed both black and white Americans would be too simple to satisfy the convoluted yearnings of the likes of Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow.

Which brings us to Russia. How convenient is it to fall back on Russia which, together with the Chinese, is reputedly already reported to be working hard to subvert the November U.S. election. And what better way to do just that than to call on one of the empty-heads of the Barack Obama administration, whose foreign policy achievements included the destruction of a prosperous Libya and the killing of four American diplomats in Benghazi, the initiation of kinetic hostilities with Syria, the failure to achieve a reset with Russia and the assassinations of American citizens overseas without any due process. But Obama sure did talk nice and seem pleasant unlike the current occupant of the White House.

The predictable Wolf Blitzer had a recent interview with perhaps the emptiest head of all the empowered women who virtually ran the Obama White House. Susan Rice was U.N. Ambassador and later National Security Advisor under Barack Obama. Before that she was a Clinton appointee who served as Undersecretary of State for African Affairs. She is reportedly currently being considered as a possible running mate for Joe Biden as she has all the necessary qualifications being a woman and black.

While Ambassador and National Security Advisor, Rice had the reputation of being extremely abrasive . She ran into trouble when she failed to be convincing in support of the Obama administration exculpatory narrative regarding what went wrong in Benghazi when the four Americans, to include the U.S. Ambassador, were killed.

In her interview with Blitzer, Rice said:

"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well. I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."

It should be noted that Rice, a devout Democrat apparatchik, produced no evidence whatsoever that the Russians were or have been involved in "fomenting" the reactions to the George Floyd demonstrations and riots beyond the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all believe that Moscow is responsible for everything. Clinton in particular hopes that some day someone will actually believe her when she claims that she lost to Trump in 2016 due to Russia. Even Robert Mueller, he of the Russiagate Inquiry, could not come up with any real evidence suggesting that the relatively low intensity meddling in the election by the Kremlin had any real impact. Nor was there any suggestion that Moscow was actually colluding with the Trump campaign, nor with its appointees, to include National Security Advisor designate Michael Flynn.

Fortunately, no one took much notice of Rice based on her "experience," or her judgement insofar as she possesses that quality. Glenn Greenwald responded :

"This is fuxxing lunacy -- conspiratorial madness of the worst kind -- but it's delivered by a Serious Obama Official and a Respected Mainstream Newscaster so it's all fine This is Infowars-level junk. Should Twitter put a 'False' label on this? Or maybe a hammer and sickle emoji?"

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova accurately described the Rice performance as a "perfect example of barefaced propaganda." She wrote on her Facebook page "Are you trying to play the Russia card again? You've been playing too long – come back to reality" instead of using "dirty methods of information manipulation" despite "having absolutely no facts to prove [the] allegations go out and face your people, look them in the eye and try telling them that they are being controlled by the Russians through YouTube and Facebook. And I will sit back and watch 'American exceptionalism' in action."

It should be assumed that the Republicans will be coming up with their own candidate for "fomenting" the riots and demonstrations. It already includes Antifa, of course, but is likely to somehow also involve the Chinese, who will undoubtedly be seen as destroying American democracy through the double whammy of a plague and race riots. Speaking at the White House, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien warned about foreign incitement , including not only the Chinese, but also Iran and even Zimbabwe. And, oh yes, Russia.

One thing is for sure, no matter who is ultimately held accountable, no one in the Congress or White House will be taking the blame for anything.

[Jun 10, 2020] They Really Are Lying To You The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post's ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jun 10, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The media's Russiagate failures were just a trial-run for the last four months.

June 10, 2020

|

12:01 am

Arthur Bloom The most effective kind of propaganda is by omission. Walter Duranty didn't cook up accounts from smiling Ukrainian farmers, he simply said there was no evidence for a famine, much like the media tells us today that there is no evidence antifa has a role in the current protests. It is much harder to do this today than it was back then -- there are photographs and video that show they have been -- which is the proximate cause for greater media concern about conspiracy theories and disinformation.

For all the hyperventilating over the admittedly creepy 2008 article about "cognitive infiltration," by Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, it was a serious attempt to deal with the problem of an informational center being lost in American public life, at a time when the problem was not nearly as bad as it is today. It proposed a number of strategies to reduce the credibility of conspiracy theorists, including seeding them with false information. Whether such strategies have been employed, perhaps with QAnon, which has a remarkable ability to absorb all other conspiracy theories that came before it, I leave to the reader's speculation.

Books will one day be written about the many failures of the media during the Trump presidency, but much of the Russiagate narrative-shaping was related to the broader problem of decentralization and declining authority of establishment media. One of the more egregious examples is the Washington Post's report that relied upon a blacklist created by an anonymous group, PropOrNot, that found more than 200 sites carried water for the Russians in some way, and not all on the right either. In fact, if the Bush administration had commissioned a list of news sources that were carrying water for Saddam Hussein in 2006, it would have looked almost the same as the PropOrNot list, except here it was, recast as an effort to defend democratic integrity. On the list was Naked Capitalism, Antiwar.com, and Truthdig.

This should have been a bigger scandal, very good evidence that the war on disinformation was not that but a campaign against officially unapproved information. But virtually nobody except Glenn Greenwald objected. There is some evidence that this style of blacklisting went even further, into the architecture of search engines. My reporting on Google search last year found that one of the "fringe domain" blacklists included Robert Parry's Consortium News. In other words, if Google had been around in the 1980s, Parry's exposes on Iran-Contra would have been excluded from Google News results.

The criteria for inclusion on any of these lists are much more amorphous than a more traditional one: taking money from a foreign power. As of this week, we now have a figure for how much the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have taken from China Daily, a state-run newspaper, since 2016. It's $4.6 million, and $6 million, respectively. This is more than an order of magnitude greater than Russia is thought to have spent on Facebook advertising prior to the 2016 election.

There are other specific Russiagate disgraces one would be remiss to overlook, like star reporter Natasha Bertrand, who was hired at MSNBC after several appearances in which she repeatedly defended the accuracy of the Steele Dossier, which itself was likely tainted by Russian disinformation. The newspaper that published the Pentagon Papers defended the outing of a source to the FBI. How David Ignatius, considered America's top reporter on the intelligence community, can show his face in public after he was allegedly told by James Clapper to "take the kill shot on Flynn," and then two days later doing just that, is disturbing (Clapper's spokesman disputes this account, but Ignatius has not). The scoop, that Flynn, the incoming national security advisor had spoken to the Russian ambassador, is in no way suspicious, but for weeks was treated as if Flynn was making contact with his handler.

What Russiagate amounts to, as Matt Taibbi among others have written, is the use of federal investigative resources to criminalize or persecute dissenters from the foreign policy line of what we here at TAC call the Blob, in the same way that the PropOrNot list amounts to an attempt to suppress unapproved sources of news.

Many of the same figures involved in prolonging the Russiagate hysteria were also big cheerleaders for the Bush and Obama wars. Before Russiagate, there was the Pentagon military analysts scandal, in which it was revealed that dozens of media commentators on military affairs were doing so without disclosing their connections to the Pentagon or defense contractors. It implicated Barry McCaffrey, Bill Clinton's drug war czar, who is now an MSNBC contributor who helped to provide color for the narrative of General Flynn's decline, suggesting he was mentally ill after he had initially been supportive of him getting the job.

In a certain sense, Trump provides journalists who have disturbingly cozy relationships with powerful people a way of looking like they are holding the powerful accountable, without alienating any of their previous friends. Trump is in fact one of the weakest executives in presidential history, partly because of the massive resistance to him in the federal workforce, but also because his White House seems powerless to actually do anything about that. That people actually think the dark cloud of fascism has descended upon the land when Trump can't even figure out how to work those levers of power just shows how obsessed with symbolic matters -- "representation," they call it -- our politics has become.

The subsequent failures of the American information landscape have only served to reinforce this dynamic. Both the self-inflicted economic catastrophe of the coronavirus shutdowns, and the recent civil unrest, will serve to concentrate wealth away from the hated red-state bourgeoise and into the hands of the oligarchs in blue states, including Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post . This bears repeating: COVID and the protests will lead to a large transfer of wealth from a reliably Republican demographic -- small business owners -- to one that is at best split, which is why you saw Jamie Dimon kneeling in front of a bank vault this week.

Untangling the question of intent is difficult in the best of circumstances, and the same is true here. The contrast between news networks ominously reporting on Florida beachgoers a month ago now cheering on mass gatherings in large cities may not in fact be due to the fact that the large consortiums that own the networks stand to benefit financially from the continued shutdown of the country. They may sincerely believe, along with public health officials , that balancing the risks of institutional racism and getting COVID-19 is worth discussing in relation to protests, but balancing the same risks when it comes to going to church or burying a family member is not. Or it may just be studied naivety, like the kind exhibited a few weeks ago when the whole New York media scene rushed to the defense of the New Yorker 's Jia Tolentino, who played the victim after people on social media revealed that her family was involved in what certainly appears to be an exploitative immigration scam.

The rise of the first-person essay and subjectivity in journalism may turn out to be a perfectly congenial development for the powerful people in America; Tolentino is great at writing about herself. For one thing, this is a lot cheaper than reporting; it probably isn't a coincidence that this development has coincided with a huge decline in newsroom budgets. But at the same time blaming this on economics feels like it misses the point, because there are many people who are convinced this trend is good.

But the way it intersects with official corruption has me rather nervous. To give one example, it seems clear that #MeToo degenerated after the Kavanaugh hearings and Biden's nomination. And given the apparent loyalties of someone like David Ignatius, he isn't going to be the one to unravel the intelligence connections involved in the great sexual violence story of our generation, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. So we are left with the Netflix version, slotted right into the typical narrative, in which the Epstein story looks fundamentally the same as most other stories of sexual coercion, involving a powerful man and less powerful woman, only with an exceptionally powerful man. And yet there are so many indications it was not typical.

So it is today with George Floyd as well. It seems like there are perfectly reasonable questions to be asked about the acquaintance between him and Derek Chauvin, and the fact that the rather shady bar they both worked at conveniently burned down. But by now most of the media is now highly invested in not seeing anything other than a statistic, another incident in a long history of police brutality, and the search for facts has been replaced by narratives. This is a shame, because it is perfectly possible to think that police have a history of poor treatment toward black people and there might be corruption involved in the George Floyd case, which is something Ben Crump, the lawyer for Floyd's family, seems to suggest in his interview on Face the Nation this weekend.

Two incidents in the last week, the freakout among young New York Times staffers over their publication of an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton that has now led to the resignation of the editorial page editor, and the report by Cockburn that Andrew Sullivan has been barred from writing about the protests by New York magazine, are a good indication that all of this is going to get worse. As for the class of people who actually own these media properties, they will probably find that building a padded room for woke staffers, in the form of whatever HR and "safety"-related demands they're making, will suit their interests just fine. about the author Arthur Bloom is managing editor of The American Conservative. He was previously deputy editor of the Daily Caller and a columnist for the Catholic Herald. He holds masters degrees in urban planning and American studies from the University of Kansas. His work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Spectator (UK), The Guardian, Quillette, The American Spectator , Modern Age, and Tiny Mix Tapes.

[Jun 08, 2020] Strange coinsidences

Jun 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

jef , Jun 7 2020 14:09 utc | 1

So we had two major pandemic exercises last year projecting almost exactly what did happen with the corona virus. First was Crimson Contagion Jan thru Aug 2019

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

Then Event 201 the international war gaming of a global pandemic almost exactly like what happened which took place only months before the real pandemic on October 2019

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

So why is it ok for TPTB to act like it wasn't happening or it was a complete supprise "no one could have known" and were completely unprepared?

Mark2 , Jun 7 2020 14:20 utc | 2

Jef @ 1
A week before the Skripal poisoning at Salisbury U.K. 'they had a chemical warfare exercise a few miles up the road on Salisbury Plain.

[Jun 08, 2020] No wonder the bottle of Novichok wasn't discovered during the first search of Rowley's flat. MI6 hadn't planted it there until some time later

Jun 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Jun 7 2020 21:05 utc | 30

Dave #21
So depressing that nobody in the UK has the guts to ask questions about the Skripal affair.

Parliamentarians and msm are silent but there is always Rob Slane A HREF="https://www.theblogmire.com/">here for one of the more exacting research efforts by himself and his commenters. Its worth a detailed examination as he never bought the Govt fairytale from day one and has the most forensic analysis available given the erasing of all public data and cctv in Salisbury on the day and days that followed. Rob Slane lives in Salisbury and was swept up in the Skripal story from his quiet little social/christian blog. He is a legend.

Or Craig Murray of course but he would prefer to be known as a Scotland man not an englander.


Tom , Jun 7 2020 22:26 utc | 41

#30 Uncle Tungsten

John Helmer at Dancing with Bears has also written some fine pieces on the Skripal's. His latest piece brings light to the Wiltshire Police report that states

"On July 4 – that is four days after Sturgess and Rowley had been admitted to hospital – the Wiltshire police published the conclusion from their investigation, their roundup of witnesses, and from the hospital evidence that the drugs Sturgess and Rowley had taken were Class A criminal and contaminated. Detective Sergeant Eirin Martin was explicit. "We believe the two patients have fallen ill after using from a contaminated batch of drugs, possibly heroin or crack cocaine." The evidence was so strong, Martin acknowledged that publishing details of the crime was an "unusual step we are also asking anyone who may have information about this batch of drugs we just need to know how these people came to fall ill and where the drugs may have been bought from and who they may have been sold to."

No wonder the bottle of Novichok wasn't discovered during the first search of Rowley's flat. MI6 hadn't planted it there until some time later.

http://johnhelmer.net/british-coroner-hides-british-police-evidence-in-the-novichok-case-as-bbc-prepares-to-broadcast-new-lies/

uncle tungsten , Jun 7 2020 22:35 utc | 42
Tom #41

Thank you and I forgot John Helmer. He is a legend on this and other matters of our times. The Sturgess/Rowley story was pure D grade vaudeville. If there is one event that confirms the ignorance of the englander power elite and its running dog media, it was the Sturgess/Rowley fubar. LMAO at that one PLUS the utter BS about the 'novichok contaminated' hotel room that the two 'Russian Lads' stayed in.

[Jun 06, 2020] Lisa Page Hired By NBC And MSNBC As Legal Analyst (No, Not The Onion!) by Jonathan Turley

This is just the Deep State retirement package.
So another rabid neocon is hired by neocon MSM and instantly was interviewed by neocon Madcow, blaming Russia for the coup d'état against Trump that Obama administration with her help launched. Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia. ..."
"... There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election. ..."
"... The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document ..."
"... it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy." ..."
"... Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans. ..."
Jun 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst. The move continues a trend started by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal analysis on the Trump Administration. We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for repeatedly lying to federal investigators. The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.

Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.

I have denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page's affair with fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok . There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation. Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the FBI as a whole. She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with Strzok.

However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations. It has long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews. Either NBC is paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow's show or it is hiring an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.

It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news story, or at least a significant part of it.

Andrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration's response to the protests is a bit jarring for some .

Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her emails with Strzok. Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI. They were undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as "insurance" in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here's what Strzok wrote:

I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [Andrew McCabe is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40

What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn case . In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy hunt.

It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that "no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings." Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case." On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him "Hey don't close RAZOR." The FBI official replied, "Okay." Strzok then confirmed again, "Still open right? And you're the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file." The FBI official confirmed: "I have not closed it Still open." Strzok responded "Rgr. I couldn't raise [REDACTED] earlier. Pls keep it open for now."

Strzok also texted Page:

"Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?" Page replied "Phew. But yeah that's amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess."

Strzok replied "Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I'm guessing :)"

Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice Department as will CNN's legal analyst Andrew McCabe.

In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the "insurance policy" email as all part of her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump. In what is now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped her frame the response. Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was deafening.

Page explained"

"It's an analogy. First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that he's going to be president or not."

You have to keep in mind if President Trump doesn't become president, the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia, plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an analogy. It's like an insurance policy when you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance policy."

Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:

"So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case he does get in there."

Page simply responds " Exactly ."

Well, not exactly.

Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any Russian collusion. Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama officials who denied ever seeing such evidence, including some who publicly suggested that they had .

Indeed, Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia.

There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.

The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy."

Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans.

Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks. Why have echo journalism when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate at the appearance of opposing views ( as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a conservative opinion column ), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or others in the Administration.

With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far bank.

we_the_people, 11 minutes ago (Edited)

Nothing says professional journalism like hiring a dirty whore who was an active participant in a coup to overthrow a duly elected President!

The level of insanity is truly amazing!

Heroism, 14 minutes ago

The MSM gets more Orwellian by the day, and today is like tomorrow.

More proof that corruption and deceit pay, big time. Surely, at some point viewers and voters

will say, "Enough!" and hit these purveyors of lies where it hurts--in the ratings and pocketbooks. Meanwhile,

the people will just willingly suffer..............

[Jun 04, 2020] The Minneapolis Putsch by CJ Hopkins

Looks like the third stage of the Purple revolution against Trump, with Russiagate and Ukrainegate and two initial stages.
Notable quotes:
"... Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves. Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a racist dictatorship. ..."
"... According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical, Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part of his plot to "destroy democracy." ..."
"... The protesting and rioting that typically follows the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into " an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office. ..."
"... America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it. ..."
Jun 04, 2020 | consentfactory.org
underground bunker ." Opportunist social media pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are whipping people up into white-eyed frenzies. Americans are at each other's throats, divided by identity politics, consumed by rage, hatred, and fear.

Things couldn't be going better for the Resistance if they had scripted it themselves. Actually, they did kind of script it themselves. Not the murder of poor George Floyd, of course. Racist police have been murdering Black people for as long as there have been racist police. No, the Resistance didn't manufacture racism. They just spent the majority of the last four years creating and promoting an official narrative which casts most Americans as "white supremacists" who literally elected Hitler president, and who want to turn the country into a racist dictatorship.

According to this official narrative, which has been relentlessly disseminated by the corporate media, the neoliberal intelligentsia, the culture industry, and countless hysterical, Trump-hating loonies, the Russians put Donald Trump in office with those DNC emails they never hacked and some division-sowing Facebook ads that supposedly hypnotized Black Americans into refusing to come out and vote for Clinton. Putin purportedly ordered this personally, as part of his plot to "destroy democracy." The plan was always for President Hitler to embolden his white-supremacist followers into launching the "RaHoWa," or the "Boogaloo," after which Trump would declare martial law, dissolve the legislature, and pronounce himself Führer. Then they would start rounding up and murdering the Jews, and the Blacks, and Mexicans, and other minorities, according to this twisted liberal fantasy.

I've been covering the roll-out and dissemination of this official narrative since 2016, and have documented much of it in my essays , so I won't reiterate all that here. Let's just say, I'm not exaggerating, much. After four years of more or less constant conditioning, millions of Americans believe this fairy tale, despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support it. Which is not exactly a mystery or anything. It would be rather surprising if they didn't believe it. We're talking about the most formidable official propaganda machine in the history of official propaganda machines.

And now the propaganda is paying off. The protesting and rioting that typically follows the murder of an unarmed Black person by the cops has mushroomed into " an international uprising " cheered on by the corporate media, corporations, and the liberal establishment, who don't normally tend to support such uprisings, but they've all had a sudden change of heart, or spiritual or political awakening, and are down for some serious property damage, and looting, and preventative self-defense, if that's what it takes to bring about justice, and to restore America to the peaceful, prosperous, non-white-supremacist paradise it was until the Russians put Donald Trump in office.

In any event, the Resistance media have now dropped their breathless coverage of the non-existent Corona-Holocaust to breathlessly cover the "revolution." The American police, who just last week were national heroes for risking their lives to beat up, arrest, and generally intimidate mask-less "lockdown violators" are now the fascist foot soldiers of the Trumpian Reich. The Nike corporation produced a commercial urging people to smash the windows of their Nike stores and steal their sneakers. Liberal journalists took to Twitter, calling on rioters to " burn that shit down! " until the rioters reached their gated community and started burning down their local Starbucks. Hollywood celebrities are masking up and going full-black bloc, and doing legal support . Chelsea Clinton is teaching children about David and the Racist Goliath . John Cusack's bicycle was attacked by the pigs . I haven't checked on Rob Reiner yet, but I assume he is assembling Molotov cocktails in the basement of a Resistance safe house somewhere in Hollywood Hills.

Look, I'm not saying the neoliberal Resistance orchestrated or staged these riots, or "denying the agency" of the folks in the streets. Whatever else is happening out there, a lot of very angry Black people are taking their frustration out on the cops, and on anyone and anything else that represents racism and injustice to them.

This happens in America from time to time. America is still a racist society. Most African-Americans are descended from slaves. Legal racial discrimination was not abolished until the 1960s, which isn't that long ago in historical terms. I was born in the segregated American South, with the segregated schools, and all the rest of it. I don't remember it -- I was born in 1961 -- but I do remember the years right after it. The South didn't magically change overnight in July of 1964. Nor did the North's variety of racism, which, yes, is subtler, but no less racist.

So I have no illusions about racism in America. But I'm not really talking about racism in America. I'm talking about how racism in America has been cynically instrumentalized, not by the Russians, but by the so-called Resistance, in order to delegitimize Trump and, more importantly, everyone who voted for him, as a bunch of white supremacists and racists.

Fomenting racial division has been the Resistance's strategy from the beginning. A quote attributed to Joseph Goebbels, "accuse the other side of that which you are guilty," is particularly apropos in this case. From the moment Trump won the Republican nomination, the corporate media and the rest of the Resistance have been telling us the man is literally Hitler, and that his plan is to foment racial hatred among his "white supremacist base," and eventually stage some "Reichstag" event, declare martial law and pronounce himself dictator. They've been telling us this story over and over, on television, in the liberal press, on social media, in books, movies, and everywhere else they could possibly tell it.

So, before you go out and join the "uprising," take a look at the headlines today, turn on CNN or MSNBC, and think about that for just a minute. I don't mean to spoil the party, but they've preparing you for this for the last four years.

Not you Black folks. I'm not talking to you. I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do. I'm talking to white folks like myself, who are cheering on the rioting and looting, and are coming out to "help" you with it, but who will be back home in their gated communities when the ashes have cooled, and the corporate media are gone, and the cops return to "police" your neighborhoods.

OK, and this is where I have to restate (for the benefit of my partisan readers) that I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, and that I think he's a narcissistic ass clown, and a glorified con man, and blah blah blah, because so many people have been so polarized by insane propaganda and mass hysteria that they can't even read or think anymore, and so just scan whatever articles they encounter to see whose "side" the author is on and then mindlessly celebrate or excoriate it.

If you're doing that, let me help you out whichever side you're on, I'm not on it.

I realize that's extremely difficult for a lot of folks to comprehend these days, which is part of the point I've been trying to make. I'll try again, as plainly as I can.

America is still a racist country, but America is no more racist today than it was when Barack Obama was president. A lot of American police are brutal, but no more brutal than when Obama was president. America didn't radically change the day Donald Trump was sworn into office. All that has changed is the official narrative. And it will change back as soon as Trump is gone and the ruling classes have no further use for it.

And that will be the end of the War on Populism , and we will switch back to the War on Terror, or maybe the Brave New Pathologized Normal or whatever Orwellian official narrative the folks at GloboCap have in store for us.

#

CJ Hopkins
June 1, 2020
Photo: Nike (George Floyd commercial)

[Jun 03, 2020] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
"... Probably the Russians are behind it. ..."
Jul 25, 2019 | www.unz.com

They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect Trump. Again.

Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?

Probably the Russians are behind it.

[Jun 03, 2020] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow

Highly recommended!
Jul 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

2016 a Russia-Trump campaign collusion conspiracy was afoot and unfolding right before our eyes, we were told, as during his roll-out foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., then candidate Trump said [ gasp! ]:

" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries. Some say the Russians won't be reasonable. I intend to find out."

NPR and others had breathlessly reported at the time, "Sergey Kislyak, then the Russian ambassador to the U.S., was sitting in the front row" [ more gasps! ].

This 'suspicious' "coincidence or something more?" event and of course the infamous Steele 'Dodgy Dossier' were followed by over two more years of the following connect-the-dots mere tiny sampling of unrestrained theorizing and avalanche of accusations...

Here's a very brief trip down memory lane:

2017, Politico: The Hidden History of Trump's First Trip to Moscow

2017, NYT: Trump's Russia Motives (where we were told: "President Trump certainly seems to have a strange case of Russophilia.")

2017, Business Insider: James Clapper: Putin is handling Trump like a Russian 'asset'

2017, USA Today: Donald Trump's ties to Russia go back 30 years

2018, NYT: Trump, Treasonous Traitor

2018, AP: Russia had 'Trump over a barrel'

2018, BBC: Russia: The 'cloud' over the Trump White House

2018, NYT: From the Start, Trump Has Muddied a Clear Message: Putin Interfered

2018, USA Today: " From Putin with love"

2019, WaPo: Here are 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset

2019, Vanity Fair: "The President Has Been Acting On Russia's Behalf": U.S. Officials Are Shocked By Trump's Asset-Like Behavior

2019, Wired: Trump Must Be A Russian Agent... (where we were told...ahem: " It would be rather embarrassing ... if Robert Mueller were to declare that the president isn't an agent of Russian intelligence." )

Embarrassing indeed.

"The walls are closing in!" - we were assured just about every 24 hours .

It's especially worth noting that a July 2018 New York Times op-ed argued that President Trump -- dubbed a "treasonous traitor" for meeting with Putin in Helsinki -- should "be directing all resources at his disposal to punish Russia."

Fast-forward to a July 2019 NY Times Editorial Board piece entitled "What's America's Winning Hand if Russia Plays the China Card?" How dizzying fast all of the above has been wiped from America's collective memory! Or at least the Times is engaged in hastily pushing it all down the memory hole Orwell-style in order to cover its own dastardly tracks which contributed in no small measure to non-stop national Russiagate hype and hysteria, with this astounding line:

President Trump is correct to try to establish a sounder relationship with Russia... -- Editorial Board, New York Times, 7-22-19

That's right, The Times' pundits have already pivoted to the new bogeyman while stating they agree with Trump on Russian relations :

"Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia , represents by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term . That means President Trump is correct to try to establish a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China ."

[... Mueller who? ]

Remember how recently we were told PUTIN IS WEAPONIZING EVERYTHING! from space to deep-sea exploration to extreme climate temperatures to humor to racial tensions to even 'weaponized whales' ?

It's 2019, and we've now come full circle . This is The New York Times editorial board continuing their call for Trump to establish "sounder" ties and "cooperation" with Russia :

"Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union often made progress in one facet of their relationship while they remained in conflict over other aspects. The United States and Russia could expand their cooperation in space . They could also continue to work closely in the Arctic And they could revive cooperation on arms control."

Could we imagine if a mere six months ago Trump himself had uttered these same words? Now the mainstream media apparently agrees that peace is better than war with Russia.

With 'Russiagate' now effectively dead, the NY Times' new criticism appears to be that Trump-Kremlin relations are not close enough , as Trump's "approach has been ham-handed " - the 'paper of record' now tells us.

Or imagine if Trump had called for peaceful existence with Russia almost four years ago? Oh wait...

" Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon. Good for both countries." -- Then candidate Trump on April 27, 2016

Cue ultra scary red Trump-Kremlin montage.

[Jun 03, 2020] Requiem to Russiagate: this was the largest and the most successful attempt to gaslight the whole US population ever attempted by CIA and Clinton wing of Dems by CJ Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Neoliberal MSM just “got it wrong,” again … exactly like was the case with those Iraqi WMDs ;-).
So many neocons and neolibs seem so disappointed to find out that the President is not a Russian asset that it looks they’d secretly wish be ruled by Putin :-).
But in reality there well might be a credible "Trump copllition with the foreign power". Only with a different foreign power. Looks like Trump traded American foreign policy for Zionist money, not Russian money. That means that "the best-Congress-that-AIPAC-money-can-buy" will never impeach him for that.
And BTW as long as Schiff remains the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee the witch hunt is not over. So the leash remains strong.
Notable quotes:
"... it appears that hundreds of millions of Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening. At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the entire history of woeful bamboozlement. ..."
"... That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western democracy. ..."
"... Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about redactions and cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents marching Hillary into the White House. ..."
Apr 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by CJ Hopkins via The Unz Review,

So the Mueller report is finally in, and it appears that hundreds of millions of Americans have, once again, been woefully bamboozled . Weird, how this just keeps on happening. At this point, Americans have to be the most frequently woefully bamboozled people in the entire history of woeful bamboozlement.

If you didn't know better, you'd think we were all a bunch of hopelessly credulous imbeciles that you could con into believing almost anything, or that our brains had been bombarded with so much propaganda from the time we were born that we couldn't really even think anymore.

That's right, as I'm sure you're aware by now, it turns out President Donald Trump, a pompous former reality TV star who can barely string three sentences together without totally losing his train of thought and barking like an elephant seal, is not, in fact, a secret agent conspiring with the Russian intelligence services to destroy the fabric of Western democracy.

After two long years of bug-eyed hysteria, Inspector Mueller came up with squat. Zip. Zero. Nichts. Nada. Or, all right, he indicted a bunch of Russians that will never see the inside of a courtroom, and a few of Trump's professional sleazebags for lying and assorted other sleazebag activities (so I guess that was worth the $25 million of taxpayers' money that was spent on this circus).

Notwithstanding those historic accomplishments, the entire Mueller investigation now appears to have been another wild goose chase (like the "search" for those non-existent WMDs that we invaded and destabilized the Middle East and murdered hundreds of thousands of people pretending to conduct in 2003). Paranoid collusion-obsessives will continue to obsess about redactions and cover-ups , but the long and short of the matter is, there will be no perp walks for any of the Trumps. No treason tribunals. No televised hangings. No detachment of Secret Service agents marching Hillary into the White House.

The jig, as they say, is up.

But let's try to look on the bright side, shall we?

... ... ...

[Jun 02, 2020] Susan Rice Suggests Russians Fomented Floyd Protests, Violence Across U.S. Obama s former national security adviser offered no evidence for her bizarre claim by Barbara Boland

So one of key players of Russiagate gaslighting and Flynn entrapment trying the same dirty trick again. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... "We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well." ..."
"... "I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form." ..."
Jun 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

President Barack Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice suggested without evidence that the Russians could be behind the violent demonstrations that have taken place across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.

Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Rice said:

"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."

"I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."

Rice admits she's not reading the intelligence anymore, so what makes her think the Russians are behind this?

She doesn't offer much more in the way of evidence for her assertion, other than that the Russians are the Democrats' always-present bogeyman, ever ready from behind their poorly translated social media posts to unleash mayhem upon the U.S.

Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, Democrats have blamed Russians for the outcome of the 2016 election.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence that Russian-linked accounts spent a small amount of money placing social media ads for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election, but there's nothing to suggest their efforts were successful. The Department of Justice abruptly dropped its prosecution of a Russian-based troll farm, days before trial. Mueller also did not find evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.

Although the claims of Russian "collusion" in the 2016 election were eventually found to be nearly totally baseless, Rice's new narrative, that Russians support 2020's post-Floyd rioting, appears to be even more fact-threadbare.

Rice's claim drew criticism from across the political spectrum.

Eoin Higgens, a senior editor at Common Dreams, tweeted "you cannot make this sh– up. F -- - deranged" while former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy tweeted "there she goes again."

There's a reason Rice's claim was not taken seriously -- besides the lack of evidence for the Russian meddling narrative that has dominated the nation's political life since 2016, there's also the sheer ineptitude of the actual Russian trolling and ads themselves.

Just look at this ad the Russians funded from the 2016 election cycle for a taste of how convincing those Russians and their social media campaigns can be:


Feral Finster 19 hours ago

Predictable as a stopped clock.
Bureaucrat 19 hours ago • edited
I haven't seen condemnation across the political spectrum. There are a few hard-left progressives like Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi, and Glenn Greenwald of course, but they have always hated the RussiaGate conspiracy. I won't be holding my breath for any of the #Resistance puppets castigate Rice. They can't, because #RussiaGate is foundational to their existence.
Connecticut Farmer Bureaucrat 2 hours ago
"...#RussiaGate is foundational to their existence."

It's the only hat rack that they have, otherwise they would be left with having to blame themselves for running the wrong horse in 2016.

Scroop Moth 18 hours ago
Y'all are really confusing me! During the civil rights marches, conservatives warned people that the "agitators" were Russian tools. Now, you say that's crazy talk!.

Rice asserts that civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Let's presume she's had a peek into the Russia playbook. Her statement can be falsified by the good fact checkers at this website!

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be more surprised than Rice to learn that Russia is still in the outside agitator business. Just a suggestion, of course. Someone as patriotic as Rice really should check it out.

Connecticut Farmer Scroop Moth 2 hours ago
"Russia is still in the outside agitator business."

So is the United States (check out the Russian election of 1996). We're not as good as the Russians though.

Gerald Arcuri 17 hours ago
Why would anyone listen to what Susan Rice has to say about matters of national security?
Alex (the one that likes Ike) 17 hours ago
The saddest thing is that she's been too lazy to come up even with the most jury-rigged conspiracy theory as to why Russians would need it, despite the fact that emotional reaction-oriented rhetorical turds to... sculpture such a theory (albeit a very debunkable one) are floating on the surface. A most deplorable intellectual sloth. What to expect from neolibs/neocons, though? They're always like that. Say some folderol - and then go hiding in the kind Grandpa Bolton's venerable moustɑche.
Timothy Herring 16 hours ago
Wild speculation needs no evidence.
MPC Timothy Herring 15 hours ago
People like her are about to get their due, by being baselessly accused of being Chinese agents.
AdmBenson 13 hours ago
I don't know which idea is more laughable - Black Americans are so lacking in agency that they aren't even responsible for their own protests, or, the Russians are so diabolical that they can turn anyone and everyone into the Manchurian Candidate.

More likely, Susan Rice can't admit that her woke ideology has limitations. She needs a scapegoat so badly that she'll babble any nonsense to accuse one. Hard to believe she was once the National Security Adviser.

ZizaNiam 12 hours ago
I read on a libertarian oriented forum that the current protests are actually being done by the Chinese. Apparently, the Soviets (Russians) instigated the riots in the late 60s.
Slappyhappy 9 hours ago
Where are all the stars you ask" afterwards they will come out with concerts on TV, speeches big speeches that they real do care you hear me, PC BS they will look tragic this time, all the makeup in the world won;t hide their deception, arrogance, utter idiocy in White Towers.
JPH 4 hours ago
Transcripts of under oath statements before the House Intelligence committee revealed neither Susan Rice nor other Obama administration officials had any evidence of Russian meddling in 2016. Of course all proceeded with spreading baseless inuendo for years before and afterwards.

So if not under oath anything Susan Rice alleges is simply not worth listening to.

Miamijac 2 hours ago
civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Were they responsible for the Boston Tea Party too?
Wallstreet Panic 2 hours ago
Seems like so many presidents have been led into terrible foreign policy decisions by their Blob advisors...Obama by Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary; Dubya by Cheney and Rumsfield; Carter by Zbiggy, Ford and Nixon (both who should have known better) by Kissinger.
L RNY 2 hours ago
Susan Rice is more ignorant and has far lower intelligence than I ever suspected or she is playing politics and lying. The Russians have no motive. The Russians have no hand to play. The Chinese who have bribed a long list of democratic politicians have a very significant motive and a major hand to play in fomenting riots and race animosity...as a means to influence the November election away from Trump to Biden.

[Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message. ..."
Jun 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.

The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January 19, 2017.

To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.

Here are the specifics of those calls.


Alan , 30 May 2020 at 09:44 PM

This is also very interesting:

"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."

Petrel , 30 May 2020 at 10:56 PM
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.

From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign policy decisions immediately.

In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a future US delegation.

It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash & demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was inappropriate.

Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.

anon , 31 May 2020 at 12:25 AM
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Mathias Alexander , 31 May 2020 at 02:50 AM
" amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media". Dishonesty and laziness are the norm in the media.
English Outsider , 31 May 2020 at 06:06 AM

That was one superb summary.

I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.

h , 31 May 2020 at 12:02 PM
Time will tell but something tells me the release of the Kislyak-Flynn transcripts/FBI cuts is also related to Boente's forced resignation. Here's sundance's take - it's a long read btw - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/30/boom-dana-boente-removed-fbi-chief-legal-counsel-forced-to-resign/

And yes, the hacking comment is fascinating on so many levels. It's just kinda left hanging out there all by itself, eh?

And a quick off-topic thank you to the Col for posting the Lara Logan clip. All efforts hunting for it yesterday failed. She nailed it.

JerseyJeffersonian , 31 May 2020 at 01:15 PM
English Outsider,

Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise illegally gathered.

And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists' panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.

So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if possible, to overturn it .

This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.

May they all rot in Hell.

blue peacock , 31 May 2020 at 04:48 PM
Petrel,

I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.

In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake. Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.

It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How many of the plotter cohort still remain?

[Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

Highly recommended!
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Jun 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson

I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.

The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January 19, 2017.

To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.

Here are the specifics of those calls.


Alan , 30 May 2020 at 09:44 PM

This is also very interesting:

"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."

Petrel , 30 May 2020 at 10:56 PM
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.

From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign policy decisions immediately.

In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a future US delegation.

It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash & demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was inappropriate.

Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.

anon , 31 May 2020 at 12:25 AM
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Mathias Alexander , 31 May 2020 at 02:50 AM
" amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media". Dishonesty and laziness are the norm in the media.
English Outsider , 31 May 2020 at 06:06 AM

That was one superb summary.

I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.

h , 31 May 2020 at 12:02 PM
Time will tell but something tells me the release of the Kislyak-Flynn transcripts/FBI cuts is also related to Boente's forced resignation. Here's sundance's take - it's a long read btw - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/30/boom-dana-boente-removed-fbi-chief-legal-counsel-forced-to-resign/

And yes, the hacking comment is fascinating on so many levels. It's just kinda left hanging out there all by itself, eh?

And a quick off-topic thank you to the Col for posting the Lara Logan clip. All efforts hunting for it yesterday failed. She nailed it.

JerseyJeffersonian , 31 May 2020 at 01:15 PM
English Outsider,

Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise illegally gathered.

And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists' panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.

So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if possible, to overturn it .

This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.

May they all rot in Hell.

blue peacock , 31 May 2020 at 04:48 PM
Petrel,

I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.

In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake. Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.

It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How many of the plotter cohort still remain?

[Jun 01, 2020] Obama adviser Susan Rice knows who's responsible for the George Floyd riots. You guessed right, it's RUSSIA!

In was not enough for Obama honchos to gaslight the while nation with Russiagate. They want more action ;-)
Jun 01, 2020 | www.rt.com

How original.

[Jun 01, 2020] Injustice inequality are the real cause of US riots – but establishment who ignored the problem now cowardly blame Russia by Scott Ritter

Notable quotes:
"... The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising , run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history of American politics, and couldn't get the electoral needle to move an inch). ..."
Jun 01, 2020 | www.rt.com

As American political leaders are confronted with the scope and scale of the unrest engendered by decades of failed policy, they're turning to a time-tested scapegoat to deflect responsibility away from their shoulders – Russia. While American cities burn, its politicians are desperately looking to assign responsibility for the chaos and anarchy that is unfolding. Among those casting an accusatory finger is Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from the State of Florida and the acting Chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

"Seeing VERY heavy social media activity of #protest & counter reactions from social media accounts linked to at least three foreign adversaries," Rubio tweeted . "They didn't create these divisions," Rubio noted, "but they are actively stoking & promoting violence & confrontation from multiple angles."

Also on rt.com Russia's to blame? MSM allegations that Moscow had a hand in US anti-police-brutality riots 'entirely to be expected'

Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama-era defense official and current candidate for Congress, tweeted "I hope the @FBI is investigating potential direct or indirect foreign interference in looting. Definitely not out of the question." While neither Rubio nor Farkas named Russia in their tweets, they are both well-known for their Russia-baiting postings on social media, and there could be little doubt as to whom they were pointing an accusatory finger at.

President Obama's former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, however, left no doubt about where the source of this "foreign influence" came from. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Rice, discussing the violent protests sweeping America today, declared "I would bet, based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."

Rice, Rubio and Farkas are not alone. Typical of the anti-Russian hyperventilation taking place in US media regarding Russia's alleged hidden hand in the ongoing riots is an article published by CNN , written by Donie O'Sullivan , a reporter who works closely with CNN's investigative unit "tracking and identifying online disinformation campaigns targeting the American electorate." While concluding that "the protests are real, and so are the protesters' concerns," and cautioning the reader to step back and take a breath "before getting too caught up" in any discussion about Russian involvement, O'Sullivan asserts that starting with the 2016 Presidential election "Russia backed (and is likely still backing) an elaborate, years-long covert misinformation campaign" involving "a network of Facebook and Twitter pages designed to look like they were run by real American activists and that were used to stoke tensions in American society."

But the pičce de résistance comes in the middle of the article. "Arguably Russia's biggest achievement," O'Sullivan states, "was the paranoia it instilled in American society. We now regularly see Americans accuse people and groups on social media that they do not agree with of being Russian trolls or bots. These accusations are often made with no evidence and can distract from and undermine real Americans who are engaging in political speech."

Thanks to Russia, O'Sullivan asserts, Americans now have Russia on their mind even if Russia is not involved–which is, of course, Russia's fault. But don't fret -- "It is possible that we will learn in the coming days, weeks, and months that some covert activity has been going on–that some Facebook pages and Twitter accounts encouraging violent protests are indeed linked to Russia."

The United States today functions in a never-never land of fiction and fantasy when it comes to allegations of Russian meddling in its internal affairs. Logically speaking, most Americans should be insulted by the notion that their democratic institutions are so weak that a half-baked social media campaign could sway a national election (never minding the reality that former presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg spent more than $500 million on advertising , run by the most sophisticated media support team in the history of American politics, and couldn't get the electoral needle to move an inch).

There is a truism that you cannot solve a problem without first properly defining it. In their effort to shift blame away from their own failings by alleging "outside" (i.e., Russia) sources of interference in the ongoing social unrest ravaging American cities, the politicians and leaders Americans look to for solutions are setting themselves up for failure, if for no other reason that any solution which is predicated on unproven allegations of Russian meddling isn't solving the real problems facing American society today.

Russia did not direct the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis Police. Nor did Russia direct and implement decades of policing culture in the United States underpinned by racism, backed by a system of justice that sustained and magnified the same. The social and legal inequities of American law enforcement have been a problem hiding in plain sight for decades, only to be ignored by generations of American leaders who exploited the fear-based culture that fed on this system for their own political gain; Russia had nothing whatsoever to do with this cancer that has metastasized throughout the width and breadth of the American body public.

It is the height of intellectual hypocrisy and moral cowardice for those whom America needs the most in this time of trouble to stand up and take a hard, honest look at the diseased nature of the American law enforcement establishment today, and make the kind of difficult but necessary decisions needed to reform it, to instead cast blame on the Russian bogeyman. The Russian blame game may play well on media outlets that long ago surrendered to a political establishment desperate to retain power and influence regardless of the cost. But, for the legion of Americans whose frustration with the inherent racism of American policing policies today, this kind of simplistic deflection will not succeed. America's cities are on fire; manufacturing false narratives that place the blame for this conflagration of Russia will not put them out.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

[May 31, 2020] Russians are geniuses: first they put Donald Trump in power and now they're trying to tear the country apart under him by supporting both black lives matter, and white supremacists at the same time.

May 31, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Maximus , May 31 2020 20:32 utc | 76

Boy these Russians are geniuses of the highest order ... First they put Donald Trump in power and now they're trying to tear the country apart under him by supporting both black lives matter, and white supremacists at the same time.

I don't know how these stupid Journos can even imagine this stuff up out of their arses. The sad irony is that these journalists will be the ones when future generations look back who most contributed to the downfall of America ....

[May 31, 2020] On the meaning of the term Russiagate

May 31, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
  1. likbez , May 31, 2020 2:03 am

    Anybody who uses the term "Russiagate" seriously and not to recognize the actual and serious Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election in support of Trump is not to be taken remotely seriously.

    Russiagate is a valid and IMHO very useful political discourse term which has two intersecting meanings:

    1. Obamagate : Attempt of a certain political forces around Clintons and Obama with the support of intelligence agencies to stage a "color revolution" against Trump, using there full control of MSM as air superiority factor. With the main goal is the return to "classic neoliberalism" (neoliberal globalization uber alles) mode

    Which Trump rejected during his election campaign painting him as a threat to certain powerful neoliberal forces which include but not limited to Silicon Valley moguls (note bad relations of Trump and Bezos), some part of Wall street financial oligarchy, and most MSMs honchos.

    2. Neo-McCarthyism campaign unleashed by Obama administration with the goal to whitewash Hillary fiasco and to preserve the current leadership of the Democratic Party.

    That led to complete deterioration of relations between the USA and Russia and increase of chances of military conflict between two. Add to this consistent attempts of Trump to make China an enemy and politicize the process of economic disengagement between the two countries and you understand the level of danger. .

    When a senior Russian official implicitly calls the USA a rogue state and Trump administration -- gangsters on international arena, that a very bad sign. See

    https://nationalinterest.org/feature/russian-deputy-foreign-minister-sergei-ryabkov-%E2%80%9Cwe-have-no-trust-no-confidence-whatsoever%E2%80%9D

    But then again, it may well be so that the current Republican administration will in effect become a line in history in which a considerable number of useful international instruments were abrogated and that America exited them in the anticipation that this approach would serve U.S. interests better. Having said that, I will never say or never suggest that it was for us -- at least in the mid-2010s -- better with the previous administration.

    It was under the previous Obama administration that endless rounds of sanctions were imposed upon Russia. That was continued under Trump. The pretext for that policy is totally rejected by Russia as an invalid and illegal one. The previous administration, weeks before it departed, stole Russian property that was protected by diplomatic immunity, and we are still deprived of this property by the Trump administration. We have sent 350 diplomatic notes to both the Obama and the Trump administrations demanding the return of this property, only to see an endless series of rejections. It is one of the most vivid and obvious examples of where we are in our relationship.

    There is no such thing as "which administration is better for Russia in the U.S.?" Both are bad, and this is our conclusion after more than a decade of talking to Washington on different topics.

    Heilbrunn: Given the dire situation you portray, do you believe that America has become a rogue state?

    Ryabkov: I wouldn't say so, that's not our conclusion. But the U.S. is clearly an entity that stands for itself, one that creates uncertainty for the world. America is a source of trouble for many international actors. They are trying to find ways to protect and defend themselves from this malign and malicious policy of America that many of the people around the world believe should come to an end, hopefully in the near future.

    What I can't understand is this stupid jingoism, kind of "cult of death" among the US neocons, who personally are utter chickenhawks, but still from their comfortable offices write dangerous warmongering nonsense. Without understanding possible longer term consequences.

    Of course, MIC money does not smell, but some enthusiasts in blogs do it even without proper remuneration

[May 29, 2020] Andrew Weisdman, the attack dog of Mueller investigation, fundraiser links Creepy Joe to Russiagate and Mueller

May 29, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'

Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week - shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.

Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO

-- Buck Sexton (@BuckSexton) May 29, 2020

Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort - notably reached out to a Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted "There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to a US aerospace deal.

According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone else.

[May 29, 2020] The USA effectively controls world semiconductor industry and this fact will hurt Huaway at least in a short run

May 29, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The administration also took off the gloves with China over U.S. listings by mainland companies that fail to follow U.S. securities laws. This came after the Commerce Department finally moved to limit access by Huawei Technologies to high-end silicon chips made with U.S. lithography machines. The trade war with China is heating up, but a conflict was inevitable and particularly when it comes to technology.

At the bleeding edge of 7 and 5 nanometer feature size, American tech still rules the world of semiconductors. In 2018, Qualcomm confirmed its next-generation Snapdragon SoC would be built at 7 nm. Huawei has already officially announced its first 7nm chip -- the Kirin 980. But now Huawei is effectively shut out of the best in class of custom-made chips, giving Samsung and Apple a built-in advantage in handsets and network equipment.

It was no secret that Washington allowed Huawei to use loopholes in last year's blacklist rules to continue to buy U.S. sourced chips. Now the door is closed, however, as the major Taiwan foundries led by TSMC will be forced to stop custom production for Huawei, which is basically out of business in about 90 days when its inventory of chips runs out. But even as Huawei spirals down, the White House is declaring financial war on dozens of other listed Chinese firms.

President Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox Business News that forcing Chinese companies to follow U.S. accounting norms would likely push them to list in non-U.S. exchanges. Chinese companies that list their shares in the U.S. have long refused to allow American regulators to inspect their accounting audits, citing direction from their government -- a practice that market authorities here have been unwilling or unable to stop.

The attack by the Trump Administration on shoddy financial disclosure at Chinese firms is long overdue, but comes at a time when the political evolution in China is turning decidedly authoritarian in nature and against any pretense of market-oriented development. The rising power of state companies in China parallels the accumulation of power in the hands of Xi Jinping, who is increasingly seen as a threat to western-oriented business leaders. The trade tensions with Washington provide a perfect foil to crack down on popular unrest in Hong Kong and discipline wayward oligarchs.

The latest moves by Beijing to take full control in Hong Kong are part of the more general retrenchment visible in China. "[P]rivate entrepreneurs are increasingly nervous about their future," writes Henny Sender in the Financial Times . "In many cases, these entrepreneurs have U.S. passports or green cards and both children and property in America. To be paid in U.S. dollars outside China for their companies must look more tempting by the day." A torrent of western oriented Chinese business leaders is exiting before the door is shut completely.

The fact is that China's position in U.S. trade has retreated as nations like Mexico and Vietnam have gained. Mexico is now America's largest trading partner and Vietnam has risen to 11th, reports Qian Wang of Bloomberg News . Meanwhile, China has dropped from 21 percent of U.S. trade in 2018 to just 18 percent last year. A big part of the shift is due to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade pact, which is expected to accelerate a return of production to North America. Sourcing for everything from autos to semiconductors is expected to rotate away from China in coming years.

China abandoned its decades-old practice of setting a target for annual economic growth , claiming that it was prioritizing goals such as stabilizing employment, alleviating poverty and preventing risks in 2020. Many observers accept the official communist party line that the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic made it almost impossible to fix an expansion rate this year, but in fact the lasting effects of the 2008 financial crisis and the aggressive policies of President Trump have rocked China back on its heels.

As China becomes increasingly focused inward and with an eye on public security, the economic situation is likely to deteriorate further. While many observers viewed China's "Belt & Road" initiative as a sign of confidence and strength, in fact it was Beijing's attempt to deal with an economic realignment that followed the 2008 crisis. The arrival of President Trump on the scene further weakened China's already unstable mercantilist economic model, where non-existent internal demand was supposed to make up for falling global trade flows. Or at least this was the plan until COVID-19.

"Before the Covid-19 outbreak, many economists were expecting China to set a GDP growth target of 6% to 6.5% to reflect the gradual slowdown in the pace of expansion over the past few years," reports Caixin Global . "Growth slid to 6.1% in 2019 from 6.7% in 2018. But the devastation caused by the coronavirus epidemic -- which saw the economy contract 6.8% year-on-year in the first quarter -- has thrown those forecasts out of the window."

Out of the window indeed. Instead of presiding over a glorious expansion of the Chinese sphere of influence in Asia, Xi Jinping is instead left to fight a defensive action economically and financially. The prospective end of the special status of Hong Kong is unlikely to have any economic benefits and may actually cause China's problems with massive internal debt and economic malaise to intensify. Beijing's proposed security law would reduce Hong Kong's separate legal status and likely bring an end to the separate currency and business environment.


M Orban 20 hours ago

I honestly don't know if this article is or is not correct... But I wonder...
AmConMag publishes a major anti-China article on most days now. What is happening? What is the mechanics of this... "phenomenon"?
chris chuba M Orban 12 hours ago
For any of their flaws AmConMag was a sweet spot.

A place where where Americans opposed to U.S. hegemony because it's harm on everyone without being overwhelmed by the Neocon acolytes where can we go, anyone ever try to get a word in on foxnews ?

If you try to reach out to twitter on Tom Cotton or Mike Waltz dismisses you as a 'Chinese govt / Iranian / Russian bot'

You know what, God will judge us and we will all be equal in he eyes of Him
Why should I be afraid. Why should I be silent. And thank you TAC for the opportunity to post.

M Orban chris chuba 6 hours ago
I too came here for interesting commentary, - and even better comments... five years ago or so?
I found the original articles mostly okay, often too verbose, meandering for my taste but the different point of view made them worthwhile. The readers' comments, now that is priceless. That brings the real value. That's where we learn. That's where I learn, anyway. :)
It never occurred to me to message to any politician, I think my voice would be lost in the cacophony.
The target of my curiosity is that when all these articles start to point in one direction (like belligerence toward China) how does it happen? Is there a chain of command? It seems coordinated.
MPC M Orban 2 hours ago • edited
It's possible to be anti-neocon, for their being too ideological, and not pacifist. That is basically my position.

I agree with most here on Russia and Iran. They are not threats, and in specific cases should be partners instead. Agree on American imperialism being foolish and often evil. I believe in a multipolar world as a practical matter. I don't take a soft view of China however. I believe they do intend to replace nefarious American hegemony with their own relevant, but equally nefarious, flavor of hegemony. There are few countries in the world with such a pathological distrust of their own people. I truly believe that country is a threat that needs to be checked at least for a couple of decades by the rest of the world.

As to the editorial direction, I think it is merely capitalism. China's perception in the world is extremely bad lately. I would fully expect the always somewhat Russophile environment here to seize the moment to say 'see! Russia is not a true threat! It's China!' RT itself soon after Trump's election I recall posted an article complaining about total disregard for Chinese election meddling.

Barry_II M Orban 7 hours ago
You can see when the people holding the leash give a tug on the collar. And it's clear that the GOP is feeling the need for a warlike political environment.

The most blatant presstitution example, of course, was the National Review, going from 'Never Trump' to full time servicing.

M Orban Barry_II 6 hours ago
In case of AmConMag, who is holding the leash?

[May 29, 2020] Putin: Once again, preserving the jobs and incomes of Russian families has been one of our top priorities since day one of our efforts to counter the epidemic. This, of course, is a fair approach and a fair principle, because people should always be our priority.

May 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , May 28 2020 16:31 utc | 94

I haven't written anything about Putin in awhile, and his teleconference about Russia's "labour market situation" provides an excellent opportunity. What you'll read illustrates the acutely dramatic difference in policy between Russia and the Outlaw US Empire when it comes to supporting its populous:

"Once again, preserving the jobs and incomes of Russian families has been one of our top priorities since day one of our efforts to counter the epidemic. This, of course, is a fair approach and a fair principle, because people should always be our priority ." [My Emphasis]

To be fair, Trump and Congress do favor some of the people--those at and associated with Wall Street--and what we've seen is those people are certainly Trump and Congress's priority, but not so much anyone else. Contrast that with Russia's policy:

"We have established a key, basic criterion for supporting businesses. From the outset, we have organised our work exactly this way: preserving the workforce and salaries is a priority . We offered incentives whereby companies and entrepreneurs who take care of their employees and strive to retain them, can count on greater support from the state. By that, I also mean direct subsidies to pay salaries at small- and medium-sized businesses in the affected industries in an amount equivalent to one minimum wage per employee in April and May, as well as easy-term loans with a 2 percent interest rate. These loans will be repaid by the state, as agreed, if staffing at a given company remains at the current level." [My Emphasis]

The above isn't the total policy, of course. Also note the tone of Putin's remarks, which have actually remained very consistent over his tenure as Russia's leader:

"We need to analyse and look deep into the problems of every person that asks for help , especially elderly people and pre-pensioners. This also applies to graduates of universities, colleges and academies that are finishing their studies and starting to work.

"It is necessary to look for suitable jobs in cooperation with companies, organisations and employers. These things must not be left to luck. It is necessary to offer snap courses, as well as education and retraining programmes for those who have lost their jobs." [My Emphasis]

By comparison, what do we see from UK, EU and Outlaw US Empire? Pretty much the opposite--unless you're in the top 10% who won't risk losing one cent--it's a Free Market where you're free to sink to your doom. Putin in contrast agreed to extend unemployment to October 1 and prior to that time will reexamine the state of the labour market to determine if that deadline needs to be extended again--policy that's the polar opposite of that within the Outlaw US Empire. What's somewhat astonishing is the Outlaw US Empire has about 130 million of its people unemployed while Russia's entire population is about 145 million but doesn't have a parasite that demands being continually fed massive amounts of money--about $8 Trillion for the first third of 2020.


[May 28, 2020] The US-based Center For Public Integrity seems to be the parent of the UK government's Integrity Initiative boondoggle

May 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

guidoamm , May 28 2020 7:05 utc | 60

Center For Public Integrity

Funding
The Center for Public Integrity has received contributions from a number of left-leaning foundation funders including the Ford Foundation, Omidyar Network Fund, Foundation to Promote Open Society, Knight Foundation, and MacArthur Foundation.[3] The foundation has stated that it no longer accepts corporate gifts, but it takes money from the private foundations of many of the richest Americans including actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

Seems to be the parent of the UK government's Integrity Initiative boondoggle

[May 27, 2020] Brennan ears over Guccifer 2.0 mask -- CIA is the most probable origin of Gussifer 2.0

If DNC was hack not a leak, then NSA would have all information about the hack.
May 27, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j1qOs0dE4I


P. Michael Garber , May 26, 2020 at 22:21

I'm afraid it won't matter how thorough the alternative media debunking of Russiagate becomes – as long as mainstream media sticks to the story, the neoliberal majority will too, because it is like catnip to them, absolving responsibility for the defeat, casting Clinton as the victim of an evil foreign despot, and delegitimizing Trump. Truth is tossed to the wind by this freight train of powerful interests.

I have little hope Barr and Durham will indict anyone high level.

Ray twice mentioned something about Sanders getting hosed again in the 2020 primary. I thought it seemed weird how suddenly the primary was declared "over." If there is evidence of DNC shenanigans in 2020, that would be a very interesting and timely topic.

Mark McCarty , May 25, 2020 at 21:25

On June 12, Assange announces Wikileaks will soon be releasing "emails pertinent to Hillary". On June 14th, Crowdstrike announces: someone, probably the Russians, has hacked the DNC and taken a Trump opposition research document; the very next day, G2.0 makes his first public appearance and posts the DNC's Trump oppo research document, with "Russian fingerprints" intentionally implanted in its metadata. (We now know that he had actually acquired this from PODESTA's emails, where it appears as an attachment – oops!) Moreover, G2.0 announces that he was the source of the "emails pertinent to Hillary" – DNC emails – that Assange was planning to release.

This strongly suggests that the G2.0 persona was working in collusion with Crowdstrike to perpetrate the hoax that the GRU had hacked the DNC to provide their emails to Wikileaks. Consistent with this, multiple cyberanalyses point to G2.0 working at various points In the Eastern, Central, and Western US time zones. (A mere coincidence that the DNC is in the eastern zone, and that Crowdstrike has offices in the central and western zones?)

If Crowdstrike honestly believed that the DNC had been hacked by the GRU, would there have been any need for them to perpetrate this fraud?

It is therefore reasonable to suspect, as Ray McGovern has long postulated, that Crowdstrike may have FAKED a GRU hack, to slander Russia and Assange, while distracting attention from the content of the released emails.

As far as we know, the only "evidence" that Crowdstrike has for GRU being the perpetrator of the alleged hack is the presence of "Fancy Bear" malware on the DNC server. But as cyberanalysts Jeffrey Carr and George Eliason have pointed out, this software is also possessed by Ukrainian hackers working in concert with Russian traitors and the Atlantic Council – with which the founders of Crowdstrike are allied.

Here's a key question: When Assange announced the impending release of "emails pertinent to Hillary" on June 12, how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 immediately know he was referring to DNC emails? Many people – I, for example – suspected he was referring to her deleted Secretary of State emails.

Here's a reasonable hypothesis – Our intelligence agencies were monitoring all communications with Wikileaks. If so, they could have picked up the communications between SR and Wikileaks that Sy Hersh's FBI source described. They then alerted the DNC that their emails were about to leaked to Wikileaks. The DNC then contacted Crowdstrike, which arranged for a "Fancy Bear hack" of the DNC servers. Notably, cyberanalysts have determined that about 2/3 of the Fancy Bear malware found on the DNC servers had been compiled AFTER the date that Crowdstrike was brought in to "roust the hackers".

Of course, this elaborate hoax would have come to grief if the actual leaker had come forward. Which might have had something to do with the subsequent "botched robbery" in which SR was slain.

Tim , May 25, 2020 at 20:33

How does the murder of the DNC staffer fit in?

Linda Wood , May 26, 2020 at 23:00

DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, amid contoversy over who provided DNC emails to Wikileaks and over a pending lawsuit concerning voter suppression during the 2016 primaries. Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder, leading some to believe he was their source for the DNC emails. He was reported to have been a potential witness in the voter suppression lawsuit filed the day after his death.

mockingbirdpaper (dot) com/content/local-activist-files-suit-access-exit-polling-data-dead-witness-blocks-path-truth

[May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0

Highly recommended!
Images deleted.
False flag operation by CIA or CrowdStrike as CIA constructor: CIA ears protrude above Gussifer 2.0 hat.
Notable quotes:
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using files that were really Podesta attachments) . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from deliberate processes & needless editing of documents . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian communications signals came from the persona choosing to use a proxy server in Moscow and choosing to use a Russian VPN service as end-points (and they used an email service that forwards the sender’s IP address, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.) ..."
"... A considerable volume of evidence pointed at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else). ..."
"... The American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. blogging , social media , emailing a journalist , archiving files , etc) and some of these were recorded independently by service providers. ..."
"... A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America) . ..."
"... On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016. ..."
"... The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties. ..."
"... While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 ..."
"... Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others? ..."
"... I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/ ..."
May 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tim Leonard via ConsortiumNews.com,

Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that Assange “may be connected with Russians?”

In December, I reported on digital forensics evidence relating to Guccifer 2.0 and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks:

On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks.

This article questions what Guccifer 2.0’s intentions were in relation to WikiLeaks in the context of what has been discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.

Timing

On June 12, 2016, in an interview with ITV’s Robert Peston, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 (or with DCLeaks).

On June 14, 2016, an article was published in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives alleging that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).

On that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted WikiLeaks via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties coordinate their releases of leaks. (It doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks responded until September 2016).

On June 15, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 appeared for the first time. He fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using material that wasn’t from the DNC), used a proxy in Moscow to carry out searches (for mostly English language terms including a grammatically incorrect and uncommon phrase that the persona would use in its first blog post) and used a Russian VPN service to share the fabricated evidence with reporters. All of this combined conveniently to provide false corroboration for several claims made by CrowdStrike executives that were published just one day earlier in The Washington Post.

[CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry testified under oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only released earlier this month.]

First Claim Versus First Contact

On the day it emerged, the Guccifer 2.0 operation stated that it had given material to WikiLeaks and asserted that the organization would publish that material soon:

By stating that WikiLeaks would “publish them soon” the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received confirmation of intent to publish.

However, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks didn’t occur until a week later (June 22, 2016) when WikiLeaks reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them rather than doing what it was doing:

[Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Note: “stolen from the DNC” is an editorial insert by the special counsel.]

If WikiLeaks had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would they then suggest what they did when they did? WikiLeaks says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.

Needing To Know What WikiLeaks Had

Fortunately, information that gives more insight into communications on June 22, 2016 was made available on April 29, 2020 via a release of the Roger Stone arrest warrant application.

Here is the full conversation on that date (according to the application):

@WikiLeaks: Do you have secure communications?

@WikiLeaks: Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing. No other media will release the full material.

@GUCCIFER_2: what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I’m ready to cooperate with you, but I need to know what’s in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs? If it’s not secret when you are going to release it?

@WikiLeaks: You can send us a message in a .txt file here [link redacted]

@GUCCIFER_2: do you have GPG?

Why would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material WikiLeaks already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0 had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn’t have had reason to inquire.

The more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.

Further communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:

@GUCCIFER_2: How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?

@WikiLeaks: Yes, we have everything. We’ve been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted message to [email protected]. They key is here.

and June 27, 2016:

@GUCCIFER_2: Hi, i’ve just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.

@WikiLeaks: Thanks.

@GUCCIFER_2: waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.

Guccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB ‘insurance’ archive that WikiLeaks had posted on June 16, 2016 and it’s clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties (which would seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0’s initial claims about WikiLeaks even more doubtful).

Claims DCLeaks Is A Sub-Project Of WikiLeaks

On June 27, 2016, in an email chain to the Smoking Gun (exposing Guccifer 2.0 apparently being in the Central US timezone), Guccifer 2.0 claimed that DCLeaks was a “sub-project” of WikiLeaks.

There’s no evidence to support this. “Envoy le” is also a mistake as standard French emails read: “Envoye le.” Claims allegedly made by Guccifer 2.0 in a Twitter DM to DCLeaks on September 15, 2016 suggest that he knew this was nonsense:

There was no evidence of WikiLeaks mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why WikiLeaks couldn’t just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.

(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)

Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of WikiLeaks and then, over two months later, was seen trying to encourage DCLeaks to communicate with WikiLeaks by relaying an alleged request from WikiLeaks that there is no record of WikiLeaks ever making (and which WikiLeaks could have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted to).

The ‘About 1GB’ / ‘1Gb or So’ Archive

On July 4, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 contacted WikiLeaks:

@GUCCIFER_2: hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.

This was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:

@GUCCIFER_2: have you received my parcel?

@WikiLeaks: Not unless it was very recent. [we haven’ t checked in 24h].

@GUCCIFER_2: I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via [website link]. and check your email.

@WikiLeaks: Wil[l] check, thanks.

@GUCCIFER_2: let me know the results.

@WikiLeaks: Please don’t make anything you send to us public. It’s a lot of work to go through it and the impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.

@GUCCIFER_2: agreed. How much time will it take?

@WikiLeaks: likely sometime today.

@GUCCIFER_2: will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?

@WikiLeaks: I don’t believe we received them. Nothing on ‘Brexit’ for example.

@GUCCIFER_2: wow. have you checked ur mail?

@WikiLeaks: At least not as of 4 days ago . . . . For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some hours.

@GUCCIFER_2: fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.

@WikiLeaks: We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just ask for custom fast upload point in an email.

@GUCCIFER_2: will u be able to check ur email?

@WikiLeaks: We’re best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they’re too big to fake.

@GUCCIFER_2: or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?

@WikiLeaks: to be safe, send via [web link]

@GUCCIFER_2: can u confirm u received dnc emails?

@WikiLeaks: for security reasons we can’ t confirm what we’ve received here. e.g., in case your account has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.

@GUCCIFER_2: then send me an encrypted email.

@WikiLeaks: we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some hours.

@WikiLeaks: what do you think about the FBl’ s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails/docs from there. She set up quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or else I don’t know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.

@WikiLeaks: She’s too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill, because he’s a target in that investigation.

@GUCCIFER_2: do you have any info about marcel lazar? There’ve been a lot of rumors of late.

@WikiLeaks: the death? [A] fake story.

@WikiLeaks: His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal’s inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the FBI.

@GUCCIFER_2: some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?

@WikiLeaks: No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.

@GUCCIFER_2: what about tor submission? [W]ill u receive a doc now?

@WikiLeaks: We will get everything sent on [weblink].” [A]s long as you see \”upload succseful\” at the end. [I]f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok. I see.

@WikiLeaks: [W]e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.

@GUCCIFER_2: do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc anyhow?

@WikiLeaks: bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. [S]o he can push for concessions (positions/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the nomination. [T]he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). [O]r will they dis[s]olve into hillary’ s camp? [P]resently many of them are looking to damage hilary [sic] inorder [sic] to increase their unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. [I]t seems many of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.

@GUCCIFER_2: sent brexit docs successfully.

@WikiLeaks: :))).

@WikiLeaks: we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.

@GUCCIFER_2: so it is.

@WikiLeaks: also, it’ s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.

[Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the results of that. It also doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks released any Brexit content around this time.]

On July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to WikiLeaks, this was covered in the Mueller report:

It should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn’t and both the email contents and name of the file were readable.

The persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:

@GUCCIFER_2: ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.

@WikiLeaks: great, thanks; can’t check until tomorrow though.

On July 17, 2016, the persona contacted WikiLeaks again:

@GUCCIFER_2: what bout now?

On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks responded and more was discussed:

@WikiLeaks: have the 1 Gb or so archive.

@GUCCIFER_2: have u managed to extract the files?

@WikiLeaks: yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. [O]therwise all ready[.]

@GUCCIFER_2: so when r u about to make a release?

@WikiLeaks: this week. [D]o you have any bigger datasets? [D]id you get our fast transfer details?

@GUCCIFER_2: i’ll check it. did u send it via email?

@WikiLeaks: yes.

@GUCCIFER_2: to [web link]. [I] got nothing.

@WikiLeaks: check your other mail? this was over a week ago.

@GUCCIFER_2:oh, that one, yeah, [I] got it.

@WikiLeaks: great. [D]id it work?

@GUCCIFER_2:[I] haven’ t tried yet.

@WikiLeaks: Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?

@GUCCIFER_2: let’s move step by step, u have released nothing of what [I] sent u yet.

@WikiLeaks: How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. [T]hen when you are happy, you give us the decrypt key. [T]his way we can move much faster. (A]lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then there is no point in trying to shut you up.

@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll ponder it

Again, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.

Guccifer 2.0’s “so when r u about to make a release?” seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been inferred as generally relating to what WikiLeaks had or even material relating to the “Turkey Coup” that WikiLeaks had mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day (July 19, 2016).

The way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known (by not citing the exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it.

Four days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.

Later that same day, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted: “@wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I’d given them!!!”.

Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016.

Guccifer 2.0’s emails to WikiLeaks were also sent insecurely.

We cannot be certain that WikiLeaks statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0’s material and there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by WikiLeaks on July 19, 2016.

Ulterior Motives?

While the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:

Considering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in “Made In Russia” labels (by plastering files in Russian metadata and choosing to use a Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow for it’s activities) on the same day it first attributed itself to WikiLeaks, it’s fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had malicious intent towards WikiLeaks from the outset.

If this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first started publishing attachments from those emails.

Seth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties

WikiLeaks Offers Reward

On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted:

ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 9, 2016

In an interview with Nieuwsuur that was posted the same day, Julian Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been “shot in the back, murdered”. When the interviewer suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.

When the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.

When pressed to explain WikiLeaks actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because WikiLeaks‘ sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that WikiLeaks were investigating.

Speculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for WikiLeaks soon propagated to several sites and across social media.

Guccifer 2.0 Claims Seth Rich As His Source

On August 25, 2016, approximately three weeks after the reward was offered, Julian Assange was due to be interviewed on Fox News on the topic of Seth Rich.

On that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source (despite previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC).

Why did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?

[Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0’s effort to attribute itself to Seth Rich following the propagation of Rich-WikiLeaks association theories online.]

Special Counsel Claims

In Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general election, delivered his final report.

It claimed:

Guccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News (in relation to Seth Rich).

No communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.

Suggesting Assange Connected To Russians

In the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich’s name is mentioned (on August 25, 2016), the persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning “Julian” (in reference to Julian Assange):

The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”.

Guccifer 2.0’s Mentions of WikiLeaks and Assange

Guccifer 2.0 mentioned WikiLeaks or associated himself with their output on several occasions:

  1. June 15, 2016: claiming to have sent WikiLeaks material on his blog.
  2. June 27, 2016: when he claimed DCLeaks was a sub-project of WikiLeaks.
  3. July 13, 2016: Joe Uchill of The Hill reported that Guccifer 2.0 had contacted the publication and stated: “The press gradually forget about me, [W]ikileaks is playing for time and have some more docs.”
  4. July 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks.
  5. August 12, 2016: It was reported in The Hill that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. They reported: “The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker said, will be released on WikiLeaks.”
  6. August 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would “send the major trove of the #DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks“.
  7. September 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that WikiLeaks wanted to get in contact with them.
  8. October 4, 2016: Congratulating WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary via its blog. Also states: “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”. (This was the same day on which Guccifer 2.0 published his “Clinton Foundation” files that were clearly not from the Clinton Foundation.)
  9. October 17, 2016: via Twitter, stating “i’m here and ready for new releases. already changed my location thanks @wikileaks for a good job!”

Guccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to WikiLeaks or Assange being mentioned:

  1. June 17, 2016: in response to The Smoking Gun asking if Assange would publish the same material it was publishing, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “I gave WikiLeaks the greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,”
  2. August 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to WikiLeaks, the persona stated: “I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs”.
  3. August 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange’s name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “he may be connected with Russians”.
  4. October 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that WikiLeaks had “stole his thunder” and “do you still support Assange?”. Guccifer 2.0 responded: “i’m glad, together we’ll make America great again.”.

Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.

Guccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about WikiLeaks, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich and even alleged that Julian Assange “may be connected with Russians”.

While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious.


xxx 2 minutes ago (Edited)

Everything involving the Russian hoax was set up by the Deep States around the world. Implicate, discredit and destroy all those like Rich, Assange, Flynn and those who knew the truth. Kill the messenger....literally.

xxx 10 minutes ago

here's what really happened:

an American hacker breached Podesta's gmail on March 13 2016 and then uploaded it to Wikileaks via Tor sometime between April and May.

the NSA and CIA have hacked into Wikileaks' Tor file server to watch for new leaks to stay ahead of them to prepare. they saw Podesta's emails leaked and launched a counter infowar operation.

Brennan's CIA created the Guccifer 2.0 persona, with phony Russian metadata artifacts, using digital forgery techniques seen in Vault7. Crowdstrike was already on the premises of DNC since 2015, with their overly expensive security scanner watching the DNC network. Crowdstrike had access to any DNC files they wanted. CIA, FBI and Crowdstrike colluded to create a fake leak of DNC docs through their Guccifer 2.0 cutout. they didn't leak any docs of high importance, which is why we never saw any smoking guns from DNC leaks or DCLeaks.

you have to remember, the whole point of this CIAFBINSA operation has nothing to do with Hillary or Trump or influencing the election. the point was to fabricate criminal evidence to use against Assange to finally arrest him and extradite him as well as smear Wikileaks ahead of the looming leak of Podesta's emails.

if CIAFBINSA can frame Assange and Wikileaks as being criminal hackers and/or Russian assets ahead of the Podesta leaks, then they can craft a narrative for the MSM to ignore or distrust most of the Podesta emails. and that is exactly what happened, such as when Chris Cuomo said on CNN that it was illegal for you to read Wikileaks, but not CNN, so you should let CNN tell you what to think about Wikileaks instead of looking at evidence yourself.

this explains why Guccifer 2.0 was so sloppy leaving a trail of Twitter DMs to incriminate himself and Assange along with him.

if this CIAFBINSA entrapment/frame operation ever leaks, it will guarantee the freedom of Assange.

xxx 11 minutes ago

According to Wikipedia, "Guccifer" is Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Rumanian born in 1972, but "Guccifer 2.0" is someone else entirely.

Is that so?

xxx 20 minutes ago (Edited)

The guy from Cyrptome always asserted Assange was some type of deep state puppet, that he was connected somehow. This wouldn't be news to me and its probably why he was scared as hell. The guy is as good as dead, like S. Hussein. Seth Rich was just a puppet that got caught in the wrong game. He was expendable obviously too because well he had a big mouth, he was expendable from the beginning. Somebody mapped this whole **** out, thats for sure.

xxx 28 minutes ago

I am sick and tired of these Deep State and CIA-linked operations trying to put a wrench in the prosecution of people who were engaged in a coup d'etat.

xxx 29 minutes ago

********

xxx 33 minutes ago

At this point what difference does it make? We are all convinced since 2016. It is not going to convince the TDS cases roaming the wilderness.

No arrests, no subpoenas, no warrants, no barging in at 3 am, no perp walks, no tv glare...

Pres. Trump is playing a very risky game. Arrest now, or regret later. And you won't have much time to regret.

The swamp is dark, smelly and deep,

And it has grudges to keep.

xxx 37 minutes ago

Meanwhile- Guccifer 1.0 is still?

- In prison?

- Released?

- 48 month sentence in 2016. Obv no good behavior.

Nice article. Brennan is the dolt he appears.

xxx 41 minutes ago

+1,000 on the investigative work and analyzing it.

Sadly, none of the guilty are in jail. Instead. Assange sits there rotting away.

xxx 44 minutes ago

Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that Assange "may be connected with Russians?"

Because the AXIS powers of the CIA, Brit secret police and Israeli secret police pay for the campaign to tie Assange to the Russians...

xxx 45 minutes ago

@realDonaldTrump

A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called investigator? Read story!

xxx 45 minutes ago

Why make it harder than it is? Guccifer II = Crowdstrike

xxx 51 minutes ago

Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0

xxx 58 minutes ago (Edited)

Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others?

xxx 1 hour ago

"His name was Seth Rich." The unofficial motto of ZeroHedge...

xxx 1 hour ago

James Guccifer Clapper.

xxx 1 hour ago

Mossad. And their subsidiary CIA.

xxx 1 hour ago

Crowd Strike CEO'S admission under oath that they had no evidence the DNC was hacked by the Russians should make the Russian Hoax predicate abundantly clear.

Justice for Seth Rich!

xxx 1 hour ago

Any influence Assange had on the election was so small that it wouldn't move the needle either way. The real influence and election tampering in the US has always come from the scores of lobbyists and their massive donations that fund the candidates election runs coupled with the wildly inaccurate and agenda driven collusive effort by the MSM. Anyone pointing fingers at the Russians is beyond blind to the unparalleled influence and power these entities have on swaying American minds.

xxx 1 hour ago

ObamaGate.

xxx 1 hour ago (Edited)

Uugh ONCE AGAIN... 4chan already proved guccifer 2.0 was a larp, and the files were not "hacked", they were leaked by Seth Rich. The metadata from the guccifer files is different from the metadata that came from the seth rich files. The dumb fuckers thought they were smart by modifying the author name of the files to make it look like it came from a russian source. They were so ******* inept, they must have forgot (or not have known) to modify the unique 16 digit hex key assigned to the author of the files when they were created..... The ones that seth rich copied had the system administrators name (Warren Flood) as the author and the 16 digit hex key from both file sources were the same - the one assigned to warren flood.

Really sloppy larp!!!

xxx 1 hour ago

This link has all the detail to show Guccifer 2.0 was not Russia. I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/

xxx 1 hour ago

This is what people are. Now the species has more power than it can control and that it knows what to do with.

What do you think the result will be?

As for these games of Secret - it's more game than anything truly significant. The significant exists in the bunkers, with the mobile units, in the submarines. Et. al.

But this is a game in which some of the players die - or wish they were dead.

xxx 1 hour ago

And.....?

Public figures and political parties warrant public scrutiny. And didn't his expose in their own words expose the democrats, the mass media, the bureaucracy to the corrupt frauds that they are?

xxx 1 hour ago

Other than the fact that they didn't steal the emails (unless you believe whistleblowers are thief's, one mans source is another mans thief, it's all about who's ox is being gored and you love "leaks" don't you? As long as they work in your favor. Stop with the piety.

xxx 15 minutes ago

That's not the story at all. Did you just read this article?

The democrats were super duper corrupt (before all of this).

They fucked around to ice Bernie out of the primary.

A young staffer Seth Rich knew it and didn't like it. He made the decision to leak the info to the most reputable org for leaks in the world Wikileaks.

IF the DNC had been playing fair, Seth Rich wouldn't have felt the need to leak.

So, the democrats did it to themselves.

And then they created Russiagate to cover it all up.

And murdered a young brave man ... as we know.

xxx 1 hour ago

Assange, another problem Trump failed to fix.

xxx 1 hour ago

Sounds like it came from the same source as the Trump dossier ... MI5.

[May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0's Hidden Agenda : looks like Gussifer 2.0 was a false flag operation designed to smear WikiLeaks and distract from the content of the stolen by Seth Rich or some other insider DNC emails

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has. ..."
"... Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses. ..."
"... Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier). ..."
"... The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp. ..."
"... A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days. ..."
"... Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait. ..."
May 24, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Daniel P , May 23, 2020 at 13:34

Fascinating, important and ultimately deeply disturbing. This is why I come to Consortium News.

With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has.

Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses.

Anonymous , May 22, 2020 at 12:01

These convos alone look like a script kiddie on IRC doing their low functioning version of sock puppetry. Didn't know anyone at all fell for that

Ash , May 22, 2020 at 17:21

Because smooth liars in expensive suits told them it was true in their authoritative TV voices? Sadly they don't even really need to try hard anymore, as people will evidently believe anything they're told.

Bob Herrschaft , May 22, 2020 at 12:00

The article goes a long way toward congealing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a shill meant to implicate Wikileaks in a Russian hack. The insinuation about Assange's Russian connection was over the top if Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a GRU agent and the mention of Seth Rich only contradicts his claims.

OlyaPola , May 22, 2020 at 10:40

Spectacles are popular.Although less popular, the framing and derivations of plausible belief are of more significance; hence the cloak of plausible denial over under-garments of plausible belief, in facilitation of revolutions of immersion in spectacles facilitating spectacles' popularity.

Some promoters of spectacles believe that the benefits of spectacles accrue solely to themselves, and when expectations appear to vary from outcomes, they resort to one-trick-ponyness illuminated by peering in the mirror.

Skip Scott , May 22, 2020 at 08:35

This is a great article. I think the most obvious conclusion is that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation to smear wikileaks and distract from the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The MSM spent the next 3 years obsessed by RussiaGate, and spent virtually no effort on the DNC and Hillary's collusion in subverting the Sander's campaign, among other crimes.

I think back to how many of my friends were obsessed with Rachel Madcow during this period, and how she and the rest of the MSM served the Empire with their propaganda campaign. Meanwhile, Julian is still in Belmarsh as the head of a "non-state hostile intelligence service," the Hillary camp still runs the DNC and successfully sabotaged Bernie yet again (along with Tulsi), and the public gets to choose between corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B in 2020.

Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier).

Guy , May 22, 2020 at 12:19

Totally agree .The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp.

Cal Lash , May 22, 2020 at 01:20

I take it the mentioned time zones are consistent with Langley.

treeinanotherlife , May 22, 2020 at 00:34

"Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?"

G2 is fishing to see if Wiki has DNC docs. Does not say "any DNC docs I sent you". And like most at time thought Assange's "related to hillary" phrase likely (hopefully for some) meant Hillary's missing private server emails. For certain G2 is not an FBI agent>s/he knows difference between HRC and DNC emails.

Thank you for fantastic work.

Mark McCarty , May 21, 2020 at 22:24

A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days.

Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that Wikileaks had been processing those emails since at least June 12, when Assange announced their impending publication. (I recall waiting expectantly for a number of weeks as Wikileaks processed the Podesta emails.) Wikileaks was well aware that, if a single one of the DNC emails they released had been proved to have been fraudulent, their reputation would have been toast. Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait.

Secondly, it is inconceivable that a journalist as careful as Julian would, on June 12th, have announced the impending publication of documents he hadn't even seen yet. And of course there is no record of G2.0 having had any contact with Wikileaks prior to that date.

It is a great pleasure to see "Adam Carter"'s work at long last appear in such a distinguished venue as Consortium News. It does credit to them both.

Skip Edwards , May 22, 2020 at 12:33

How can we expect justice when there is no justification for what is being done by the US and British governments to Julian Assange!

[May 24, 2020] Wouldn't it be more useful to allocate $ 250,000 to save someone's lives instead of "Exposing Russian Health Disinformation"

$250K can buy a lot of masks, probably over million ;-)
May 24, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

moscowexile May 24, 2020 at 4:10 am

Have they nothing better to do than peddle their Russophobia?

Wouldn't it be more useful to allocate $ 250,000 to save someone's lives, @StateDept ? Instead of "Exposing Russian Health Disinformation"
➡️ https://t.co/Hv3CydUgBX

📸 Medical aid 🇷🇺✈️🇺🇸 in NYC and Moscow pic.twitter.com/BVFxDVJJAH

-- Russia in USA 🇷🇺 (@RusEmbUSA) May 23, 2020

[May 24, 2020] Why Russiagate Still Matters by Rob Urie

The concept of managerial class liberals (PMC - abbrevation which probably means "project management class" ??? ) as the core of Clinton wing of the Democrtic Party is an interesting one.
Notable quotes:
"... At the height of the Russiagate hysteria, as charges were flying that the 'attack' was worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 rolled into one, the class that had filled military recruiting stations following these earlier events was notably quiet. The faction that believed the charges, managerial class liberals (PMC), still substantially believes them despite none of the evidence put forward to support them holding up under examination. ..."
"... The Iraq War and the Great Recession created political divisions that are unlikely to be resolved without a redistribution of political and economic power downward. ..."
"... By the time the Great Recession struck in 2007, the U.S. war against Iraq was widely understood to be a strategic and military blunder, murderous almost beyond comprehension, and based on lies from American officials. ..."
"... Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made the ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the 'liberal hawks' who would some years later support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and the Russiagate truthers who were tied through class interests to its orthodoxies. ..."
"... While Democrat versus Republican or left versus right are most often used to distinguish Russiagate proponents and believers from skeptics, it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story. As it happens, the PMC and rich are the demographic that these news sources serve . Class connotes substantively different lived experience. The Russiagate true believers have benefitted from official connections and the skeptics and large majority of those disinterested in Russiagate haven't. ..."
"... As one who spent years using scientific methods to conduct empirical research, 1) it is as easy to lie with evidence as without it and 2) every source for the Russiagate charges that I followed tied back to the DNC, the CIA or its NGO affiliates like the Atlantic Council. These are political actors, not disinterested parties. The method of reporting is to state charges in the headline, and then to correctly state that official sources claim that the headline charges are true in the body of the article. This leaves the impression that evidence supports the headline charges with no actual evidence having been presented. Deference to authority isn't evidence. ..."
"... As I laid out in 2018 here , the role of the CIA in oil and gas geopolitics ties the motives for demonizing Russia to U.S. machinations in Ukraine and to weapons production and distribution as the business of U.S. based corporations. Further back, while the George W. Bush administration's war against Iraq was a strategic, military, moral and humanitarian disaster, oligarchs and corporate executives made personal fortunes from it. This 'model' of the modern state acting on behalf of business interests ties all the way back to the alleged pre-capitalism of mercantilism. ..."
"... The PMC is the service class of this state-capitalism, with corporate lawyers, tech workers, Wall Street traders and middle managers whose livelihoods and identities are tied to their class position through these jobs. ..."
"... This difference in lived experience explains why the PMC saw the Wall Street bailouts as both necessary and effective, while much of the rest of the country didn't. Wall Street is the functional core of the PMC economy through the process of financialization. ..."
"... The tendency to vote rises with family income. The well to do elected Donald Trump, as they do every president. As the machinations to make Joe Biden the Democrat's candidate in 2020 suggest, the poor can vote for their choice to represent the interests of the rich, but not their own ..."
"... Russiagate was and is defense of a class realm, of the power of the rich and the PMC to do as they please without the political chatter of the 'little people' or the populist pretensions of Donald Trump. ..."
"... While it seems evident now that Trump was never more than a minor inconvenience in the CIA's plans for murder, mayhem, and world domination, this wasn't evident at the outset of his tenure in the White House. John Brennan and James Clapper have demonstrated over long careers that the well-behaved fascism of corporate political control, for profit militarism, targeted and occasionally brutal repression of the 'little people' and democracy in name only, are fine with them. ..."
"... That none of the Russiagate charges turned out to have merit has had no determinable political impact to date. Its central protagonists knew they were telling lies (links above) all along. Not considered by the Russiagate acolytes is that those telling lies weren't lying to the marginally literate 'fascists' who should in elite theory have been the easiest to fool. Those people don't spend their days reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. They were lying to the educated elite. And lest this elite imagine that it was in on the lies -- they quite conspicuously believed every word of them. ..."
May 22, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

A thought experiment with a purpose is to ask: if a group of former Directors of the CIA, NSA and FBI put forward a story about a malevolent foreign power acting against the U.S. without providing evidence that their story is true, who would believe them? While this wasn't precisely the setup for Russiagate, all of the former Directors came forward as former Directors of intelligence agencies, not as private citizens. And the information they presented was compiled as opposition research for a political campaign. It might have (did) provided a basis for further inquiry, but it wasn't evidence as it was presented.

Oddly, ironically even, the part of the population that in earlier history would have taken former government officials at their word and been ready to fight, kill, or die to right this alleged wrong, was circumspect in the case of Russiagate. At the height of the Russiagate hysteria, as charges were flying that the 'attack' was worse than Pearl Harbor and 9/11 rolled into one, the class that had filled military recruiting stations following these earlier events was notably quiet. The faction that believed the charges, managerial class liberals (PMC), still substantially believes them despite none of the evidence put forward to support them holding up under examination.

This seeming role reversal of managerial class liberals being whipped into a nationalistic fervor while the rest of the country looked away was a long time coming. Trump loathing explains why liberals want Donald Trump gone from office, but not the nationalistic fervor or the studied disinterest of the rest of the country in the 'attack' by a foreign power. The receptivity, or lack thereof, of these political factions (classes) to official proclamations is the result of lived history. The Iraq War and the Great Recession created political divisions that are unlikely to be resolved without a redistribution of political and economic power downward.

Graph: As was much reported at the time, the Great Recession was orders of magnitude more economically destructive than prior post-WWII recessions. Both the severity and persistence of unemployment were far outside of the post-War experience. At the time of the 2016 election, long-term unemployment had still not returned to pre-recession levels. Its levels and impact were differentiated by class, with employment amongst the PMC, composed largely of liberal Democrats, quickly returning to pre-recession levels. while working class employment permanently disappeared or was turned into gig jobs. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.

Up through the U.S. war against Iraq, working class men joined the military and fought American wars while the rich and professional classes got educational deferments or a doctor's note claiming one or another exemption-worthy malady to do the hard work of 'changing the system from within.' Even with the class-blind farce of a 'volunteer' military, there came a time around 2006 when the intersection of official lies and body bags accumulated to the point where a righteous rebellion against official power took hold amongst the 'lesser' classes. Barack Obama won election in 2008 based in part on his carefully worded rejection of wars of choice.

By the time the Great Recession struck in 2007, the U.S. war against Iraq was widely understood to be a strategic and military blunder, murderous almost beyond comprehension, and based on lies from American officials. And it was far from being resolved. For structural reasons including three-plus decades of planned deindustrialization, the systematic weakening of labor's power and the social safety net, and the partitioning of the economy into financialized and not financialized sectors, the bailouts of Wall Street produced different outcomes by class, with the PMC seeing its fortunes quickly restored while the working class was left to languish.

Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made the ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the 'liberal hawks' who would some years later support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and the Russiagate truthers who were tied through class interests to its orthodoxies.

To tie this together, the Americans who died, were permanently disabled or who lost family members and friends in the U.S. war against Iraq, also found themselves on the wrong side of the class war that began in the 1980s with deindustrialization. By the time of the Great Recession, working class labor was forced to contend with long-term unemployment (graph above) or with the perpetual insecurity of the gig economy. Contrariwise, those whose class position meant that they had 'better things to do' than to volunteer to serve in Iraq had their fortunes quickly restored in the Great Recession through government bailouts.

While Democrat versus Republican or left versus right are most often used to distinguish Russiagate proponents and believers from skeptics, it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press -- the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story. As it happens, the PMC and rich are the demographic that these news sources serve . Class connotes substantively different lived experience. The Russiagate true believers have benefitted from official connections and the skeptics and large majority of those disinterested in Russiagate haven't.

Referred to, but not yet addressed, is the complete failure of the Russiagate evidence to match the DNC / establishment press / national security state storylines. From collusion between the Russian government and Donald Trump to emails leaked to, and then published by, Wikileaks to the Russian troll farm and its ties to the GRU (Russian intelligence), none of these theories have been supported by the evidence offered. And most of the political actors who spent years promoting them knew they weren't true before Donald Trump even took office.

As one who spent years using scientific methods to conduct empirical research, 1) it is as easy to lie with evidence as without it and 2) every source for the Russiagate charges that I followed tied back to the DNC, the CIA or its NGO affiliates like the Atlantic Council. These are political actors, not disinterested parties. The method of reporting is to state charges in the headline, and then to correctly state that official sources claim that the headline charges are true in the body of the article. This leaves the impression that evidence supports the headline charges with no actual evidence having been presented. Deference to authority isn't evidence.

This kind of journalism isn't just poor reporting. It is either naively trusting of official sources or it is intended to deceive. Given how little follow-up has been done on the serial failures of the evidence, the most probable answer is that it is straight-up propaganda. But the conception of propaganda that the facts support requires something like a unified state interest, as well as an explanation of how and why the establishment press serves as a permanent conduit for official disinformation. Given that an elected President was the target of the Russiagate campaign, the unified state interest theory doesn't work.

More broadly, the neoliberal project seems to have been modeled on the Marxist / Leninist conception of the state as existing to promote the interests of prominent capitalists. Beginning around the time of Bill Clinton's election to the presidency, the privatization of government services led to the creation of a public-private amalgam composed of PMC workers who perform state functions like domestic spying for the CIA and the NSA. Russiagate certainly appears from its motives, sources, 'facts' and constituency, to have been carried out by functionaries in this public-private amalgam who saw it as their right to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

As I laid out in 2018 here , the role of the CIA in oil and gas geopolitics ties the motives for demonizing Russia to U.S. machinations in Ukraine and to weapons production and distribution as the business of U.S. based corporations. Further back, while the George W. Bush administration's war against Iraq was a strategic, military, moral and humanitarian disaster, oligarchs and corporate executives made personal fortunes from it. This 'model' of the modern state acting on behalf of business interests ties all the way back to the alleged pre-capitalism of mercantilism.

The PMC is the service class of this state-capitalism, with corporate lawyers, tech workers, Wall Street traders and middle managers whose livelihoods and identities are tied to their class position through these jobs. Through the social partitions of class, they are free to have self-flattering politics that have no bearing on how their lives are lived. Identity politics like 'ending racism' have no bearing on who their co-workers are, who their neighbors are or who their children attend school with. Class determines these. This largely explains why beliefs, rather than acts, are the currency of this politics. Class is invisible for those who never encounter, or more precisely see, the economic and social consequences of capitalism on different classes.

This difference in lived experience explains why the PMC saw the Wall Street bailouts as both necessary and effective, while much of the rest of the country didn't. Wall Street is the functional core of the PMC economy through the process of financialization. That the vast majority of the country works and lives far from this functional core makes it the center of the PMC economy, not of the broader economy. And the bailouts 'worked' in the sense that they quickly restored PMC jobs and bonuses. That they topped off four decades of declining fortunes for working class workers (graph above) was hidden behind economic aggregates.

The endless reading of the political tea leaves over Donald Trump's electoral victory, over whether it was a dispossessed working class or Republican plutocrats that brought him to victory, is the analytical equivalent of the debate over the economic impact of the bailouts. Rich people vote, poor people don't (graph below). Electoral politics is a struggle that takes place amongst the rich and the PMC. The visceral disdain the PMC has shown for the 'little people' throughout Russiagate is the product of four decades of class warfare launched from above, not the start of it.

Graph: The tendency to vote rises with family income. The well to do elected Donald Trump, as they do every president. As the machinations to make Joe Biden the Democrat's candidate in 2020 suggest, the poor can vote for their choice to represent the interests of the rich, but not their own. This gives credence to Thomas Ferguson's 'investment theory' of politics. The rich vote to protect their investment in political outcomes. Source: econofact.org.

Russiagate was and is defense of a class realm, of the power of the rich and the PMC to do as they please without the political chatter of the 'little people' or the populist pretensions of Donald Trump.

While it seems evident now that Trump was never more than a minor inconvenience in the CIA's plans for murder, mayhem, and world domination, this wasn't evident at the outset of his tenure in the White House. John Brennan and James Clapper have demonstrated over long careers that the well-behaved fascism of corporate political control, for profit militarism, targeted and occasionally brutal repression of the 'little people' and democracy in name only, are fine with them.

What they and the PMC do object to is any notion of democracy that doesn't leave them in control of everything that it allegedly exists to determine. If elected leaders believe they have a legitimate reason for taking military action, why do they resort to using political and psychological coercion (like Russiagate) rather than taking their case to the people? If other, much poorer, countries can run free and fair elections, why can't the U.S.? And why are corporate representatives allowed to craft public policies when their interests diverge from the public's?

That none of the Russiagate charges turned out to have merit has had no determinable political impact to date. Its central protagonists knew they were telling lies (links above) all along. Not considered by the Russiagate acolytes is that those telling lies weren't lying to the marginally literate 'fascists' who should in elite theory have been the easiest to fool. Those people don't spend their days reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. They were lying to the educated elite. And lest this elite imagine that it was in on the lies -- they quite conspicuously believed every word of them.

That Brennan, Clapper and company are everything that liberals claim to hate about Donald Trump -- tacky talk show hosts who spout whatever bullshit comes to mind if they think it will close the deal, suggests that Trump himself would be a #Resistance hero if he had run as a Democrat. Otherwise, bright lights on the left can't seem to get past the notion that the establishment press always reports bullshit when doing so is politically convenient. Reporting what power says rather than what it does is to be a mouthpiece for power. That is what the establishment press does, and that is why it is considered the 'legitimate' source.

As befits this moment in history, there are no generally applicable lessons to be drawn from Russiagate. Its central protagonists have already moved on to the 'restoring integrity to the White House' grift. By making the election a choice between getting ass cancer or shingles, Biden or Trump -- you decide which is which, the nation has reached a zenith of sorts.

This type of moment produced punk rock in an earlier age. Again, as befits the age, we now have the moment without the punk rock. As the existential philosophers had it, despair is our friend. At least that's what Putin tells me.

Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is published by CounterPunch Books.More articles by: Rob Urie Join the debate on Facebook

[May 24, 2020] Trial by Blockhead by Mark Chapman

Notable quotes:
"... Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service. Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine. ..."
"... Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly, is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants' without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001 , and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences, obviously. ..."
"... The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least 4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system, because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think? ..."
"... I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability, and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which it was assigned has locked on to the target. ..."
"... The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot. ..."
"... There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army continued to shell the site for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down. ..."
"... Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because both the CVR and the FDR are in the tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC. ..."
"... According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to 'secure the crash site', which was forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating. ..."
"... The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch and the JIT. ..."
May 24, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

>Uncle Volodya says, "We become slaves the moment we hand the keys to the definition of reality entirely over to someone else, whether it is a business, an economic theory, a political party, the White House, Newsworld or CNN."

"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan."

– Adolf Hitler

We're going to do something just a bit different today; the event I want to talk about is current – in the future, actually – but the reference which is the subject of the discussion is almost a year old. and the event it discusses is coming up to its sixth anniversary. The past event was the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17 over Ukraine, the future event is the trial in absentia of persons accused by the west of having perpetrated that disaster, and the reference is this piece, by Mark Galeotti, for the Moscow Times: "Russia's Roadmap Out of the MH17 Crisis" .

You all know Mr. Galeotti, I'm sure. Here's his bio, for Amazon:

"Professor Mark Galeotti is a senior researcher at UMV, the Institute of International Relations Prague, and coordinator of its Centre for European Security. Formerly, he was Professor of Global Affairs at New York University and head of History at Keele University. Educated at Cambridge University and the LSE, he is a specialist in modern Russian politics and security and transnational organized crime. And he writes other things for fun, too "

Yes, yes, he certainly does, as you will see. But this bio is extremely modest, albeit he most likely wrote it himself. Mr. Galeotti also authored an excellent blog, In Moscow's Shadows , which was once a go-to reference for crime and legal issues in Russia, a subject in which he seems very well-informed. The blog is still active, although he seems mostly to use it now to advertise podcasts and sell books. That's understandable – it's evident from the blur of titles appended to his name that he's a very busy man. Always has been, really; either as a student or an educator. He also speaks with confidence on the details of military affairs and equipment despite never having been in the military or studied engineering; his education has pretty much all been in history, law or political science.

I know what you will say – many of the greatest reference works on pivotal battles, overall military campaigns and affairs were written by those who had no personal military experience themselves. Mr. Galeotti studied under Dominic Lieven, whose "Russia Against Napoleon" was perhaps the greatest work of military history, rich with detail and insight, that I have ever read. It won him the Wolfson prize for History for 2010, a well-deserved honour. Yet so far as I could make out, Mr. Lieven never served a day in uniform, and if you handed him an AK-47 and said "Here; field-strip this", your likely response would be a blank look. He most certainly was not a witness to the subject military campaign. No; his epic work on Napoleon's invasion of Russia was informed by research, reading the accounts of others who were there at the time, poring over reams of old documents and matching references to get the best picture we have been afforded to date of Napoleon's ignominious defeat through a combination of imperial overreach, a poor grasp of logistics and, most of all, resistance by an adversary who refused to be drawn into playing to Napoleon's strength – the decisive, crushing battle in which the enemy could not retreat, and in which Napoleon would commit all the reserves and crush his enemy to dust.

So it is perfectly possible for an inquisitive mind with no military experience to put together an excellent reference on military happenings which already took place, even if the owner of that mind was not present for the actual event. Given human nature and the capabilities afforded by modern military equipment, it is even possible to forecast future military events with a fair degree of accuracy, going merely by political ambitions and enabling factors, without any personal military experience. After all, the decision-makers who give the orders that send their military forces into battle are often not military men themselves.

Returning for a moment to Mr. Galeotti, it is quite believable that an author with no military background could compose such works as "Armies of the Russian-Ukrainian War" , although there is no serious evidence that Russia is a part of such a conflict in any real military strength. You could write such a book entirely from media references and documentation, which in this case would come almost entirely from the side which claims it is under constant attack by the other – Ukraine. Likewise "Kulikovo 1380; the Battle that Made Russia" . None of us were around in 1380, so we all have to go by historical references, and whoever collects them all into a book first is likely to be regarded as an expert.

No, it's more when we get into how stuff works that I have an issue with it. Like " Spetsnaz: Russia's Special Forces ". Or " The Modern Russian Army ". I'm kind of skeptical about how someone could claim to know the actual internal workings of either organization simply from reading about them in popular references, considering that more than half the material on Russia written in English in western references is rubbish heavily influenced by politics and policy. We would not have to look very far to find examples in which ridiculous overconfidence by one side that it had the other side's number resulted in a horrible surprise. In fact, we would not have to look very far to find an example of this particular author confidently averring to know something inside-out, only to find that version of reality could not be sustained . And I would no more turn to a Senior Non-Resident Fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague for expert analysis of the "Combat Vehicles of Russia's Special Forces" than I would ask a house painter to cut my hair. Unless I see some recollections of a college-age Galeotti tinkering with drivetrains and differentials until the sun went down from a pure love of mechanics, I am going to go ahead and assume that he knows what the vast majority of us knows about military vehicles – he could pick one out of a lineup which included a melon, a goat and an Armored Personnel Carrier, and if it had a flat tire he could probably fix it given time and the essential equipment.

Just before we move on, the future event: the MH-17 'trial' has been postponed until June 8th , to give defense attorneys more time to prepare after the amazingly fortuitous capture of a 'key witness' in Eastern Ukraine. I'm not going to elaborate here on what a kicking-the-can-down-the-road crock this is; we'll pick that up later. The whole MH-17 'investigation' has been such a ridiculous exercise in funneling the pursuit to a single inescapable conclusion – that Russia shot it down – irrespective of how many points have to be bent to fit the curve that no matter how it comes out, it will stand as perhaps the greatest example of absurd western self-justification ever recorded.

There are a couple of ways of solving a mystery crime. One is to collect evidence, and follow where it takes you. Another is to decide who you want to have been responsible, and then construct a sequence of events in which they might have done it. To do that, especially in this case, we will have to throw out a few assumptions, such as all that stuff about means, motive and opportunity. In the absence of a believable scenario, that is. Let's look at what we have, and what we need, and see how we get from there to here.

First, we need for Ukraine not to have been responsible. That's going to be awkward, because it looks as if the aircraft was shot down by a missile, but the missile had to have come from inside Ukraine, because the aircraft was too far from the nearest point in Russia at the moment it was stricken for the missile to have come from there. But we need Russia to have been responsible, and not Ukraine. Therefore we need a sequence of events in which a Russian missile launcher capable of shooting down an airliner at cruising altitude was inside Ukraine, in a position from which it could have taken the shot.

You know what? We are going to have to look at means, motive and opportunity, just for a second. My purpose in doing so is to illustrate just how improbable the western narrative is, starting from square one. The coup in Ukraine – and anyone who believes it was a 'grass-roots revolution' might as well stop reading right here, because we are going to just get further apart in our impressions of events – followed by the triumphant promise from the revolutionaries to repeal Yanukovych's language laws and make Ukrainian the law of the land touched off the return of Crimea to its ancestral home in the Russian Federation. Crimea was about 65% ethnic Russian by population at the time, and only about 15% Ukrainian, and Crimea had made several attempts to break free of Ukraine before that yet for some reason the west refused steadfastly to accept the results of a referendum which voted in favour of Crimea becoming a part of the Russian Federation, as if it were more believable that a huge ethnic-Russian majority preferred to learn Ukrainian and be governed by Kiev.

Be that as it may, Washington reacted very angrily; much more so than Europe, considering the distance between the United States and Ukraine versus its proximity to Europe. Perhaps that is owed simply to Washington's assumption that every corner of the world looks to it for leadership, and that it must have a position ready on any given situation, regardless how distant. So Washington insisted there must be sanctions against Russia, for stealing Crimea from its rightful owner, Ukraine. We're not really going to get into struggles for freedom and the right to self-determination right now, except to state that the USA considers nothing more important in some cases, while in others it is completely irrelevant. Washington demanded sanctions but much of Europe was reluctant .

"It is notoriously difficult to secure EU agreement on sanctions anywhere because they require unanimity from the 28 member states. There were wide differences over the numbers of Russians and Crimeans to be punished, with countries such as Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Spain reluctant to penalise Moscow for fear of closing down channels of dialogue. The 21 named were on an original list that ran to about 120 people Expanding the numbers on the sanctions list is almost certain to be discussed at the EU summit on Thursday and Friday. Some EU states are torn about taking punitive measures against Russia for fear of undoing years of patient attempts to establish closer ties with Moscow as well as increase trade. The EU has already suspended talks with Russia on an economic pact and a visa agreement The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said any measure must leave "ways and possibilities open to prevent a further escalation that could lead to the division of Europe" .

The original list of those to be sanctioned was 120 people. The haggling reduced that to 21. Only 7 of those were Russians. Putin was not included. That was pretty plainly not the United Front That Speaks With One Voice that Washington had envisioned, and the notion that Europe would buy into sanctions that might really do some damage to Russia, albeit there would be economic costs to Europe as well, was a dim prospect.

Gosh – you know what we need? An atrocity which can be quickly tied to Russia, and which will so appall the EU member states that resistance to far-reaching sanctions will collapse. That's called 'motive'. It's just not a motive for Russia. Having just gone far out on a limb and taken back Crimea, to the obvious and vocal fury of the United States, it is a bit of a stretch that Russia was looking for what else it could do that would stir up the world against it.

Means, now. That presents its own dilemma. Because Russia could have shot down an airliner from its own territory. Just not with the weapon chosen. The S-400 could have done it; it has the range, easily. But if you were setting up a scenario in which something happened that you wanted to blame on Russia, but they didn't really do it, you must have the weapon to do it yourself, or access to it. By any reasonable construct, Ukraine must be a suspect as well – there was a hot war going on in Ukraine, Ukraine controlled both the airspace and the aircraft that was lost, and the aircraft was lost over Ukrainian territory. But Ukraine doesn't have the S-400. You could use a variety of western systems, but it would quickly be established that the plane was shot down with a weapon that Russia does not have. In order for the narrative to be believable, Russia must have the weapon – but if it wasn't Russia, then whoever did it must have the weapon, too.

Enter the Buk system, with the 9K37 SA-11 missile. It's got the range, it's got the altitude, the Russians have it in active service. Oooo problem. It's got the range, but only if it was fired from inside Ukraine.

Which brings us back to Mr. Galeotti, an expert in Russian combat systems; enough of an expert to write books on them, anyway. And he plainly believes it was an SA-11 missile fired from a single Buk TELAR (Transporter/Erector/Launcher and Radar) which brought down the Boeing; he says that's what the evidence demonstrates, although by this time (2019) most of the world has backed away from saying Putin showed up with no shirt on to close the firing switch personally (cue the instant British-press screaming headlines before the dust had even settled, "PUTIN'S MISSILE!!!" "PUTIN KILLED MY SON!!!"). Now the story is that the disgraceful deed was done by 'Ukrainian anti-government militants', using a weapon supplied by Russia.

"In this context, a full reversal of policy seems near-enough impossible. The evidence suggests that while the fateful missile was fired by Ukrainian anti-government militants, it was supplied by the Russian 53rd Air Defense Brigade under orders from Moscow and in a process managed by Russian military intelligence.

To admit this would not only be to acknowledge a share in the unlawful killing of 298 innocents, but also an unpicking of the whole Kremlin narrative over the Donbass. It would mean admitting to having been an active participant in this bloody compound of civil war and foreign intervention, to having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences, and to having lied to the world and the Russian people for half a decade."

We don't really have the scope in this piece to broaden the discussion to Russia's probable actual involvement. Suffice it to say that despite non-stop allegations by Poroshenko throughout his presidency of entire battalions of active-service Russian Army soldiers inside Ukraine, zero evidence has ever been provided of any such presence, although there have been some clumsy attempts to fabricate it . To argue that the Russian Army has been trying to overrun Ukraine for six years now, but has been unable to do so because of the combat prowess of the Ukrainian Army is to imply a belief in leprechauns. This is only my own inexpert opinion, but it seems likely to me the complete extent of Russia's involvement, militarily, is the minimum which prevents Eastern Ukraine from being overrun by the Ukrainian military, and including the rebel areas' own far-from-inconsequential military forces. I'm always ready to entertain competing theories, though; be sure to bring your evidence. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits using the country's military forces against its own citizens. The logic of 'Have cake, and eat it" cannot apply here – either the Ukrainian state is in direct and obvious violation of its own constitution or the people of the breakaway regions are not Ukrainian citizens.

Anyway, back to the Buk system. And not a moment before time, either – I just re-read that sanctimonious stab above, again; " having armed the militants without due thought as to the consequences " What, exactly, is the ridiculous nature of the accusation being presented here? That the Russians gave an anti-aircraft system to the 'militants' without considering they might use it to shoot down an aircraft? How did they not see that coming? The Ukrainian Army shot down a civilian airliner in October of 2001 , and lied about it for as long as it could – interestingly, it took place during joint Ukrainian-Russian air defense exercises on the Crimean peninsula, and Russia tried hard to avoid assigning blame to Ukraine, while at least one Israeli television station claimed the Russians had shot down their own aircraft. This disaster and subsequent lying did not prevent the USA from giving the Javelin missile to Ukraine – did it not occur to them that they might use it to shoot tanks? No due thought to the consequences, obviously.

The Buk air-defense system normally consists of at least 4 TELAR launchers , each with 4 missiles on the launch rails, a self-propelled acquisition radar designated by NATO nomenclature as Snow Drift (the radar on the nose of the TELAR unit itself is designated Fire Dome), and a self-propelled command post, for a minimum of 6 vehicles. Also usually part of the system is a mobile crane, to reload the launchers. If you were going to supply an air-defense system to militant rebels, why wouldn't you give them the whole system? In a pinch, you might be able to get away without the command post vehicle, although it is the station that collates all the input from the sensors and makes the decision to assign targets for acquisition, tracking and engagement. If you didn't give them the crane vehicle, and perhaps a logistics truck with some reloads, they would be limited to the missiles that came already mounted – once those were fired, they'd have to abandon the system, because they couldn't reload it. Seems a little wasteful, don't you think?

What about the acquisition radar? Because acquiring targets is all about scanning capability and situational awareness. We're going to assume for a moment that you don't use an air defense system exclusively to hunt for airliners, but that you want to defend yourself against ground-attack aircraft like the Sukhoi SU-25. Because, when you think about it, who is more likely to be trying to kill you ? A Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, or an SU-25? The latter is not quite as fast as an airliner at its cruising height of 30,000 ft+, but it is very agile and will be nearly down in the treetops if it is attacking you. You need to be able to search all around, all the time.

That's where the acquisition radar comes in. A centimetric waveband search radar, the Snow Drift (called the 9S18M1 by its designer) has 360-degree coverage and from 0 to 40 degrees of height in a 6-second sweep in anti-aircraft mode, with a 160 km detection range, obviously dependent on target altitude. An airliner, being a large target not attempting to evade detection, and at a high altitude, would quite possibly be detected at the maximum range of which the system is capable. But then the operators would certainly know it was an airliner. And the narrative says whoever shot it down probably did so by accident.

Maybe if it was his first day on the job. Let's talk for a minute about air-defense deconfliction. It would be nice if your Command parked you somewhere that there was nothing around you but enemies. Well, not as nice as parking you across the street from a pulled-pork barbecue joint with strippers and cold beer, but from a defense standpoint, it'd be nice to know that anything you detected, you could shoot. Know something? It's never like that. Your own aircraft are flying around as if they didn't even know you are dangerous, and as everyone now knows, civilian airliners continue their transport enterprises irrespective of war except in rare instances in which high-flying aircraft have been shot down by long-range missiles. That rarely happens. Why? Because an aircraft flying a steady course, at 30,000 ft+ and not descending, is no threat to you on the ground. From that altitude it can't even see you in the ground clutter, and it'd be quite a bombardier that could hit a target the size of a two-car garage with a bomb dropped from 30,000 ft while flying at 400 knots.

And unless you are an idiot, you know it is an airliner. When you are deployed into the field in an air-defense role, you know where the commercial airlanes are that are going to be active. You know what a commercial-aviation profile looks like – aircraft at 30,000 ft+ altitude, flying at ≥400 knots on a steady course, squawking Mode 3 and Charlie = airliner. Might as well take a moment here to talk about IFF ; Identification Friend or Foe. This is a coded pulse signal transmitted by all commercial aircraft whenever they are in flight unless their equipment is non-functional, and you are not allowed to take off with it in that state. Mode C provides the aircraft's altitude, taken automatically from its barometric altimeter. All modern air search radars have IFF capability, and a dashed line just below the raw video of the air track can be interrogated with a light-pen to provide the readout. You already know how high the plane is if you have a solid radar track, but Mode C provides a confirmation.

Military aircraft have IFF transponders, too; in fact, most of the modes are reserved for military use. But military aircraft often turn off their IFF equipment, because it provides a giveaway who and where they are. In Ukraine, which uses mostly Soviet military aircraft, both sides are capable of reading each other's IFF, so all the more reason not to transmit. Foreign nations typically cannot read each other's IFF except for the modes which are for both military and civilian use, other than those nations who are allies. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the Snow Drift acquisition radar has IFF, and if it detected an airliner-like target at 160 km., the operator would have that much more time to interrogate it and determine it was an airliner. Just to reiterate, the western narrative holds that the destruction of the airliner was a mistake.

I'm going a little further with my inexpert opinion, to say that the Buk system was selected as the 'murder weapon', because it provides a limited autonomous capability. To be clear, the Fire Dome radar on the nose of the TELAR does have a limited search capability, and once the radar is locked on to a target, the TELAR vehicle is completely autonomous. The purpose of the surveillance radar is to detect the target from far beyond the Fire Dome's range, assign it to a TELAR and thereby direct it to the elevation and bearing of the target so that the TELAR's radar knows exactly where to look, and continue to update its position until the TELAR to which it was assigned has locked on to the target.

That autonomous capability is probably what made it attractive to those building the scenario; consider. A complete Buk system of 6, maybe 7 vehicles could hardly get all the way inside Ukraine to the firing position without being noticed and perhaps recorded. But perhaps a single TELAR could do it. The aircraft could be shot down by an SA-11 missile and blamed on Russia – Ukraine has access to plenty of SA-11's. But it is a weapon in the Russian active-service inventory. Further, Galeotti's commitment to the allegation that the single TELAR was provided by Russia's 53rd Air Defense Brigade tells us he supports the crackpot narrative offered by Bellingcat, the loopy citizen-journalist website headed by failed financial clerk Eliot Higgins. Bellingcat claims the Buk TELAR was trucked into Ukraine on the back of a flatbed, took the shot that slew MH-17, and was immediately withdrawn back to Russia.

Ummm .how was that an accident? The Russians gave the Ukrainian militants a single launcher with no crane or reload missiles, so it was limited to a maximum of four shots. Its ability to defend itself from ground attack was almost nil, since the design purpose of mounting a Fire Dome radar on each TELAR is not to make the launcher units autonomous; it is to permit concurrent engagements by several launchers, all coordinated by the acquisition radar and command post. Without a radar of its own on the launcher, the firing unit would have to wait until each engagement was completed before it could switch to a new target, but with a fire-control guidance radar on each TELAR, multiple targets can be assigned to multiple launchers, while the search radar limits itself to acquisition and target assignment.

The Fire Dome radar mounted on the TELAR can search a 120-degree sector in 4 seconds, at an elevation of 6 to 7 degrees. Its search function is maximized for defense against ground attack aircraft, and a single launcher is not looking at 240 degrees of potential air threat axis during each sweep. It is not looking high enough to see an airliner at 30,000 ft+. More importantly for a system which was not designed to shoot down helpless airliners, it leaves two-thirds of a circle unobserved all the time it is searching for a target. And the Russians provided this to the 'militants' for air defense? They should be shot.

A single TELAR with no reloads and no acquisition radar would have to be looking directly at the target when it was activated in order to even see it; it takes 15 seconds for the launcher to swing into line and elevation even when that information is transmitted to it from the acquisition radar. It takes 4 seconds for a scan to be completed when there is a whole two-thirds of a circle that it is not even looking at, and you have to manually force it to search above 7 degrees because it is not designed to shoot down airliners. All this time, the target is crossing the acquisition scope at 400 knots+. Fire Dome has integrated IFF, so if it did by some miracle pick up an airliner in its search, the operator would know from transmitted IFF that he was looking at an airliner. A single TELAR with no reload capability sent on an air-defense mission would have its ass ripped in half by ground-attack aircraft that it never saw – if the autonomous capability is so good, why don't the Ukrainians use them as a single unit? Think of how much air-defense coverage they could provide! Do you see the Ukrainian air-defense units employing the Buk that way? Never. Not once. Four TELARS, acquisition radar vehicle, command vehicle, just the way the system was designed to operate.

Just because it has a limited capability to function in a given capacity should not suggest you would employ it that way. You can use a hockey stick to turn off the bedroom light, and you won't even have to get out of bed. Would you do that? I hope not.

A one-third effective capacity in the air defense role together with the covert delivery and immediate withdrawal suggests that the Russians provided the 'militants' with a single TELAR for the express purpose of shooting down a defenseless airliner. Except nobody is saying that. It was a mistake. Well, except for Head of the Security Service of Ukraine Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, who claimed "Terrorists and militants have planned a cynical terrorist attack on a civilian aircraft Aeroflot AFL-2074 Moscow-Larnaka that was flying at that time above the territory of Ukraine." He further claimed that this was motivated by a desire to 'justify an invasion'. I'm pretty sure if any western authority could prove anything even close to that, we would not have had to wait 6 years for a trial.

Which brings us to the covert delivery and extraction. As part of his personal investigation, Max van der Werff drove the route Bellingcat claimed was the extraction route by which the single TELAR, on its flatbed, was returned to Russia. He verified that there is a highway overpass on the route which is too low for a load that tall to pass underneath. When he pointed this out to Higgins, he was told there is a bypass spur which goes around it, which would allow the flatbed to regain the road beyond without having gone through the overpass. Max drew his attention to the concrete barriers which blocked that road at the top of the hill, and which locals claimed had been in place long before the destruction of MH-17. And that was the end of that conversation. I cannot say enough about the quality of Max's work and his diligent, patient dissection of the evidence . His diagrams of the entry and egress routes as provided by Bellingcat illustrate how little sense they make. It was imperative the guilty Russians get the fuck out of Dodge with the greatest possible dispatch so they drove 100 kilometers out of their way? Don't even terrorist murderers have GPS now?

Similarly, the simpleminded flailing of the Ukrainian investigators suggests they do not even have much of a grasp of how Surface-To-Air missiles work. In excited posts like this one , the BBC discloses that an exhaust vent from the tail section of a 'Buk missile' (the missile is actually the SA-11, while Buk is the entire system) was found in the wreckage of the crashed plane, while this one even shows terminally-stunned head prosecutor Fred Westerbeke standing next to what is allegedly part of the rocket body of an SA-11, including legible inventory markings, also 'found at the crash scene'.

Do tell.

Let me review for you how an SA-11 missile shoots down an aircraft. Does it pierce it like a harpoon, blow up in a thunderous explosion, and ride the doomed aircraft down to the crash site? It certainly does not. The missile blasts out of the launcher and flies to the target via semiactive homing, which means it has an onboard seeker that updates the missile trajectory, while the radar on the launcher also communicates with it and the missile and the target are brought together in intercept. When the proximity fuse of the missile – this is the important part – senses that the missile's warhead is close to the target, the internal explosive detonates, and a shower of prefragmented shrapnel pierces the area of the plane near where the missile detonated, usually the front, because the missile is constantly adjusting to make sure it stays with the target until intercept.

MH-17 traveled on, mostly intact, for miles before it crashed into the ground; the crash site was some 13 miles from where the plane was hit. The missile self-destructed miles away from the crash site, and the only parts of it which accompanied the plane to its impact point were the shrapnel bits of the exploded warhead. The body of the missile, together with the exhaust vent, fell back to the ground somewhere quite close to where the plane was hit, not where it fell. Once the missile's fuel is exhausted, either because it ran out or because it was consumed in the explosion triggered by the proximity fuse, the missile parts do not fly around in formation, seeking out the wreckage and coming gently to rest in it where they can later be found by investigators. I don't know how many times I have to say this, because this is certainly not the first, but there would not be any missile parts in the wreckage of MH-17 because the missile would have blown up in front of the plane without ever touching it. The missile does not hit the plane. The pieces of the warhead do. But reality has to take a back seat to making out an airtight case.

There is no telling what kind of ordnance might be found in the wreckage itself, as the Ukrainian Army continued to shell the site for days after the crash; doubtless various artillery shells could be found at the crash site, as well, but it would be quite a leap of faith to suggest a Boeing 777 was shot down by artillery. What you would not find is pieces of the SAM that shot it down.

Several witnesses claimed to have seen an SU-25 near the plane before it exploded. They quite possibly did – the Ukrainian Air Force was observed to be using civilian airliners as cover to allow them to get close to Eastern-Ukrainian villages which might be protected by hand-held launchers known as MANPADS (for Man-Portable Air Defense System), reasoning the defenders would not shoot if they were afraid they might hit a civil aircraft. Once they were close enough to the village or other target to make an attack run, they would then return to the vicinity of the airliner for protection while withdrawing; the rebel side complained about this illegal and immoral practice a month before the destruction of MH-17. But there is no evidence I am aware of linking the destruction of MH-17 to an attack by aircraft.

It may no longer be possible to look at the shooting-down of the Malaysian Boeing objectively; the event has become a partisan rush to judgment which was rendered immediately, after which an investigation began which plainly had as its goal proving the accusations already made. Means and motive clearly favour the accusers rather than the accused, and opportunity is mostly irrelevant as a consideration. Ukraine obviously had to be a suspect – the destruction of the aircraft occurred over Ukraine while Ukraine was in control of it and the airspace in which it traveled. Yet Ukraine was allowed to lead the investigation, and to gather and safeguard evidence, while the owner of the aircraft – Malaysia – was excluded until the investigation had been in progress for four months. Russia was not allowed any part in it save to yield whatever evidence the investigators demanded, while all its theories were widely mocked. Demonstrations set up by Almaz-Antey, the designers and builders of the SA-11, were unattended by any investigating nation – small wonder they do not have Clue One how the missile works, and believe they are going to find big chunks of it in the wreckage, perhaps with Putin's passport stuck to one of them. If any of these conditions prevailed in an investigation which favoured Russia, NATO would scream as if it were being run over with spiked wheels – if the Boeing had been shot down over Russia, who thinks Russia would have been heading the investigation, and custodian of the evidence?

Nor is that by any means all. The Dutch investigation which concluded with the preliminary report implied that nothing of any investigative value was found on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). Nothing to indicate what might have happened to the aircraft – just that it was flying along, and suddenly it wasn't. How likely is that? No transcript was provided, and I guess that would be expected if there was no information at all. Funny how often that happens with Malaysian airliners; they really need to look at their quality control. Oh; except they don't build the aircraft. Boeing does. I could see there not being any information after the plane began to break up, because both the CVR and the FDR are in the tail , and that broke off before the fuselage hit. But the microphones are in the ceiling of the cockpit and in the microphone and earpiece of the pilots' headsets, which they wear at all times while in flight. The last audio claimed to have been recorded was a course alteration sent by Ukrainian ATC.

According to the Malaysian government, there was an early plan by NATO for a military operation involving some 9000 troops to 'secure the crash site', which was forestalled by a covert Malaysian operation which recovered the 'black boxes' and blocked the plan. I have to say that given the many, many other unorthodox and bizarre happenings in the conduct of what was supposed to be a transparent and impartial international investigation, it's getting so nothing much is unbelievable. The Malaysian Prime Minister went on record as believing that the western powers had already concluded that Russia was responsible, and were mostly just going through the motions of investigating.

The telephone recordings presented by the SBU as demonstrating Russian culpability were analyzed by OG IT Forensic Services, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, which concluded the recordings were cut, edited and fabricated . Yet they are relied upon as important evidence of guilt by the Dutch and the JIT.

The conduct of the investigation has been all the way across town from transparent, and in fact seems to represent a clique of cronies getting their heads together to attempt nailing down a consistent narrative, which is in the judgment of forensic professionals based upon clumsy fabrications. The investigators plainly have no understanding of how the weapons systems involved perform, or they would not claim confidently to have discovered pieces of the very missile that destroyed the plane in the wreckage of it. But rather than take an objective look at how this flailing is perceived, they continue to rely on momentum and the appearance of getting things done while being scrupulously impartial, all the while that more mountains of evidence are collected, which they cannot disclose to the public, although it is all right to let the prime suspect keep it safe under wraps.

Make of that what you will.

" Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. "

-Harry G. Frankfurt

[May 24, 2020] China diplomancy in action: Foreign Minister Wang Yi Meets the Press conference

China diplomacy is trying to thread very carefully to avoid the fallout. The answer of RIA Novosti is good example here. Counterattacks are few (see the answer to CC question with the following money quote: "I respect your right to ask the question, but I'm afraid you're not framing the question in the right way. One has to have a sense of right and wrong. Without it, a person cannot be trusted, and a country cannot hold its own in the family of nations. " This is implicit slap in the face for the USA.
May 24, 2020 | fmprc.gov.cn

RIA Novosti: How do you assess China-Russia relations in the context of COVID-19? Do you agree with some people's characterization that China and Russia may join force to challenge US predominance?

Wang Yi: While closely following the COVID-19 response in Russia, we have done and will continue to do everything we can to support it. I believe under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, the indomitable Russian people will defeat the virus and the great Russian nation will emerge from the challenge with renewed vigor and vitality.

Since the start of COVID-19, President Xi Jinping and President Putin have had several phone calls and kept the closest contact between two world leaders. Russia is the first country to have sent medical experts to China, and China has provided the most anti-epidemic assistance to Russia. Two-way trade has gone up despite COVID-19. Chinese imports from Russia have grown faster than imports from China's other major trading partners. The two countries have supported and defended each other against slanders and attacks coming from certain countries. Together, China and Russia have forged an impregnable fortress against the "political virus" and demonstrated the strength of China-Russia strategic coordination.

I have no doubt that the two countries' joint response to the virus will give a strong boost to China-Russia relations after COVID-19. China is working with Russia to turn the crisis into an opportunity. We will do so by maintaining stable cooperation in energy and other traditional fields, holding a China-Russia year of scientific and technological innovation, and accelerating collaboration in e-commerce, bio-medicine and the cloud economy to make them new engines of growth in our post-COVID-19 economic recovery. China and Russia will also enhance strategic coordination. By marking the 75th anniversary of the UN, we stand ready to firmly protect our victory in WWII, uphold the UN Charter and basic norms of international relations, and oppose any form of unilateralism and bullying. We will enhance cooperation and coordination in the UN, SCO, BRICS and G20 to prepare ourselves for a new round of the once-in-a-century change shaping today's world.

I believe that with China and Russia standing shoulder-to-shoulder and working back-to-back, the world will be a safer and more stable place where justice and fairness are truly upheld.

Cable News Network: We've seen an increasingly heated "war of words" between China and the US. Is "wolf warrior" diplomacy the new norm of China's diplomacy?

Wang Yi: I respect your right to ask the question, but I'm afraid you're not framing the question in the right way. One has to have a sense of right and wrong. Without it, a person cannot be trusted, and a country cannot hold its own in the family of nations.

There may be all kinds of interpretations and commentary about Chinese diplomacy. As China's Foreign Minister, let me state for the record that China always follows an independent foreign policy of peace. No matter how the international situation may change, we will always stand for peace, development and mutually beneficial cooperation, stay committed to upholding world peace and promoting common development, and seek friendship and cooperation with all countries. We see it as our mission to make new and greater contributions to humanity.

China's foreign policy tradition is rooted in its 5,000-year civilization. Since ancient times, China has been widely recognized as a nation of moderation. We Chinese value peace, harmony, sincerity and integrity. We never pick a fight or bully others, but we have principles and guts. We will push back against any deliberate insult to resolutely defend our national honor and dignity. And we will refute all groundless slander with facts to resolutely uphold fairness, justice and human conscience.

The future of China's diplomacy is premised on our commitment to working with all countries to build a community with a shared future for mankind. Since we live in the same global village, countries should get along peacefully and treat each other as equals. Decisions on global affairs should be made through consultation, not because one or two countries say so. That's why China advocates for a multi-polar world and greater democracy in international relations. This position is fully aligned with the direction of human progress and the shared aspiration of most countries. No matter what stage of development it reaches, China will never seek hegemony. We will always stand with the common interests of all countries. And we will always stand on the right side of history. Those who go out of their way to label China as a hegemon are precisely the ones who refuse to let go of their hegemonic status.

The world is undergoing changes of a kind unseen in a century and full of instability and turbulence. Confronted by a growing set of global challenges, we hope all countries will realize that humanity is a community with a shared future. We must render each other more support and cooperation, and there should be less finger-pointing and confrontation. We call on all nations to come together and build a better world for all.

[May 24, 2020] The Spin War: US Military Planners Advise Expanded Online Psychological Warfare Against China by Alan Macleod

Notable quotes:
"... The recently published Pentagon budget request for 2021 makes clear that the United States is retooling for a potential intercontinental war with China and/or Russia. It asks for $705 billion to "shift focus from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China," noting that it requires "more advanced high-end weapon systems, which provide increased standoff, enhanced lethality and autonomous targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested environment." The military has recently received the first batch of low-yield nuclear warheads that experts agree blurs the line between conventional and nuclear conflict, making an all out example of the latter far more likely. ..."
"... "Our governments spend over 1.75 trillion dollars every year on wars, on weapons, on conflict If we could deploy that sort of resource to address the coronavirus crisis that we're currently living through, imagine what else we could be doing. Imagine how we could be fighting the climate crisis, how we could be addressing global poverty, inequality. Our priority should never be war; our priorities need to be public health, the environment, and human well being." ..."
May 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Alan Macleod via MintPressNews.com,

Just three years ago, Americans had a neutral view of China (and nine years ago it was strongly favorable). Today, the same polls show that 66 percent of Americans dislike the country. As the U.S. military turns its attention from the Middle East to conflict with Russia and China, American war planners are advising that the United States greatly expand its own online "psychological operations" against Beijing.

A new report from the Financial Times details how top brass in Washington are strategizing a new Cold War with China, describing it less as World War III and more as "kicking each other under the table." Last week, General Richard Clarke, head of Special Operations Command, said that the "kill-capture missions" the military conducted in Afghanistan were inappropriate for this new conflict, and Special Operations must move towards cyber influence campaigns instead.

Military analyst David Maxwell, a former Special Ops soldier himself, advocated for a widespread culture war, which would include the Pentagon commissioning what he called "Taiwanese Tom Clancy" novels, intended to demonize China and demoralize its citizens, arguing that Washington should "weaponize" China's one-child policy by bombarding Chinese people with stories of the wartime deaths of their only children, and therefore, their bloodline.

A not dissimilar tactic was used during the first Cold War against the Soviet Union, where the CIA sponsored a huge network of artists, writers and thinkers to promote liberal and social-democratic critiques of the U.S.S.R., unbeknownst to the public, and, sometimes, even the artists themselves.

Manufacturing consent

In the space of only a few months, the Trump administration has gone from praising China's response to the COVID-19 pandemic to blaming them for the outbreak, even suggesting they pay reparations for their alleged negligence. Just three years ago, Americans had a neutral view of China (and nine years ago it was strongly favorable). Today, the same polls show that 66 percent of Americans dislike China, with only 26 percent holding a positive opinion of the country. Over four-in-five people essentially support a full-scale economic war with Beijing, something the president threatened to enact last week.

The corporate press is certainly doing their part as well, constantly framing China as an authoritarian threat to the United States, rather than a neutral force or even a potential ally, leading to a surge in anti-Chinese racist attacks at home.

Retooling for an intercontinental war

Although analysts have long warned that the United States gets its "ass handed to it" in hot war simulations with China or even Russia, it is not clear whether this is a sober assessment or a self-serving attempt to increase military spending. In 2002, the U.S. conducted a war game trial invasion of Iraq, where it was catastrophically defeated by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, commanding Iraqi forces, leading to the whole experiment being nixed halfway through. Yet the subsequent invasion was carried out without massive loss of American lives.

The recently published Pentagon budget request for 2021 makes clear that the United States is retooling for a potential intercontinental war with China and/or Russia. It asks for $705 billion to "shift focus from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a greater emphasis on the types of weapons that could be used to confront nuclear giants like Russia and China," noting that it requires "more advanced high-end weapon systems, which provide increased standoff, enhanced lethality and autonomous targeting for employment against near-peer threats in a more contested environment." The military has recently received the first batch of low-yield nuclear warheads that experts agree blurs the line between conventional and nuclear conflict, making an all out example of the latter far more likely.

There has been no meaningful pushback from the Democrats. Indeed, Joe Biden's team has suggested that the United States' entire industrial policy should revolve around "competing with China" and that their "top priority" is dealing with the supposed threat Beijing poses. The former vice-president has also attacked Trump from the right on China, trying to present him as a tool of Beijing, bringing to mind how Clinton portrayed him in 2016 as a Kremlin asset. (Green Party presidential frontrunner Howie Hawkins has promised to cut the military budget by 75 percent and to unilaterally disarm).

Nevertheless, voices raising concern about a new arms race are few and far between. Veteran deproliferation activist Andrew Feinstein is one exception, saying :

"Our governments spend over 1.75 trillion dollars every year on wars, on weapons, on conflict If we could deploy that sort of resource to address the coronavirus crisis that we're currently living through, imagine what else we could be doing. Imagine how we could be fighting the climate crisis, how we could be addressing global poverty, inequality. Our priority should never be war; our priorities need to be public health, the environment, and human well being."

However, if the government is going to launch a new psychological war against China, it is unlikely antiwar voices like Feinstein's will feature much in the mainstream press.

[May 24, 2020] US anti-china crusade started

May 24, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

After the Soviet collapse thirty years ago, that order expanded its jurisdiction. Proponents sought to subsume the old Eastern Bloc, including perhaps Russia itself, into the American sphere. And they wanted to do so firmly on Washington's terms. Even as the country began to deindustrialize and growth slowed, American leadership developed a taste for fresh crusades in the Middle East; exotic savagery, went the subtext, had to be brought finally to heel. China was a rising force, but its regime would inevitably crater or democratize. Besides, Beijing was a peaceful trading partner of the United States.

2008, 2016 and 2020 -- the financial crisis, Trump's election and now the Coronavirus and its reaction -- have been successive gut punches to this project, a hat trick which may seal its demise. Ask anyone attempting to board an international flight, or open a new factory in China, or get anything done at the United Nations: the world is de-globalizing at a speed almost as astonishing as it integrated. Post-Covid, U.S.-China confrontation is not a choice. It's a reality. The liberal international order is not lamentable. It's already dead.

This was the argument made by Bannon. It had other backers, of course, within both the academy and an emerging foreign policy counter-establishment loathe to repeat the mistakes of the past thirty years. But coming from the former top political advisor to the sitting president of the United States, it was provocative stuff. Bannon articulated a perspective which seemed to be on the tip of the foreign policy world's tongue. And it riled people up. The most fulsome rebuttal to the zeitgeist was perhaps The Jungle Grows Back , tellingly written by Robert Kagan, an Iraq War architect. The peripheral world was dangerous brush; the United States was the machete.

Trumpian nationalism has chugged along for nearly three years since -- stripped, some might say, of its Bannonite flair and intelligence. The most hysterical prophecies of what the president might do -- that he might withdraw from the geriatric North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for instance -- have not come to pass. Trump has howled and roared, true: but so far, his most disruptive foreign policy maneuver has been escalation against Iran.


MPC 3 days ago

It's very good to hear the right getting a little humility in them now and talking less empire, more multilateralism. Trump has been way too concerned with his MAGA personality cult to understand the value of humility.

The world's a big place. The reality is, America first will more and more mean working together with other nations for mutual benefit, and often their gain will indirectly be to our own also.

kouroi MPC 3 days ago
Working more and more, yes. This is why US is undercutting Germany's competitiveness, by blocking a cheap source of energy via NS2...

As Bush said, you are either with us or against us. Nothing has changed and nothing will change, but it will become uglier. If it were to desire multi-polarity, the US would tolerate not only states, like KSA, where the Royals own everything, but also states, like Iran, or Cuba, where the people (through the government/state) owns assets (land and productive facilities). But the US does not tolerate such type of multi-polarity, not open to US "investment" and ownership (bought with fiat money).

Cold War II started in 2007, with Putin. Popcorn & beer lads!

MPC kouroi 3 days ago
It does seem like there's a creeping idea, not just on dissident internet sites now like before, that the Russian rivalry is a luxury of the past. Even the liberals are going to have to reconcile with liberal hegemony not being workable and settle for something less. Owing to distance and mutual interest (common rivals Britain and Germany) Russia and America had a long history of friendship before the Cold war.

I sadly agree about the predatory nature of much of America does. I think it really is a reflection of partially, imperial arrogance, but even moreso a matter of who runs the country. Oligarchy is poorly checked in modern America. Maybe we can hope for a humbled oligarchy, at least.

DUNK Buhari2 2 days ago
Trump is indeed an empty suit and a demagogue, but he ran on a decent nationalist platform (probably thanks to Bannon, who is almost certainly a closeted gay. No joke... a deep-in-the-closet, self-hating gay. The navy can change a man, and he's a fraud in other ways: see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade"). Trump does have an absurd ego, and he probably figured becoming president would impress Ivanka too.

Also, the Uyghurs are not totally innocent victims... Some of them are US-financed revolutionaries and some of them have committed terrorism: see Godfree Roberts at Unz Review: "China and the Uyghurs" (January 10, 2019) and Ajit Singh at The Grayzone: "Inside the World Uyghur Congress: The US-backed right-wing regime change network seeking the 'fall of China'" (March 5, 2020). Some of our pathetic propagandists make it seem like they're in concentration camps, but there is objective reporting that suggests it's more like job training programs and anti-jihad classes. Absurd lies have certainly been told about North Korea and many other countries, so be skeptical.

kirthigdon 3 days ago
Yeah, let's get that hate on for China - why they're as bad as Russia, Iran and Venezuela put together and there are so many more of them. Especially a lot are available right here in the US and have lots of restaurants that can be boycotted. Not that many Venezuelan restaurants around. Seriously, can Americans get over this childishness? When the US closes down its 800+ overseas bases and withdraws its fleet to its own shores instead of Iran's and China's, then maybe Americans will be entitled to complain about someone else's imperialism.
Collin Reid 3 days ago
Most of anti-China stuff Hawley, much like Trump, claims always feels empty populism for WWC voters.

1) It is reasonable to be against our Middle East endeavors and not be so anti-China.
2) I still don't understand how it is China fault for stealing manufacturing jobs when it is the US private sector that does it. (And Vietnam exist, etc.) So without Charles Koch and Tim Cook behind this trade stuff, it feels like empty populism.
3) The most obvious point on China to me is how little they do use military measures for their 'imperialism.'

One problem with all this populism emptiness, is there is a lot issues with China to work on:
1) This virus could have impact economies in Africa and South America a lot where the nations have to renegotiate their loans to China. I have no idea how this goes but there will be tensions here. Imperialism is tough in the long run.
2) There are nations banding together on China's reaction to the virus and it seems reasonable that US joining them would be more effective than Trump's taunting.
3) To prove Trump administration incompetence, I have no idea how he is not turning this crisis into more medical equipment and drugs manufacturing. (My guess is this both takes a lot of work and frankly a lot of manufacturing plants have risks of spreads so noone wants to invest.)

Feral Finster Collin Reid 3 days ago
Apparently it is now a form of aggression, imperialism, even, to work for lower wages than a comparable American worker.

I can understand some protectionist measures. But acting as if these measures were a response to an unprovoked attack is hyperventilating.

DUNK Collin Reid 2 days ago
Hawley is a "fake populist" according to Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade" and I just saw fake-patriot airhead Pete Hegseth claim China wants to destroy our civilization, on fake populist Tucker Carlson's show. It's well-established that Fox News and the GOP are still neocons and fake patriots... after all, the Trump administration is run by Jared Kushner, a protégé of Rupert Murdoch and Bibi Netanyahu.
dbjm 3 days ago
Hawley's speech on the Senate floor yesterday deserves much more criticism than it gets here. This article from Reason does a good job breaking down the speech and pointing out what's right AND wrong about it:

https://reason.com/2020/05/...

Collin Reid Kessler 2 days ago
What if there is reduced wars and civil wars n the world today than ever. (So say anytime before 1991?) I get all the Middle East & African Wars but look at the rest of the world. When in history have the major West Europe powers not had a major war in 75 years. After issues of post Cold War East Europe is probably more peaceful than ever. Look at South America. In the 1970s the Civil Wars raged in all those nations. Or the Pacific Rim? Japan, China, and other nations are fighting with Military right now.

This is certainly less than perfect but the number of people (per million) dieing in wars and civil wars are at historic lows.

kouroi Collin Reid 2 days ago
The fall of Soviet Union and weakening of Russia allowed US and Western Europe to attack Serbia in 1990s. A stronger Russia wouldn't have allowed that to happen (who's trying to get Crimea from Russia's control now?). But with US aggressiveness and bellicosity (including nuclear posture) at Russia's borders do not bode well.

But it is true, less important people are dying now...

chris chuba 3 days ago
Chinese imperialism? Uh ... other than shaking trees and drumming up fear can I get like one example of that.

Taiwan, part of China since the 1500's and they are have not issued any new threats since 1949.

Hong Kong - stolen from China and now reluctantly given back with lots of conditions. If they deserve the right of independence through referendum I'm all for it as long as we apply this standard uniformly including parts of Texas, San Diego, New Mexico, Arizona, any place that has a large foreign population will do.

DUNK chris chuba 2 days ago
Yeah, "Chinese imperialism" is complete nonsense, just like the claim that they definitely originated the coronavirus, caused Americans to be under house arrest, and caused a depression. In fact, the origin of the virus is far from clear, and it wasn't China who hyped up and exaggerated the danger and wrecked the economy. It was our superficial corporate media and government that did that (perhaps deliberately)... the same people who are desperately trying to deflect blame onto the CCP. The same people who have been mismanaging and ruining America for decades in order to enrich themselves.
Gregtown 3 days ago
Should we all start reading Chomsky books again?

"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless."

Sidney Caesar Gregtown 3 days ago • edited
Most people would be well served to read Chomsky a first time.
However, it should be noted, Chomsky's critiques of neoliberalism aren't grounded in nationalism, xenophobia, and racism. So a lot of TAC readers (and especially writers) may be disappointed.
Gregtown Sidney Caesar 3 days ago
Ha...sadly true.

I just pulled On Anarchism off my bookshelf. Time to revisit my early 20's.

Tradcon 3 days ago
Hawley seems like the natural choice for the potential future of the GOP, that is a post-fusionist or post-liberal GOP. However the one thing that worries me is his foreign policy. He talks the talk, but I'm having trouble to see if he walks the walk. As Mills noted he didn't vote to end support for the genocidal war in Yemen, a war that serves purely the interests of Saudi Arabia and not our own. He has criticized David Petraeus before, but its important not to be fooled by just rhetoric. While accepting he'll be better than any Tom Cotton or (god forbid) Nikki Haley in 2024, his foreign policy needs to be examined more until then.
stevek9 3 days ago
Our response to the epidemic was 100% 'made in China'. The entire 'Western World' decided to copy Beijing. If that doesn't establish a new level of leadership for China, I don't know what would. I'm surprised this is not more widely recognized. You can run down the many parallels, including the pathetic photo-op attempt by the West to build those emergency hospitals (Nightingale in the UK, Javits Center, etc. all across the US), which were just to show 'hey we can build hospitals in a few weeks also' ... never mind they could never, and were never used for anything at all.
Kiyoshi01 3 days ago
At this point, Hawley is all talk. Further, much of his talking amounts to little more than expressing resentment. I agree that the US needs to follow a more nationalist pathway, which involved making itself less dependent on its chief geopolitical rival. But accomplishing this is going to require more than bashing China and asserting that cosmopolitan Americans are traitors. At this point, Hawley has no positive program to offer. Giving paid speeches that vilify coastal elites and China is not a political plan.

Further, I agree that we're probably moving away from the universalist order that's guided much of our thinking since the 1990s. But isolationism is not the answer. We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account of China's rise as a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?

Lastly, I find the article's reference to China's treatment of gays and lesbians to be curious. I'd first note that using the term "homosexual" in reference to people is generally viewed as an offensive slur. Further, China's treatment of gay people isn't so bad, and tends to be better than what Hawley's evangelical supporters would afford. Moreover, China is a multi-ethnic country. It's program in Xinjiang has more to do with maintaining political order than a desire to repress non-Han people.

MPC Kiyoshi01 2 days ago
The general chest puffing nature of the American right makes it hard for them to understand that America might need to work with other countries at a deep level, and not as vassals either.
DUNK MPC 2 days ago
It doesn't seem like they're able to understand anything, or learn anything.
Barry_II Kiyoshi01 11 hours ago
". We need to begin building a multilateral order that takes full account
of China's rise as a worthy rival. This means that we need to develop a
series of smaller-scale agreements with strategic partners. The TPP is a
good example of such an agreement. But where is the call to revive it?"

The thing is that the post-WWII liberal international order was good for things like that.
Trump and the GOP quite deliberately destroyed it. Before that, the US would have the trust of many other governments; now they don't trust the US - even if Biden is elected, the next Trump is on the way.

KevinS 3 days ago • edited
"We benefit if countries that share our opposition to Chinese imperialism -- countries like India and Japan, Vietnam, Australia and Taiwan -- are economically independent of China, and standing shoulder to shoulder with us,"

OK....then can someone explain why Hawley opposed the TPP, which was designed to accomplish just this. The TPP was supposed to create trading relationships between these countries and the United States in the context of an agreement that excluded China. In this instance people like Hawley were advancing China's position and interests (I suspect simply because it was a treaty negotiated under Obama, which apparently was enough to make it bad).

Kiyoshi01 KevinS 3 days ago
Probably because Hawley seems more interested in demagoguery than accomplishing anything productive. Never mind that 95% of the people who voted for him probably couldn't find Japan or Vietnam on a map.
kouroi KevinS 2 days ago
TPP was not geared against China as a blanket thing, as an entire exclusion of China. The perfidy of TPP was that it was against any economic interactions with State Owned Enterprises (didn't mention the origin, didn't have to). The ultimate goal wasn't to isolate China but to force privatization of said SOEs, preferably run from Wall Street.

Private property good and = Democracy; State property bad = Authoritarianism, dictatorship, etc. It is a fallacy here somewhere, cannot really put my finger on it...

calidus 3 days ago
Except this is all lies. On each chance to actually do something Hawley has sided with international corporations, as a good conservative will always do. Fixing globalism will never come form the right, this is all smoke and mirrors for the religious right, aka the rubes. And they are perpetual suckers and will keep buying into this crap as our nation is hollowed out and raided by the rich. And that, is TRUE conservatism.
TheSnark 3 days ago
"Now we must recognize that the economic system designed by Western policy makers at the end of the Cold War does not serve our purposes in this new era," proclaimed Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri. "And it does not meet our needs for this new day." He continued, perhaps too politely: "And we should admit that multiple of its founding premises were in error."

The "error" in the founding premises of the post-WWII economic system was that it assumed that the US would act in a responsible manner. Instead we have run huge budget deficits and borrowed the difference from foreigners, randomly invading other countries, undermined the institutions we set up, bullied smaller countries rather than working with them, and abused our control of the financial system.

No, that old economic system served our interests very well, as long as we respected the institutions we set up and kept our own house in order. We haven't been doing any of that for at least 20 years.

Kiyoshi01 Amicus Brevis 2 days ago
Let's bear in mind that the Republican leader of the Senate married into a wealthy Chinese family that makes its money from hauling Chinese exports to our shores and the shores of other developed nations.

This is all just hollow bravado meant to appeal to the right's nativist base.

Amicus Brevis Kiyoshi01 2 days ago • edited
I am not into the thinking that everyone whose politics I don't support is acting in bad faith. We are talking about the actions of literally millions of people. Accusing this or that person of acting in bad faith because of personal interest is just dirty politics dressed up as perceptiveness. I am not accusing any specific person of acting in bad faith, although some of the people who pushed opening up to China because more business in China would create a class of people who would eventually push for Democracy there, were indeed acting in bad faith. They wanted access to cheap labor with no rights.

Yet, no doubt many of them actually believed the propaganda, because it supposedly happened in South Korea, Taiwan and other places. And especially the ones who switched the line to "globalism" when it was clear that the supposed indigenous pressures for Democracy did not materialize also acted in bad faith. I only assume that some of were because once I understood the rationale of the CCCP it was clear to me that China was radically different, and there is no way that so many of those guys who are smarter and more knowledgeable about political systems than me, did not figure it out. But I am not going to behave as if it the Republicans alone who were pushing either of these two false messages.

phreethink 2 days ago
Criticizing China for "imperialism" is the height of hypocrisy on multiple levels. First, the United States has engaged in economic imperialism, sometimes enforced with military intervention, for a hundred years. Read Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" if you doubt that. Second, this is the same guy who voted against our proxy war in Yemen. Third, one could very reasonably argue that China is simply applying the lessons it learned at the hands of Western imperialists since 1800s..

It's good that SOME Republicans are at least giving lip service to the idea of bringing back manufacturing in this country. But you have to thank Trump for that, not the GOP establishment. The offshoring of American manufacturing as part of "free trade" was strongly supported (if not led) by the GOP going back to the 1980s.

DUNK phreethink 2 days ago
And check out John Perkins's books ("Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", etc.) for up-to-date information. It's obviously true that criticizing China for "imperialism" is ridiculously hypocritical but people like Senator Hawley know they can get away with it because they understand how propaganda works on the dumbed-down masses.

They understand doublethink, repetition, appeal to patriotism, appeal to racism, appeal to fear, etc. People like Rupert Murdoch do this every day... poorly, but well enough to be effective on a lot of people.

Incidentally, the Republicans may talk about bringing manufacturing back to the US but they're actually planning on shifting it to India (see Eric Striker's article "International Finance's Anti-China Crusade").

[May 24, 2020] As its own infrastructure has been laid waste by the COLLASSAL MONEY PIT that is the Pentagon, its flagrant use of the most valuable energy commodity, oil, to maintain some 4000 bases worldwide, this rickety over-extended upside down version of old Anglo-Dutch trading empires, will finally collapse

Kissinger laid out the transition plan in 2014 in his WSJ Op-Ed: Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order . USA Deep State are not the complete idiots that some want to make them seem.
China is still very vulnerable and the USA has multiple levers to force it to suffer.
May 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Kurt Zumdieck , May 22 2020 18:24 utc | 4
If Washington lured the Soviet Union into it's demise in Afghanistan, which left that minor empire in shambles - socially, militarily, economically - it was the nuclear conflagration at Chernobyl that put the corpse in the ground.....

(Watch the GREAT HBO five-part tragedy on it and you will see that the brutally heroic response of the Soviets, that saved the Western World at least temporarily, but is the portrait of self-sacrifice)

What was lost in the Soviets fumbling immediate post-explosion cover-up was the trust of their Eastern European satellite countries. That doomed that empire. So much military might was given up in Afghanistan, then on Chernobyl, it was not clear if the Soviets had the wherewithal to put down the rebellions that spread from Czechoslovakia to East Germany and beyond.

Covid-19 will do the same to the American Empire.

As its own infrastructure has been laid waste by the COLLASSAL MONEY PIT that is the Pentagon, its flagrant use of the most valuable energy commodity, oil, to maintain some 4000 bases worldwide, this rickety over-extended upside down version of old Anglo-Dutch trading empires, will finally collapse.

Loss of trust by the many craven satellites, in America's fractured response, to Covid-19 will put the final nail in its coffin.

A hot-shooting War may come next, but the empire cannot win it.


William Gruff , May 23 2020 14:25 utc | 79

"I will believe my eyes." --oldhippie @76

It would be nice if that were so, but it is very unlikely.

"So tired of reading propaganda."

Is that why you regurgitate it onto forums? Kinda like purging the system, eh?

If you are going to be judging China's economic health by their pollution levels then in the future you will find yourself convinced that they have never recovered, even when it becomes inescapably obvious that they have. The fact is that China's pollution levels are never going back to 2019 levels, but that has nothing to do with their economic health.

It really never ceases to amaze me how deeply rooted and pervasive the delusions and sense of exceptionality is in America. It is woven into the thinking, from the lowest levels to the very top of their thoughts, of even the very most intelligent Americans. It is apparently a phenomenon that operates at an even deeper level than mass media brainwashing, as it seems it was just as much a problem in every empire in history. That is, I am sure citizens of the Roman Empire had the same blinding biases embedded deep below their consciousness. I guess Marx was entirely correct to say that consciousness arises from material conditions, and being citizen of an empire must be one of those material conditions that gives rise to this all-pervasive and unconscious sense of exceptionality.

oldhippie , May 23 2020 11:47 utc | 71
Go over to EOSDIS Worldview and take a look at satellite photos of China. Simple toggle in lower left hand corner will take you to photos of same day, earlier years. Or any day in satellite record.

The skies over China are clear. Chinese industry is not back at work. It may be that China at 50% or even at 20% is a manufacturing powerhouse compared to a crumbling US. But until China is back at work the thread so far is about the historical situation six months ago.

Xi used to do elaborately staged state appearances with well planned camera angles, fabulous lighting, pomp and circumstance. He enjoyed the trappings of power and knew how to use the trappings of power. Hasn't done that kind of state appearance since January.

Paul , May 23 2020 12:47 utc | 72
The Empire has no respect for international agreements, laws or anything that interferes with maintaining US global hegemony.
lizzie dw , May 23 2020 12:55 utc | 73
China and the US are so different. The citizens of China cannot vote. The population's movements are micromanaged by the government. This is not the case here (yet). And I hope it is never the case. I agree with the premise that there are those in our government who are living in a dream of the past and that is over, unless we want to destroy the world. But China's government is so repressive. The rules must be obeyed. We seem to be compliant so far of some of our government officials stepping over the bounds allowed by our Constitution, due to the fear of C-19 engendered by the deep state (aka the bsmsm). But we will not do that forever and our government cannot just start shooting big crowds of us as they can and have done in China. Theirs is all top down rule, which is not the case here. Also, although it is probably heretical to say this I am glad that the US has many cases of C-19. We will eventually get herd immunity. IMO, China can lock down as many millions of citizens as they wish; they cannot stop this virus and as time goes by they will have as many deaths and as many cases as everybody else. Well, that is off the topic of the article. In the end I agree that we are fighting weird battles we can never win and we citizens need to keep informing our government employees that we just want to trade and make money, not threaten companies and countries and lose money.

[May 23, 2020] China is still in great danger. Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3

Highly recommended!
May 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , May 22 2020 21:02 utc | 28

China is still in great danger. Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3 (see 6:48).

It is still greatly dependent on the West to development and still is a developing country.

So, yes, the West still has a realistic chance of destroying China and inaugurating a new cycle of capitalist prosperity.

What happens with the "decoupling"/"Pivot to Asia" is that, in the West, there's a scatological theory [go to 10th paragraph] - of Keynesian origin - that socialism can only play "catch up" with capitalism, but never surpass it when a "toyotist phase" of technological innovation comes (this is obviously based on the USSR's case). This theory states that, if there's innovation in socialism, it is residual and by accident, and that only in capitalism is significant technological advancement possible. From this, they posit that, if China is blocked out of Western IP, it will soon "go back to its place" - which is probably to Brazil or India level.

If China will be able to get out of the "Toyotist Trap" that destroyed the USSR, only time will tell. Regardless, decoupling is clearly not working, and China is not showing any signs so far of slowing down. Hence Trump is now embracing a more direct approach.

As for the USA, I've put my big picture opinion about it some days ago, so I won't repeat myself. Here, it suffices to say that, yes, I believe the USA can continue to survive as an empire - even if, worst case scenario, in a "byzantine" form. To its favor, it has: 1) the third largest world population 2) huge territory, with excellent proportion of high-quality arable land (35%), that basically guarantees food security indefinitely (for comparison, the USSR only had 10% of arable land, and of worse quality) 3) two coasts, to the two main Oceans (Pacific and Atlantic), plus a direct exit to the Arctic (Alaska and, de facto, Greenland and Canada) 4) excellent, very defensive territory, protected by both oceans (sea-to-sea), bordered only by two very feeble neighbors (Mexico and Canada) that can be easily absorbed if the situation asks to 4) still the financial superpower 5) still a robust "real" economy - specially if compared to the micro-nations of Western Europe and East-Asia 6) a big fucking Navy, which gives it thalassocratic power.

I don't see the USA losing its territorial integrity anytime soon. There are separatist movements in places like Texas and, more recently, the Western Coast. Most of them exist only for fiscal reasons and are not taken seriously by anyone else. The Star-and-Stripes is still a very strong ideal to the average American, and nobody takes the idea of territory loss for real. If that happens, though, it would change my equation on the survival of the American Empire completely.

As for Hong Kong. I watched a video by the chief of the PLA last year (unfortunately, I watched it on Twitter and don't have the link with me anymore). He was very clear: Hong Kong does not present an existential threat to China. The greatest existential threat to China are, by far, Xinjiang and Tibet, followed by Taiwan and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is a distant fourth place.

Those liberal clowns were never close.

[May 23, 2020] 'Rhetorical hyperbole' and NOT FACT: Court rejects OAN suit over MSNBC host Rachel Maddow's claim about 'Russian propaganda'

Court defined Madcow as professional liar, not a news source
Notable quotes:
"... "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America" ..."
"... "really literally paid Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" ..."
"... "utterly and completely false. ..."
"... "has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," ..."
"... "news and opinions," ..."
"... "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." ..."
May 23, 2020 | www.rt.com
A US judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit by One America News Network against MSNBC over Rachel Maddow's claims that OAN was "literally" Russian propaganda, ruling that her segment was merely "an opinion" and "exaggeration." OAN sued the liberal talk show host and MSNBC for defamation, demanding over $10 million in damages, back in September 2019. The lawsuit was based on the July 22 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, where Maddow launched a scathing broadside against the conservative television network, labeling it "the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America" and "really literally paid Russian propaganda."

In the segment, Maddow cited a story by The Daily Beast's Kevin Poulsen about OAN's Kristian Rouz, who has previously contributed to Sputnik as a freelance author. Toeing the general US mainstream line on the Russian media, be it Sputnik or RT, Poulsen branded the Russian news agency "the Kremlin's official propaganda outlet" and said Rouz was once on its "payroll." Shortly after MSNBC's star talent peddled the claim, OAN rejected the allegations as "utterly and completely false. " The outlet, which is owned by the Herring Networks, a small California-based family company, said that it "has never been paid or received a penny from Russia or the Russian government," with its only funding coming from the Herring family.

In their bid to win the case, Maddow herself, MSNBC, Comcast Corporation and NBCUniversal Media did not address the accusation itself - namely, that her claim about OAN was false - but opted to invoke the First Amendment, insisting that the rant should be protected as free speech.

Siding with Maddow, the California district court defined Maddow's show as a mix of "news and opinions," concluding that the manner in which the progressive host blurted out the accusations "makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact." h

The court said that while Maddow "truthfully" related the story by the Daily Beast, the statement about OAN being funded by the Kremlin was her "opinion" and "exaggeration" of the said article.

While the legal trick helped Maddow to get off the hook without ever trying to defend her initial statement, conservative commentators on social media wasted no time in pointing out that dodging a payout to OAN literally meant admitting that Maddow was not, in fact, news.

[May 22, 2020] No US president who can withdraw the USA from the Forever Wars

Highly recommended!
But may be coronavirus can. Although Perfumed Princes of Pentagon and MIC with it neocon fifth column will fiercely resist.
May 22, 2020 | www.unz.com

Nikolai Vladivostok , says: Website Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 6:21 am GMT

I've long since concluded, there is no president who can withdraw the US from the Forever Wars. Obama couldn't. Trump can't. Biden/Harris/Oprah/Gabbard/Pence won't.

There are a half-dozen permanent US policies that Americans don't get to vote on, and the Permawar is one of them.

Anon [151] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 6:36 am GMT
My God, Buchanan, I am staggered by the arrogance of this column. Where in the name of all that's holy did you ever get the idea that America has the right to impose on anyone, from Afghans through to Venezuelans, your (perceived) systems of thought, values and democracy? How many American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan can even speak the local language? Understand the local customs? None!!! They swan around in their sunglasses and battle gear thinking that they are they return of the Terminator and wander why the locals absolutely hate their collective guts! It's time that you collectively learned that America is NOT the world's sheriff and that, as Benjamin Franklin said "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".
animalogic , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 7:00 am GMT
Pat is not entirely wrong -- he hints at the explanation for failure:
"As imperialists, we Americans are conspicuous failures.

Moreover, with us, the national interest inevitably asserts itself."
As Imperialists there has never been anything but the (Elite) "national interest".
In short, these so called "losing" wars have been wars of aggression -- ie "bad" wars. All Pat's talk of conversion, democracy etc is just so much nonsense.

swamped , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 8:14 am GMT
"While we can defeat our enemies in the air and on the seas and in cyberspace, we cannot persuade them to embrace secular democracy and its values any more than we can convert them to Christianity" although they might be better persuaded to convert to Christianity – traditional Christianity – than to embrace secular democracy and its "values".

Why would anyone want to embrace homosexuality, transgenderism, rad-feminism, opioids, prozac, inequality, broken homes, mass shootings, mountainous debt, corrupt media, puppet politicians & the rest of the filth & perversion that passes for "values" in secular democracies like America or Western Europe?

Indeed, why would anyone in these decadent countries even want to defend these venal "values", let alone try to spread them around the world like the Chinese plague?
No, "they are not trying to change us" but maybe they should.

Donald Duck , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 10:07 am GMT
As the British and French ultimately found out it costs more to run an empire than to loot it. So the long retreat ensues. One would have thought that the Americans might have learned this from history, but no! After all they were "the exceptional people, they stood taller than the others and saw further." Errrm, no they didn't. Like their forbears they got bogged down as well getting into debt which was only bailed out by their insistence that they would not convert the dollar into gold.

Human nature and stupidity has got a long track-record and it isn't going to end anytime soon.

paranoid goy , says: Website Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 12:30 pm GMT
The writer, and most commenters' are still under the erroneous belief that AMerica goes to war in places then AMerica wins or loses or wastes lives or kill children. This is the saddest part of the Yankee war machine: Americans joining the Army because they think theya re joining the fight to defend the American Dream.

You-all are corporate gunmonkeys, fighting and killing and burning and bombing, not in the name of freedom or apple pie, but in the name of Gulf Oil, Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, JPMorgan, Monsanto, PHBBillington, whatever Devil Rumsfeld calls his sack of shit these days .

America has not won any war anywhere, even their civil war was mostly just clearing the land for the banks. That is because it is not America at war, she just supplies the cannon fodder. And cannons. And radiactive scrapmetal to make bullets to mow down women and children in the name of Investor Confidence.
But then, that is what your Zionist bible tells you to do, isn't it?

Realist , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 1:26 pm GMT

What Does Winning Mean in a Forever War?

Winning a war is not in the interest of the Deep State. Being at war makes the Deep State more wealthy and powerful not winning at war.

Realist , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT
@Anon

I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."

If by the US you mean most of the people you may be right. But the people in the US have no say in the actions of the US government which is controlled by psychopaths.

anonymous [400] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 1:49 pm GMT
Afghanistan is hardly even a country as the average American might define one. There's really nothing to "win"; we only occupy. The infrastructure is primitive so it's not cost effective to try to take whatever natural resources they may have, if any, so there's nothing they have that we want. The Taliban were not "ousted". In the face of massive firepower they split up and scattered; they're still there. After all, the US has been negotiating with them for a peace deal of some sort hasn't it? "Democracy crusades" is just a propaganda fig leaf to bamboozle stupid Americans. It's amazing that there's people who actually believe stuff like that but PT Barnum had it right. "Eventually, we give up and go home". That's because they live there and we don't. "They apparently have an inexhaustible supply of volunteers" willing to fight and die. They don't want foreign robo-soldiers pointing guns at them in their own country. We have our own version, it's called "Remember the Alamo", men who stood their ground against the odds.
Amerimutt Golems , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 2:03 pm GMT
@Anon

If a country is not willing to do that, and I would hope the United States is not willing to do that, then they (we) should go home and leave the Afghans to murder each other without our assistance. If they return to supporting terrorism or go whole hog in producing opium, perhaps the US should decapitate their entire government and let the next batch of losers give governing a try. I just don't think the US has the immoral fortitude to engage in genocide, so it's hopeless trying to "win."

The growth in opium cultivation correlates with CIA activities in the area and the $3 billion from American taxpayers which financed Mujahideen 'terrorism' against the Russians and their local proxies just to avenge the fall of Saigon.

In 1980 Afghanistan accounted for about only 5% of total world heroin production. This was mainly for the local market and neighbor Iran.

That is how you get forever wars.

Rurik , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 3:04 pm GMT

They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not ours.

If I may..

another way of looking at this, and I feel a profound respect for the Afghans, and only wish we were made of the same mettle. If only ((they)) could say of us..

They refuse to surrender and submit because it is their beliefs, their values, their faith, their traditions, their tribe, their God, their culture, their civilization, their honor that they believe they are fighting for in what is, after all, their land, not (((ours)))).

They are not trying to change ((((us. We))) are trying to change them. And they wish to remain who they are.

IOW, we white Westerners, have proved willing to surrender and submit to all of it. Without nary a peep of protest. Even as ((they)) send us around the globe to kill people like these Afghans, for being slightly inconvenient to their agenda. [And so the CIA can reconstitute its global heroin trafficking operation$.]

If only history would look back on this epic moment, at the last Death throes of the West, and say of whitey, that he refused to surrender his values and faith and traditions and tribe and God, and culture and civilization and honor.. to ((those)) who would pervert his values, and mock his faith, and trash his traditions, and exterminate his tribe, while mocking his God, and poisoning his culture, and destroying his civilization and all because at the end of the day, he had no honor.

These men may be backwater, illiterate villagers,

but at least they have enough mettle and honor, to tell the Beast that they would rather die killing as many of the Beast's stupid goons as they're able, than ever sacrifice their sacred honor- or lands or sovereignty, or the destinies of their children – over to the fiend, which is more than I can say for Western "man".

They are not trying to change us. We are trying to change them. And they wish to remain who they are.

Would that the Swedish people had a Nano-shred of the blood-honor of an Afghan, Barbara Spectre would be pounding sand.

Historically, the Afghans are fundamentalist, tribal and impervious to foreign intervention.

Obviously, there is a great deal we need to learn from them.

What will the Taliban do when we leave?

They will not give up their dream of again ruling the Afghan nation and people. And they will fight until they have achieved that goal and their idea of victory: dominance.

Um.. Pat. Whose land is it anyways? Is it such a horror that Afghans should be dominant in Afghanistan ?

The Taliban was welcomed into most of the regions it governed, because they drove out local war lords who often treated the villager's children as their sex toys, and the foreign (CIA) opioid growers and traffickers. And it was the Taliban that put an end to all of that. They're harsh, but they're effective, and that is their land, not ours.

Also, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden, if the West could provide a shred of proof that he had anything whatsoever to do with 9/11. (he didn't ; ) But the West had zero proof, (as the FBI admits to this day), that they have zero proof that ties Bin Laden to 9/11.

And n0w that we all know 9/11 was an Israeli false flag, intended to use the American military as their bitch, to burn down 'seven nations in five years' .. that the Jewish supremacists wanted destroyed, our whole pretext for being over there has been a sham from day one. Duh.
.
.
.
.
I remember long ago when I had a subscription to National Geographic and this photo came out, I cut the picture out, and stuck it somewhere to look at- it was so visceral and haunting.

Leave them alone. I don't care how many Jews at the WSJ demand whitey has to stay and die for Israel. (Afghanistan is on Iran's border, and that's why we have to stay, to menace all those anti-Semites over there, trying to gas all the Jews and make soap).

Good on Trump for calling out the ((WSJ)).

follyofwar , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 3:42 pm GMT
@paranoid goy I very much doubt if many are joining the military to "defend the American Dream." Most are more practical and are joining to escape poverty, even if it might cost them their lives. Recruiters will now be inundated with volunteers since there are no jobs in the covid depression.
Exile , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 4:15 pm GMT
If the neo-con clown car Trump has permitted to run foreign policy since his election gets us into a war with Iran and/or Venezuela before November, will Pat still be stumping for him, or will we see the return of non-election-year Pat?
VinnyVette , says: Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 4:46 pm GMT
Excellent question Pat! Unfortunately there is no answer, we've been at "forever war" seemingly forever, and the whole point as Eisenhower so preciently warned us is THE objective.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment May 22, 2020 at 5:36 pm GMT
It's not 'forever war'. It is Empire. Empire exists to continue and expand. War is about win or lose. Empire is about keep and dominate.

US wars are not to win and then depart. It is to keep occupying and controlling.

And US is rich enough to buy off the local elites as collaborators forever.

Marshal Marlow , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 1:56 am GMT
@Anon

If they return to supporting terrorism

The thing is that the Afghan government wasn't supporting terrorism. Rather, it had no on-going control anywhere except the cities, which made the tribal areas useful hideouts / bases for a raft of groups.

I well remember the prelude to the invasion where the US was demanding that its government (which merely happened to be Taliban that year) hand over OBL in 72hrs. The truth was that the US knew Afghanistan didn't have the capability to do that and it merely wanted to use OBL as an excuse to invade and continue the encirclement of the old soviet states.

[May 22, 2020] System Update with Glenn Greenwald - The Murderous History and Deceitful Function of the CIA

May 22, 2020 | www.youtube.com

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity The CIA’s Murderous Practices, Disinformation Campaigns, and Interference in

In the weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community under James Clapper and John Brennan fed morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate investigation.

In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions which, we are now all supposed to forget, Obama largely shared).

As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best.

The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:

Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal celebrities by being hired by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded as news.

Fair Use Excerpt. Read the rest here.


Arthur Davis , 1 day ago

All covered extensively in Killing Hope , U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, by William Blum

Timothy Lee , 22 hours ago

Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this country was supposed to rise above.

Mehdi Hosseini , 1 day ago

When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent any future challenge to it.

Dennis Miller , 1 day ago

let's not forget the Dulles Brothers (CIA & State)

Joe Filter , 1 day ago

Such sad facts. 'Killing Hope' really does describe it.

Cygnus X-321 , 1 day ago

"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird

Jorge Eduardo da Silva Tavares , 1 day ago

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was interviewed by Us Media.

[May 21, 2020] Falsification of history as the major goal of propaganda

May 21, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Howard ,

"History," they say, "is written by the winners." But if you want to get at the fundamental flaw, remove the last three words and you have it: "History is written."

Events cannot be written, they can only be lived.

Just as a sun in a picture cannot give heat or light. The problem is that those who live history seldom speak of it, it's much too traumatic for them.

And those who speak voluminously of it most likely did not live it.

kenny gordon ,

Nice comment, Howard.

When my Father [Royal Artillery] was told to stop fighting against my Father-in-Law [Waffen SS], he was sent off to fight against MOSSAD in Palestine he witnessed the brutal treatment handed out to the "indigenous people" and was very reluctant to talk about his experience.. "By way of deception thou shalt do war"..!

[May 21, 2020] Russophobia in the Age of Donald Trump: The Narrative of Trump's "Collusion" with Russia by Andrei P. Tsygankov

May 21, 2020 | www.oxfordscholarship.com

During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin. 1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate, America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here, infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.

The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul. Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's leadership and high level of domestic support. 4

Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman, referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of Donald Trump." 7

The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country, not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane 'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and retweeted the message. 11

To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call. 12

In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration. It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016 presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March 12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation, announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15

Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms. 17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that of a hawk, including on Russia. 20

Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime." 22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders. Opposition to the "Collusion" Narrative

In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative, libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.

The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to "derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and smear campaigns. 25

Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's "feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75% approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and globalization. 30

Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that, overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine, appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian business with ties to the Kremlin. 34

The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of (p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators -- reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day." 36

However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's "laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40 Explaining Russophobia

The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.

The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of 2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October 2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44

During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.

The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48

Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses. Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a "regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.

Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .' A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White House." 52

In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55

Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93) Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57

There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new "suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.

[May 20, 2020] McGovern Turn Out The Lights, Russiagate Is Over by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
It is not. Forces behind Russiagate are intact and still have the same agenda. CrowdStrike was just a tool. As long as Full Spectrum Dominance dourine is alive, Russiagate will flourish in one form or another
Notable quotes:
"... The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.") ..."
"... Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery. ..."
"... Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"? ..."
"... So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think. ..."
"... There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA. ..."
"... Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel. ..."
"... For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal." ..."
"... By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip." ..."
May 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

Seldom mentioned among the motives behind the persistent drumming on alleged Russian interference was an over-arching need to help the Security State hide their tracks.

The need for a scapegoat to blame for Hillary Clinton's snatching defeat out of the jaws victory also played a role; as did the need for the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT) to keep front and center in the minds of Americans the alleged multifaceted threat coming from an "aggressive" Russia. (Recall that John McCain called the, now disproven , "Russian hacking" of the DNC emails an "act of war.")

But that was then. This is now.

Though the corporate media is trying to bury it, the Russiagate narrative has in the past few weeks finally collapsed with the revelation that CrowdStrike had no evidence Russia took anything from the DNC servers and that the FBI set a perjury trap for Gen. Michael Flynn. There was already the previous government finding that there was no collusion between Trump and Russia and the indictment of a Russian troll farm that supposedly was destroying American democracy with $100,000 in Facebook ads was dropped after the St. Petersburg defendants sought discovery.

All that's left is to discover how this all happened.

Attorney General William Barr, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr commissioned to investigate this whole sordid mess seem intent on getting to the bottom of it. The possibility that Trump will not chicken out this time, and rather will challenge the Security State looms large since he felt personally under attack.

Writing on the Wall

Given the diffident attitude the Security State plotters adopted regarding hiding their tracks, Durham's challenge, with subpoena power, is not as formidable as were he, for example, investigating a Mafia family.

Plus, former NSA Director Adm. Michael S. Rogers reportedly is cooperating. The handwriting is on the wall. It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack Obama may have played.

But former directors James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan, captains of Obama's Security State, can take little solace from Barr's remarks Monday to a reporter who asked about Trump's recent claims that top officials of the Obama administration, including the former president had committed crimes. Barr replied:

"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a criminal investigation of either man. Our concerns over potential criminality is focused on others."

In a more ominous vein, Barr gratuitously added that law enforcement and intelligence officials were involved in "a false and utterly baseless Russian collusion narrative against the president. It was a grave injustice, and it was unprecedented in American history."

Meanwhile, the corporate media have all been singing from the same sheet since Trump had the audacity a week ago to coin yet another "-gate" -- this time "Obamagate." Leading the apoplectic reaction in corporate media, Saturday's Washington Post offered a pot-calling-the-kettle-black pronouncement by its editorial board entitled "The absurd cynicism of 'Obamagate"?

The outrage voiced by the Post called to mind disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's indignant response to criticism of the FBI by candidate Trump, in a Oct. 20, 2016 text exchange with FBI attorney Lisa Page:

Strzok: I am riled up. Trump is a f***ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.

Strzok -- I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE F**K HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY

Page -- I don't know. But we'll get it back. We're America. We rock.

Strzok -- Donald just said "bad hombres"

Strzok -- Trump just said what the FBI did is disgraceful.

Less vitriolic, but incisive commentary came from widely respected author and lawyer Glenn Greenwald on May 14, four days after Trump coined "Obamagate": ( See "System Update with Glenn Greenwald -- The Sham Prosecution of Michael Flynn").

For a shorter, equally instructive video of Greenwald on the broader issue of Russia-gate, see this clip from a March 2019 Democracy Now! -sponsored debate he had with David Cay Johnston titled, "As Mueller Finds No Collusion, Did Press Overhype Russiagate? Glenn Greenwald vs. David Cay Johnston":

https://www.youtube.com/embed/qdYw6jk3TTA

(The entire debate is worth listening to). I found one of the comments below the Democracy Now! video as big as a bummer as the commentator did:

"I think this is one of the most depressing parts about the whole situation. In their dogmatic pushing for this false narrative, the Russiagaters might have guaranteed Trump a second term. They have done more damage to our democracy than Russia ever has done and will do ." (From "Clamity2007")

In any case, Johnston, undaunted by his embarrassment at the hands of Greenwald, is still at it, and so is the avuncular Frank Rich -- both of them some 20 years older than Greenwald and set in their evidence-impoverished, media-indoctrinated ways.

... ... ...


Uncle Frank, 40 seconds ago

So if we dug in and found large payments from George Soros or Mrs Clinton to these 'journalists', what crime could they be accused of? No crimes, I don't think.

But when journalists are revealed to be issuing paid-for propaganda/lies mixed with their own internal opinions, and their publisher allows it to be presented as if it were reporting rather than opinion, said writers, editors, and publishers are relegated to obscurity and derision.

Their work will never be taken seriously again by anyone who wasn't already brain-washed.

They don't get that, I guess.

QABubba, 47 minutes ago (Edited)

There never was anything to Russiagate. It was always just politics. I knew that from the beginning. There was, however, a lot of something to the torture scandal. Obama said "We are not going to look back." And now Gina Haspel, one of the chief torturers, partly responsible for destroying the torture tapes, despite a court order to preserve them, is now head of the CIA.

General Flynn was so involved with Turkey he should have been registered as a foreign agent.

And as I have said before, the real crime was laundering Russian Mafia/Heroin money through Deutsche Bank into New York real estate. It is curious that Turkey is also a huge transport spot for heroin into the EU. And France and other EU nations have a migrant population that lives off the drug trade.

Drain the Swamp my ***. He's started by firing all the IG's? Trump "looking back," not forward. He could start by investigating Gina Haspel.

1911A1, 55 minutes ago

Operation Mockingbird

The MSM disinformation campaign with consistent common talking points is not difficult to see with a little discernment. The bigger question is has this happened organically or is there a larger agency manipulating the public discourse?

Question_Mark, 43 minutes ago

4AM secure drop from Senior Executive Services ( SES ) is a threat to our democracy.

Our greatest responsibility is to serve our [insert name of community here] community.

1surrounded2, 1 hour ago

" It remains to be seen what kind of role in the scandal Barack Obama may have played. "

Come on, Ray, I know you are not that stupid, but you ARE that libtarded.

Obama's very obvious role in all of this: KINGPIN .

Moribundus, 3 hours ago

Amazon.com The American Mission and the 'Evil Empire' The Crusade for a Free Russia Since 1881 (8580000721935) Foglesong,

"By 1905," Foglesong stated, "this fundamental reorientation of American views of Russia had set up a historical pattern in which missionary zeal and messianic euphoria would be followed by disenchantment and embittered denunciation of Russia's evil and oppressive rulers." The first cycle, according to Foglesong, culminated in 1905, when the October Manifesto, perceived initially by Americans as a transformation to democracy, gave way to a violent socialist revolt. Foglesong observed similar cycles of euphoria to despair during the collapse of the tsarist government in 1917, during the partial religious revival of World War II, and during the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s

Crucial to Foglesong's analysis was how these cycles coincided with a contemporaneous need to deflect attention away from America's own blemishes and enhance America's claim to its global mission.

For example, Foglesong argued that "a vital factor in the revival of the crusade in the 1970s was the need to expunge doubts about American virtue instilled by the Vietnam War, revelations about CIA covert actions, and the Watergate scandal."

By tracing American representations of Russia over the last 130 years, Foglesong illuminated three of the strongest notions that have informed American attitudes toward Russia: (1) a messianic faith that America could inspire sweeping overnight transformation from autocracy to democracy; (2) a notion that despite historic differences, Russia and America are very much akin, so that Russia, more than any other country, is America's "dark double;" (3) an extreme antipathy to "evil" leaders who Americans blame for thwarting what they believe to be the natural triumph of the American mission. These expectations and emotions continue to effect how American journalists and politicians write and talk about Russia. "My hope," Foglesong concluded, "is that by seeing how these attitudes have distorted American views of Russia for more than a century, we may begin to be able to escape their grip."

Moribundus, 3 hours ago

America's imperialism rules: Never to admit a fault or wrong; never to accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time; blame that enemy for everything that goes wrong; take advantage of every opportunity to raise a political whirlwind.

Kidbuck, 5 hours ago

Trump hasn't engaged in a fight in his life. He's a sissy at heart wants to negotiate. He can't even do that right. He's caved on nearly every campaign promise he made. The only thing his administration fights for is their salary and their retirement. Hillary still waddles free and farts in his general direction.

ChaoKrungThep, 4 hours ago

Trump the Mafia punk, like his dad, and draft dodger like his German grand dad. Barr, old CIA asset from the Clinton-Mena coke smuggling op. This crappy crew is running their masters' game in front of the redneck rabble who are dumber than their mutts.

Save_America1st, 9 hours ago

Geez...how far behind can most of these assholes be after all these years????

For one...there was no "Russia-gate". It was all a hoax from the beginning, and anyone with a few functioning brain cells knew that from the start.

And as of about 3 years ago we have all known this as "Obamagate" for the most part...we all knew the corruption of the hoax totally led up to O-Scumbag.

And now as of the recent disclosures it is a total fact.

Haven't most of you been watching Dan Bongino for over 2 years now and haven't you read his books? Haven't you been reading Sarah Carter and John Soloman among others for nearly 3 years now???

Surely, you haven't been just sitting around sucking leftist media **** for over 3 years, right???????? I'm sure you haven't.

So why is this article even necessary on ZeroHedge?????

We already knew and have known the truth since before even the 2016 election. Drop it.

Posa, 9 hours ago

So funny. The 85 Year old "American century' is palpably disintegrating before our very eyes. In particular the Deep State permanent bureaucracy is completely untethered and facing what seems to be a Great Reckoning in the form of Barr- Durham. Cognitve Derangement prevails in the press and spills overto the body politic. The country teeters a slo-mo Civil War. Meanwhile, The dollar is disintegrating and we seem to face an economic abyss, the Terminal Depression. Real "last Days of Rome" stuff.

BaNNeD oN THe RuN, 5 hours ago (Edited)

The Israeli dual citizens like Adelson and Mercer bought the Presidency.

Mossad was the organization handling the mole Seth Rich.

Blaming Russia also worked for those 2 groups because it deflected attention away from (((them))).

Ray McGovern, being ex-intel, must know this to be true.

LetThemEatRand, 11 hours ago

Russiagate. The supposed target of said coup d'etat just Presided over the largest bailout of banks ever by a factor of five or more. Trump supporters are asleep for the bailout, Trump haters are asleep for the bailout. Let's fight about transgender bathrooms and Russiagate, shall we?

yojimbo, 8 hours ago

I glance at the MSM, so here is a Guardian article along strongly TDS lines https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/19/will-donald-trump-end-up-in-prison-arwa-mahdawi

It's projection again, implying Obama gate is fake, like Russiagate actually was.. Tough to even want to get through!

[May 20, 2020] MadCow in action

May 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

xxx 10 hours ago

Russia, Russia, Russia !!!!!!!!!!

Russia, Russia, Russia !!!!!!!!!!

Russia, Russia, Russia !!!!!!!!!!

Take Breath........

Russia, Russia, Russia !!!!!!!!!!!

xxx 10 hours ago

something is rotten in the Dutch kingdom.

usually fish rots from the head.

[May 20, 2020] Russiagate skunk Evelyn Farkas is emotionally exhausted by correct claims that she blatantly lied to Mika Brzezinski

Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
May 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.

There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day, Russian " disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.

We assume Zero Hedge is included in said ' disinformation clearinghouses ' Farkas fails to expound on.

She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."

No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'


MrAToZ, 1 minute ago

What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?

Kurpak, 27 seconds ago

Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...

It makes you look ******* insane.

iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)

(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals."

... ... ...

otschelnik, 35 minutes ago

Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.

[May 20, 2020] But if the Russians were coming, really, wouldn't most Americans rush to Putin's assistance? And wouldn't that make America a vastly better place?

May 20, 2020 | www.unz.com

Parfois1 , says: Show Comment May 9, 2020 at 2:12 am GMT

@Ann Nonny Mouse

But if the Russians were coming, really, wouldn't most Americans rush to Putin's assistance? And wouldn't that make America a vastly better place?

Not unique either! The Russians did that in the X Century when, as tradition and legend has it, they invited the Varangians (Vikings) to come to rule over them because the squabbling parties (presumably the local variety of Reps and Dems) made the place (Kiev-Rus) ungovernable. About time they (the Russians) return the favour!

[May 19, 2020] Russophobia in the Age of Donald Trump

Highly recommended!
Russiaphobia as a pathological reaction on the deep crisis of neoliberalism
Notable quotes:
"... The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor threatening to destroy the United States' political system. ..."
"... Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response to US policies. ..."
"... Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on "cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit "information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability." 69 ..."
"... Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media, information, and cyber power. ..."
May 19, 2020 | www.oxfordscholarship.com
Chapter:
(p.81) 5 Russophobia in the Age of Donald Trump
Source:
The Dark Double
Author(s):
Andrei P. Tsygankov
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190919337.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords

The chapter extends the argument about media and value conflict between Russia and the United States to the age of Donald Trump. The new value conflict is assessed as especially acute and exacerbated by the US partisan divide. The Russia issue became central because it reflected both political partisanship and the growing value division between Trump voters and the liberal establishment. In addition to explaining the new wave of American Russophobia, the chapter analyzes Russia's own role and motives. The media are likely to continue the ideological and largely negative coverage of Russia, especially if Washington and Moscow fail to develop a pragmatic form of cooperation.

Keywords: Russia, Trump, US elections, narrative of collusion, partisan divide

This chapter addresses the new development in the US media perception of the Russian threat following the election of Donald Trump as the United States' president. The election revealed that US national values could no longer be viewed as predominantly liberal and favoring the global promotion of democracy, as supported by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. During and after the election, the liberal media sought to present Moscow as not only favoring Trump but being responsible for his election and even ruling on behalf of the Kremlin. Those committed to a liberal worldview led the way in criticizing Russia and Putin for assaulting liberal democratic values globally and inside the United States. This chapter argues that the Russia issue became so central in the new internal divide because it reflects both political partisanship and the growing division between the values of Trump voters and those of the liberal establishment. The domestic political struggle has exacerbated the divide. Russia's otherness, again, has highlighted values of "freedom," seeking to preserve the confidence of the liberal self. (p.82)

The Narrative of Trump's "Collusion" with Russia

During the US presidential election campaign, American media developed yet another perception of Russia as reflected in the narrative of Trump's collusion with the Kremlin. 1 Having originated in liberal media and building on the previous perceptions of neo-Soviet autocracy and foreign threat, the new perception of Russia was that of the enemy that won the war against the United States. By electing the Kremlin's favored candidate, America was defeated by Russia. As a CNN columnist wrote, "The Russians really are here, infiltrating every corner of the country, with the single goal of disrupting the American way of life." 2 The two assumptions behind the new media narrative were that Putin was an enemy and that Trump was compromised by Putin. The inevitable conclusion was that Trump could not be a patriot and potentially was a traitor prepared to act against US interests.

The new narrative was assisted by the fact that Trump presented a radically different perspective on Russia than Clinton and the US establishment. The American political class had been in agreement that Russia displayed an aggressive foreign policy seeking to destroy the US-centered international order. Influential politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, commonly referred to Russian president Putin as an extremely dangerous KGB spy with no soul. Instead, Trump saw Russia's international interests as not fundamentally different from America's. He advocated that the United States to find a way to align its policies and priorities in defeating terrorism in the Middle East -- a goal that Russia shared -- with the Kremlin's. Trump promised to form new alliances to "unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism" and to eradicate it "completely from the face of the Earth." 3 He hinted that he was prepared to revisit the thorny issues of Western sanctions against (p.83) the Russian economy and the recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. Trump never commented on Russia's political system but expressed his admiration for Putin's leadership and high level of domestic support. 4

Capitalizing on the difference between Trump's views and those of the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, the liberal media referred to Trump as the Kremlin-compromised candidate. Commentators and columnists with the New York Times , such as Paul Krugman, referred to Trump as the "Siberian" candidate. 5 Commentators and pundits, including those with academic and political credentials, developed the theory that the United States was under attack. The former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, wrote in the Washington Post that Russia had attacked "our sovereignty" and continued to "watch us do nothing" because of the partisan divide. He compared the Kremlin's actions with Pearl Harbor or 9/11 and warned that Russia was likely to perform repeat assaults in 2018 and 2020. 6 The historian Timothy Snyder went further, comparing the election of Trump to a loss of war, which Snyder said was the basic aim of the enemy. Writing in the New York Daily News , he asserted, "We no longer need to wonder what it would be like to lose a war on our own territory. We just lost one to Russia, and the consequence was the election of Donald Trump." 7

The election of Trump prompted the liberal media to discuss Russia-related fears. The leading theory was that Trump would now compromise America's interests and rule the country on behalf of Putin. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called for actions against Russia and praised "patriotic" Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham for being tough on Trump. 8 MSNBC host Rachel Maddow asked whether Trump was actually under Putin's control. Citing Trump's views and his associates' travel to Moscow, she told viewers, "We are also starting to see (p.84) what may be signs of continuing [Russian] influence in our country, not just during the campaign but during the administration -- basically, signs of what could be a continuing operation." 9 Another New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, published a column titled "There's a Smell of Treason in the Air," arguing that the FBI's investigation of the Trump presidential campaign's collusion "with a foreign power so as to win an election" was an investigation of whether such collusion "would amount to treason." 10 Responding to Trump's statement that his phone was tapped during the election campaign, the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum tweeted that "Trump's insane 'GCHQ tapped my phone' theory came from . . . Moscow." McFaul and many others then endorsed and retweeted the message. 11

To many within the US media, Trump's lack of interest in promoting global institutions and his publicly expressed doubts that the Kremlin was behind cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) served to exacerbate the problem. Several intelligence leaks to the press and investigations by Congress and the FBI contributed to the image of a president who was not motivated by US interests. The US intelligence report on Russia's alleged hacking of the US electoral system released on January 8, 2017, served to consolidate the image of Russia as an enemy. Leaks to the press have continued throughout Trump's presidency. Someone in the administration informed the press that Trump called Putin to congratulate him on his victory in elections on March 18, 2018, despite Trump's advisers' warning against making such a call. 12

In the meantime, investigations of Trump's alleged "collusion" with Russia were failing to produce substantive evidence. Facts that some associates of Trump sought to meet or met with members of Russia's government did not lead to evidence of sustained contacts or collaboration. It was not proven that the Kremlin's "black dossier" on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer (p.85) Christopher Steele and leaked to CNN was truthful. Russian activity on American social networks such as Facebook and Twitter was not found to be conclusive in determining outcomes of the elections. 13 In February 2018, a year after launching investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian nationals for allegedly interfering in the US 2016 presidential elections, yet their connection to Putin or Trump was not established. On March 12, 2018, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr stated that he had not yet seen any evidence of collusion. 14 Representative Mike Conaway, the Republican leading the Russia investigation, announced the end of the committee's probe of Russian meddling in the election. 15

Trump was also not acting toward Russia in the way the US media expected. His views largely reflected those of the military and national security establishment and disappointed some of his supporters. 16 The US National Security Strategy and new Defense Strategy presented Russia as a leading security threat, alongside China, Iran, and North Korea. The president made it clear that he wanted to engage in tough bargaining with Russia by insisting on American terms. 17 Instead of improving ties with Russia, let alone acting on behalf of the Kremlin, Trump contributed to new crises in bilateral relations that had to do with the two sides' principally different perceptions. While the Kremlin expected Washington to normalize relations, the United States assumed Russia's weakness and expected it to comply with Washington's priorities regarding the Middle East, Ukraine, and Afghanistan and nuclear and cyber issues. 18 Trump also authorized the largest expulsion of Russian diplomats in US history and ordered several missile strikes against Assad's Russia-supported positions in Syria, each time provoking a crisis in relations with Moscow. Even Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, whom Rachel Maddow suspected of being appointed on Putin's advice to "weaken" the State Department and "bleed out" (p.86) the FBI, 19 was replaced by John Bolton. The latter's foreign policy reputation was that of a hawk, including on Russia. 20

Responding to these developments, the media focused on fears of being attacked by the Kremlin and on Trump not doing enough to protect the country. These fears went beyond the alleged cyber interference in the US presidential elections and included infiltration of American media and social networks and attacks on congressional elections and the country's most sensitive infrastructure, such as electric grids, water-processing plants, banking networks, and transportation facilities. In order to prevent such developments, media commentators and editorial writers recommended additional pressures on the Kremlin and counteroffensive operations. 21 One commentator recommended, as the best defense from Russia's plans to interfere with another election in the United States, launching a cyberattack on Russia's own presidential elections in March 2018, to "disrupt the stability of Vladimir Putin's regime." 22 A New York Times editorial summarized the mood by challenging President Trump to confront Russia further: "If Mr. Trump isn't Mr. Putin's lackey, it's past time for him to prove it." 23 The burden of proof was now on Trump's shoulders.

Opposition to the "Collusion" Narrative

In contrast to highly critical views of Russia in the dominant media, conservative, libertarian, and progressive sources offered different assessments. Initially, opposition to the collusion narrative came from the alternative media, yet gradually -- in response to scant evidence of Trump's collusion -- it incorporated voices within the mainstream.

The conservative media did not support the view that Russia "stole" elections and presented Trump as a patriot who wanted to make America great rather than develop "cozy" relationships with (p.87) the Kremlin. Writing in the American Interest , Walter Russell Mead argued that Trump aimed to demonstrate the United States' superiority by capitalizing on its military and technological advantages. He did not sound like a Russian mole. Challenging the liberal media, the author called for "an intellectually solvent and emotionally stable press" and wrote that "if President Trump really is a Putin pawn, his foreign policy will start looking much more like Barack Obama's." 24 Instead of viewing Trump as compromised by the Kremlin, sources such Breitbart and Fox News attributed the blame to the deep state, "the complex of bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats," including the intelligence agencies, that seeks to "derail, or at least to de-legitimize, the Trump presidency" by engaging in accusations and smear campaigns. 25

Echoing Trump's own views, some conservatives expressed their admiration for Putin as a dynamic leader superior to Obama. In particular, they praised Putin for his ability to defend Russia's "traditional values" and great-power status. 26 Neoconservative and paleoconservative publications like the National Review , the Weekly Standard, Human Events Online , and others critiqued Obama's "feckless foreign policy," characterized by "fruitless accommodationism," contrasting it with Putin's skilled and calculative geopolitical "game of chess." 27 A Washington Post / ABC News poll revealed that among Republicans, 75% approved of Trump's approach on Russia relative; 40% of all respondents approved. 28 This did not mean that conservatives and Republicans were "infiltrated" by the Kremlin. Mutual Russian and American conservative influences were limited and nonstructured. 29 The approval of Putin as a leader by American conservatives meant that they shared a certain commonality of ideas and were equally critical of liberal media and globalization. 30

Progressive and libertarian media also did not support the narrative of collusion. Gary Leupp at CounterPunch found the (p.88) narrative to be serving the purpose of reviving and even intensifying "Cold War-era Russophobia," with Russia being an "adversary" "only in that it opposes the expansion of NATO, especially to include Ukraine and Georgia." 31 Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com questioned the narrative by pointing to Russia's bellicose rhetoric in response to Trump's actions. 32 Glenn Greenwald and Zaid Jilani at Intercept reminded readers that, overall, Trump proved to be far more confrontational toward Russia than Obama, thereby endangering America. 33 In particular Trump severed diplomatic ties with Russia, armed Ukraine, appointed anti-Russia hawks, such as ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Secretary of State Michal Pompeo to key foreign policy positions, antagonized Russia's Iranian allies, and imposed tough sanctions against Russian business with ties to the Kremlin. 34

The dominant liberal media ignored opposing perspectives or presented them as compromised by Russia. For instance, in amplifying the view that Putin "stole" the elections, the Washington Post sought to discredit alternative sources of news and commentaries as infiltrated by the Kremlin's propaganda. On November 24, 2016, the newspaper published an interview with the executive director of a new website, PropOrNot, who preferred to remain anonymous, and claimed that the Russian government circulated pro-Trump articles before the election. Without providing evidence on explaining its methodology, the group identified more than two hundred websites that published or echoed Russian propaganda, including WikiLeaks and the Drudge Report , left-wing websites such as CounterPunch, Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig , and Naked Capitalism , as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. 35 Another mainstream liberal outlet, CNN, warned the American people to be vigilant against the Kremlin's alleged efforts to spread propaganda: "Enormous numbers of (p.89) Americans are not only failing to fight back, they are also unwitting collaborators -- reading, retweeting, sharing and reacting to Russian propaganda and provocations every day." 36

However, voices of dissent were now heard even in the mainstream media. Masha Gessen of the New Yorker said that Trump's tweet about Robert Mueller's indictments and Moscow's "laughing its ass off" was "unusually (perhaps accidentally) accurate." 37 She pointed out that Russians of all ideological convictions "are remarkably united in finding the American obsession with Russian meddling to be ridiculous." 38 The editor of the influential Politico , Blake Hounshell, confessed that he was a Russiagate skeptic because even though "Trump was all too happy to collude with Putin," Mueller's team never found a "smoking gun." 39 In reviewing the book on Russia's role in the 2016 election Russian Roulette , veteran New York Times reporter Steven Lee Myers noted that the Kremlin's meddling "simply exploited the vulgarity already plaguing American political campaigns" and that the veracity of many accusations remained unclear. 40

Explaining Russophobia

The high-intensity Russophobia within the American media, overblown even by the standards of previous threat narratives, could no longer be explained by differences in national values or by bilateral tensions. The new fear of Russia also reflected domestic political polarization and growing national unease over America's identity and future direction.

The narrative of collusion in the media was symptomatic of America's declining confidence in its own values. Until the intervention in Iraq in 2004, optimism and a sense of confidence prevailed in American social attitudes, having survived even the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The (p.90) country's economy was growing and its position in the world was not challenged. However, the disastrous war in Iraq, the global financial crisis of 2008, and Russia's intervention in Georgia in August 2008 changed that. US leadership could no longer inspire the same respect, and a growing number of countries viewed it as a threat to world peace. 41 Internally, the United States was increasingly divided. Following presidential elections in November 2016, 77% of Americans perceived their country as "greatly divided on the most important values." 42 The value divide had been expressed in partisanship and political polarization long before the 2016 presidential elections. 43 The Russia issue deepened this divide. According to a poll taken in October 2017, 63% of Democrats, but just 38% of Republicans, viewed "Russia's power and influence" as a major threat to the well-being of the United States. 44

During the US 2016 presidential elections, Russia emerged as a convenient way to accentuate differences between Democratic and Republican candidates, which in previous elections were never as pronounced or defining. The new elections deepened the partisan divide because of extreme differences between the two main candidates, particularly on Russia. Donald Trump positioned himself as a radical populist promising to transform US foreign policy and "drain the swamp" in Washington. His position on Russia seemed unusual because, by election time, the Kremlin had challenged the United States' position in the world by annexing Crimea, supporting Ukrainian separatism, and possibly hacking the DNC site.

The Russian issue assisted Clinton in stressing her differences from Trump. Soon after it became known that DNC servers were hacked, she embraced the view that Russia was behind the cyberattacks. She accused Russia of "trying to wreak havoc" in the United States and threatened retaliation. 45 In his turn, Trump used Russia to challenge Clinton's commitment to national security (p.91) and ability to serve as commander in chief. In particular, he drew public attention to the FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private server for professional correspondence, and even noted sarcastically that the Russians should find thirty thousand missing emails belonging to her. The latter was interpreted by many in liberal media and political circles as a sign of Trump's being unpatriotic. 46 Clinton capitalized on this interpretation. She referred to the issue of hacking as the most important one throughout the campaign and challenged Trump to agree with assessments of intelligence agencies that cyberattacks were ordered by the Kremlin. She questioned Trump's commitments to US national security and accused him of being a "puppet" for President Putin. 47 Following Trump's victory, Clinton told donors that her loss should be partly attributed to Putin and the election hacks directed by him. 48

Clinton's arguments fitted with the overall narrative embraced by the mainstream media since roughly 2005 characterizing Russia as abusive and aggressive. Clinton viewed Russia as an oppressive autocratic power that was aggressive abroad to compensate for domestic weaknesses. Previously, in her book Hard Choices , then-secretary of state Clinton described Putin as "thin-skinned and autocratic, resenting criticism and eventually cracking down on dissent and debate." 49 This view was shared by President Obama, who publicly referred to Russia as a "regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength but out of weakness." 50 During the election's campaign, Clinton argued that the United States should challenge Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria with the objective of removing Assad from power, strengthening sanctions against the Russian economy, and providing lethal weapons to Ukraine in order to contain the potential threat of Russia's military invasion.

Following the elections, the partisan divide deepened, with liberal establishment attacking the "unpatriotic" Trump. Having (p.92) lost the election, Clinton partly attributed Trump's victory to the role of Russia and advocated an investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. In February 2017 the Clinton-influenced Center for American Progress brought on a former State Department official to run a new Moscow Project. 51 As acknowledged by the New Yorker , members of the Clinton inner circle believed that the Obama administration deliberately downplayed DNC hacking by the Kremlin. "We understand the bind they were in," one of Clinton's senior advisers said. "But what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and said, 'I'm speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack . . .' A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice . . . it is bewildering -- it is baffling -- it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White House." 52

In addition to Clinton, many other members of the Washington establishment, including some Republicans, spread the narrative of Russia "attacking" America. Republican politicians who viewed Clinton's defeat and the hacking attacks in military terms included those of chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who stated, "When you attack a country, it's an act of war," 53 and former vice president Dick Cheney, who called Russia's alleged interference in the US election "a very serious effort made by Mr. Putin" that "in some quarters that would be considered an act of war." 54 A number of Democrats also engaged in the rhetoric of war, likening the Russian "attack," as Senator Ben Cardin did, to a "political Pearl Harbor." 55

Rumors and leaks, possibly by members of US intelligence agencies, 56 and activities of liberal groups that sought to discredit Trump contributed to the Russophobia. In addition to the DNC hacking accusations, many fears of Russia in the media were based on the assumption that contacts, let alone cooperation with the (p.93) Kremlin, was unpatriotic and implied potentially "compromising" behavior: praise of Putin as a leader, possible business dealings with Russian "oligarchs," and meetings with Russian officials such Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. 57

There were therefore two sides to the Russia story in the US liberal media -- rational and emotional. The rational side had to do with calculations by Clinton-affiliated circles and anti-Russian groups pooling their resources to undermine Trump and his plans to improve relations with Russia. Among others, these resources included dominance within the liberal media and leaks by the intelligence community. The emotional side was revealed by the liberal elites' values and ability to promote fears of Russia within the US political class and the general public. Popular emotions of fear and frustration with Russia already existed in the public space due to the old Cold War memories, as well as disturbing post–Cold War developments that included wars in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. In part because of these memories, factions such as those associated with Clinton were successful in evoking in the public liberal mind what historian Richard Hofstadter called the "paranoid style" or "the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy." 58 Mobilized by liberal media to pressure Trump, these emotions became an independent factor in the political struggle inside Washington. The public display of fear and frustration with Russia and Trump could only be sustained by a constant supply of new "suspicious" developments and intense discussion by the media.

Russia's Role and Motives

Russia's "attacking" America and Trump's "colluding" with the Kremlin remained poorly substantiated. Taken together, the DNC hacking, Trump's and Putin's mutual praise, and Trump associates' (p.94) contacts with Russian officials implied Kremlin infiltration of the United States' internal politics. Yet viewed separately, each was questionable and unproven. Some of these points could have also been made about Hillary Clinton, who had ties to Russian -- not to mention Saudi Arabian -- business circles and Ukrainian politicians. 59 Political views cannot be counted as evidence. Contacts with Russian officials could have been legitimate exchanges of views about two countries' interests and potential cooperation. Even the CIA- and the FBI-endorsed conclusion that Russia attacked the DNC servers was questioned by some observers on the grounds that forensic evidence was lacking and that it relied too much on findings by one cybersecurity company. 60 In general, discussion of Russia in the US media lacked nuances and a sense of proportion. As Jesse Walker, an editor at Reason magazine and author of The United States of Paranoia , pointed out,

There's a difference between thinking that Moscow may have hacked the Democratic National Committee and thinking that Moscow actually hacked the election, between thinking the president may have Russian conflicts of interest and thinking he's a Russian puppet . . . when someone like the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares that Putin "installed" Donald Trump as president, he's moving out of the realm of plausible plots and into the world of fantasy. Similarly, Clinton's warning that Trump could be Putin's "puppet" leaped from an imaginable idea, that Putin wanted to help her rival, to the much more dubious notion that Putin thought he could control the impulsive Trump. (Trump barely seems capable of controlling himself.) 61

The loose and politically tendentious nature of discussions, circulation of questionable leaks and dossiers complied by unidentified (p.95) individuals, and lack of serious evidence led a number of observers to conclude that the Russia story was more about stopping Trump than about Russia. The Russian scandal was symptomatic of the poisonous state of bilateral relations that Democrats exploited for the purpose of derailing Trump. US-Russia relations became a hostage of partisan domestic politics. As one liberal and tough critic of Putin wrote, Democratic lawmakers' rhetoric of war in connection with the 2016 elections "places Republicans -- who often characterize themselves as more hawkish on Russia and defense -- in a bind as they try to defend to the new administration's strategy towards Moscow." 62 Another observer noted that Russiagate performed "a critical function for Trump's political foes," allowing "them to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative." 63

The described lack of confidence was reflected in the exaggerated fear that Russia was capable of destroying the West's values. However, Russia and Putin were neither omnipresent nor threatening to destroy the United States' political system. A number of analysts, such as Mark Schrad, identified fears of Russia as "increasingly hysterical fantasies" and argued that Russia was not a global menace. 64 If the Kremlin was indeed behind the cyberattacks, it was not for the reasons commonly broached. Rather than trying to subvert the US system, it sought to defend its own system against what it perceived as a US policy of changing regimes and meddling in Russia's internal affairs. The United States has a long history of covert activities in foreign countries. 65 Washington's establishment has never followed the advice given by prominent American statesmen such as George Kennan to let Russians "be Russians" and "work out their internal problems in their own manner." 66 Instead, the United States assumes that America defines the rules and boundaries of proper behavior in international politics, while others must simply follow the rules.

(p.96) Russia's basic motives remain defensive even when the Kremlin relies on assertive tactics. Russia's assertiveness, even in cyberspace, is of a reactive nature and is a response to US policies. Experts observe that Russia's conception of cyber and other informational power serves the overall purpose of protecting national sovereignty from encroachments by the United States. 67 Rather than fighting a full-scale information war with the West, Russia seeks to increase its status and strengthen its bargaining position in relations with the United States. 68 The Kremlin has been proposing to negotiate rules of cooperation in the cyber area since early in the twenty-first century. Motivated by an insistence on "cyber-sovereignty," Russia regularly proposes resolutions at the United Nations to prohibit "information aggression," In a 2011 letter to the United Nations General Assembly, Russia proposed an "International Code of Conduct for Information Security," stipulating that states subscribing to the code would pledge to "not use information and communications technologies and other information and communications networks to interfere with the internal affairs of other states or with the aim of undermining their political, economic and social stability." 69

Overall, what the Kremlin challenges is the United States' post–Cold War behavior that undermines Russia's status as a great power. Although Russia is not in a position to directly challenge the United States and the US-centered international order, the Kremlin hopes to gain external recognition as a great power by relying on low-cost methods and revealing the vulnerability of Western nations. Russia's capabilities and presence in global cyber and media space are limited, and the Kremlin is motivated by asymmetric deployment of its media, information, and cyber power.

[May 19, 2020] New Documents From the Sham Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Also Reveal Broad Corruption in the Russiagate Investigations by Glenn Greenwald

This is about intelligence agencies becaming a powerful by shadow political force, much like STASI. This not about corruption per se, but about perusing of political goals by dirty means. So it is closer to sedition then to corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work." ..."
"... there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas ..."
"... To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents. ..."
"... But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. ..."
"... Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression . ..."
"... As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning. ..."
May 14, 2020 | theintercept.com
Gen. Michael Flynn, President Obama's former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017, to a single count of lying to the FBI about two conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump transition team official (Flynn was never charged for any matters relating to his relationship with the Turkish government). As part of the plea deal, special counsel Robert Mueller recommended no jail time for Flynn , and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn's son.

Last Thursday, the Justice Department filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to leave the Bureau after being caught lying to agents ), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories.

But the prosecution of Flynn -- for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January 24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration -- was always odd for a number of reasons. To begin with, the FBI agents who questioned Flynn said afterward that they did not believe he was lying (as CNN reported in February 2017: "the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say"). For that reason, CNN said, "the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against" him.

More importantly, there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual -- let alone criminal -- about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it , "it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work." What newly released documents over the last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of the security state agencies -- particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ -- were systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than legal ends.

While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly common D.C. lobbyist corruption , there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas . The former category (corruption by Trump officials) has received a tidal wave of endless media attention, while the latter (corruption and abuse of power by those investigating them) has received almost none.

For numerous reasons, it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Flynn. To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find -- virtually always without any dissent or even questioning -- have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents.

More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats -- as part of their movement toward venerating these security state agencies -- have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people are often forced to plead guilty -- in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution and the broader Mueller probe.

But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. In other words, we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC program shortly before Trump's inauguration:

This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow - in early January, 2017, before Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 8, 2019
Because U.S. politics is now discussed far more as tests of tribal loyalty ("Whose side are you on?") than actual ideological or even political beliefs ("Which policies do you favor or oppose?"), it is very difficult to persuade people to separate their personal or political views of Flynn ("Do you like him or not?") from the question of whether the U.S. government abused its power in gravely dangerous ways to prosecute him.

Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One's views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one's assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here -- any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal , or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression .

The ability to distinguish between ideological questions from evidentiary questions is vital for rational discourse to be possible, yet has been all but eliminated at the altar of tribal fealty. That is why evidentiary questions completely devoid of ideological belief -- such as whether one found the Russiagate conspiracy theories supported by convincing evidence -- have been treated not as evidentiary matters but as tribal ones: to be affiliated with the left (an ideological characterization), one must affirm belief in those conspiracy theories even if one does not find the evidence in support of them actually compelling. The conflation of ideological and evidentiary questions, and the substitution of substantive political debates with tests of tribal loyalty, are indescribably corrosive to our public discourse.

As a result, whether one is now deemed on the right or left has almost nothing to do with actual political beliefs about policy questions and everything to do with one's willingness to serve the interests of one team or another. With the warped formula in place, U.S. politics has been depoliticized , stripped of any meaningful ideological debates in lieu of mindless team loyalty oaths on non-ideological questions.

Our newest SYSTEM UPDATE episode, debuting today, is devoted to enabling as clear and objective an examination as possible of the abuses that drove the Flynn prosecution -- including these critical, newly declassified documents -- as well the broader Russiagate investigations of which it was a part. These abuses have received far too little attention from the vast majority of the U.S. media that simply excludes any questioning or dissent of their prevailing narratives about all of these matters.

Notably, we invited several of the cable stars and security state agents who have been pushing these conspiracy theories for years to appear on the program for a civil discussion, but none were willing to do so -- because they are so accustomed to being able to spout these theories on MSNBC, CNN, and in newspapers without ever being meaningfully challenged. Regardless of one's views on these scandals, it is unhealthy in the extreme for any media to insulate themselves from a diversity of views.

As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian's Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia -- one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic -- those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That's why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning.

Today's SYSTEM UPDATE episode, which we believe provides the most comprehensive examination to date of these new documents relating to the Flynn prosecution and how this case relates to the broader Russiagate investigative abuses, can be viewed above or on The Intercept's YouTube channel .

[May 19, 2020] NYT Critique of Ronan Farrow Describes Pathology of "Resistance Journalism"

This is about control of MSM by intelligence agencies, not so much about corruption of individual journalists. Journalist became like in the USSR "Soldiers of the Party" -- well paid propagandist of particular, supplied to them talking points.
Notable quotes:
"... encouraged and incentivized ..."
"... for each segment ..."
May 19, 2020 | theintercept.com

What is particularly valuable about Smith's article is its perfect description of a media sickness borne of the Trump era that is rapidly corroding journalistic integrity and justifiably destroying trust in news outlets. Smith aptly dubs this pathology "resistance journalism," by which he means that journalists are now not only free, but encouraged and incentivized , to say or publish anything they want, no matter how reckless and fact-free, provided their target is someone sufficiently disliked in mainstream liberal media venues and/or on social media:

[Farrow's] work, though, reveals the weakness of a kind of resistance journalism that has thrived in the age of Donald Trump: That if reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices, the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness can seem more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives.

That can be a dangerous approach, particularly in a moment when the idea of truth and a shared set of facts is under assault.

In assailing Farrow for peddling unproven conspiracy theories, Smith argues that such journalistic practices are particularly dangerous in an era where conspiracy theories are increasingly commonplace. Yet unlike most journalists with a mainstream platform, Smith emphasizes that conspiracy theories are commonly used not only by Trump and his movement (conspiracy theories which are quickly debunked by most of the mainstream media), but are also commonly deployed by Trump's enemies, whose reliance on conspiracy theories is virtually never denounced by journalists because mainstream news outlets themselves play a key role in peddling them:

We are living in an era of conspiracies and dangerous untruths -- many pushed by President Trump, but others hyped by his enemies -- that have lured ordinary Americans into passionately believing wild and unfounded theories and fiercely rejecting evidence to the contrary. The best reporting tries to capture the most attainable version of the truth, with clarity and humility about what we don't know. Instead, Mr. Farrow told us what we wanted to believe about the way power works, and now, it seems, he and his publicity team are not even pretending to know if it's true.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected , and one could argue even in the months leading up to his election, journalistic standards have been consciously jettisoned when it comes to reporting on public figures who, in Smith's words, are "most disliked by the loudest voices," particularly when such reporting "swim[s] ably along with the tides of social media." Put another way: As long the targets of one's conspiracy theories and attacks are regarded as villains by the guardians of mainstream liberal social media circles, journalists reap endless career rewards for publishing unvetted and unproven -- even false -- attacks on such people, while never suffering any negative consequences when their stories are exposed as shabby frauds.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OOhRRr6c1wA?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=1 infiltrated and taken over the U.S. government through sexual and financial blackmail leverage over Trump and used it to dictate U.S. policy; Trump officials conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election; Russia was attacking the U.S. by hacking its electricity grid , recruiting journalists to serve as clandestine Kremlin messengers , and plotting to cut off heat to Americans in winter. Mainstream media debacles -- all in service of promoting the same set of conspiracy theories against Trump -- are literally too numerous to count, requiring one to select the worst offenses as illustrative .

Glenn Beck 2009 + Maddow 2019 is the greatest crossover event in history pic.twitter.com/D1NElGBq3U

-- Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 31, 2019
In March of last year, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi -- writing under the headline "It's official: Russiagate is this generation's WMD" -- compared the prevailing media climate since 2016 to that which prevailed in 2002 and 2003 regarding the invasion of Iraq and the so-called war on terror: little to no dissent permitted, skeptics of media-endorsed orthodoxies shunned and excluded, and worst of all, the very journalists who were most wrong in peddling false conspiracy theories were exactly those who ended up most rewarded on the ground that even though they spread falsehoods, they did so for the right cause.

Under that warped rubric -- in which spreading falsehoods is commendable as long as it was done to harm the evildoers -- the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the most damaging endorsers of false conspiracy theories about Iraq , rose to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, while two of the most deceitful Bush-era neocons, Bush/Cheney speechwriter David Frum and supreme propagandist Bill Kristol, have reprised their role as leading propagandists and conspiracy theorists -- only this time aimed against the GOP president instead of on his behalf -- and thus have become beloved liberal media icons. The communications director for both the Bush/Cheney campaign and its White House, Nicole Wallace, is one of the most popular liberal cable hosts from her MSNBC perch.

Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in Exactly the same journalism-destroying dynamic is driving the post-Russiagate media landscape. There is literally no accountability for the journalists and news outlets that spread falsehoods in their pages, on their airwaves, and through their viral social media postings. The Washington Post's media columnist Erik Wemple has been one of the very few journalists devoted to holding these myth-peddlers accountable -- recounting how one of the most reckless Russigate conspiracy maximialists, Natasha Bertrand, became an overnight social media and journalism star by peddling discredited conspiratorial trash (she was notably hired by Jeffrey Goldberg to cover Russigate for The Atlantic); MSNBC's Rachel Maddow spent three years hyping conspiratorial junk with no need even to retract any of it; and Mother Jones' David Corn played a crucial, decisively un-journalistic role in mainstreaming the lies of the Steele dossier all with zero effect on his journalistic status, other than to enrich him through a predictably bestselling book that peddled those unhinged conspiracies further.

Wemple's post-Russiagate series has established him as a commendable, often-lone voice trying -- with futility -- to bring some accountability to U.S. journalism for the systemic media failures of the past three years. The reason that's futile is exactly what Smith described in his column on Farrow: In "resistance journalism," facts and truth are completely dispensable -- indeed, dispensing with them is rewarded -- provided "reporters swim ably along with the tides of social media and produce damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices."

That describes perfectly the journalists who were defined, and enriched, by years of Russiagate deceit masquerading as reporting. By far the easiest path to career success over the last three years -- booming ratings, lucrative book sales, exploding social media followings, career rehabilitation even for the most discredited D.C. operatives -- was to feed establishment liberals an endless diet of fearmongering and inflammatory conspiracies about Drumpf and his White House. Whether it was true or supported by basic journalistic standards was completely irrelevant. Responsible reporting was simply was not a metric used to assess its worth.

It was one thing for activists, charlatans, and con artists to exploit fears of Trump for material gain: that, by definition, is what such people do. But it was another thing entirely for journalists to succumb to all the low-hanging career rewards available to them by throwing all journalistic standards into the trash bin in exchange for a star turn as a #Resistance icon. That , as Smith aptly describes, is what "Resistance Journalism" is, and it's hard to identify anything more toxic to our public discourse.

Perhaps the single most shameful and journalism-destroying episode in all of this -- an obviously difficult title to bestow -- was when a national security blogger, Marcy Wheeler, violated long-standing norms and ethical standards of journalism by announcing in 2018 that she had voluntarily turned in her own source to the FBI, claiming she did so because her still-unnamed source "had played a significant role in the Russian election attack on the US" and because her life was endangered by her brave decision to stop being a blogger and become an armchair cop by pleading with the FBI and the Mueller team to let her work with them. In her blog post announcing what she did, she claimed she was going public with her treachery because her life was in danger, and this way everyone would know the real reason if "someone releases stolen information about me or knocks me off tomorrow."

To say that Wheeler's actions are a grotesque violation of journalistic ethics is to radically understate the case. Journalists are expected to protect their sources' identities from the FBI even if they receive a subpoena and a court order compelling its disclosure; we're expected to go to prison before we comply with FBI attempts to uncover our source's identity. But here, the FBI did not try to compel Wheeler to tell them anything; they displayed no interest in her as she desperately tried to chase them down.

By all appearances, Wheeler had to beg the FBI to pay attention to her because they treated her like the sort of unstable, unhinged, unwell, delusional obsessive who, believing they have uncovered some intricate conspiracy, relentlessly harass and bombard journalists with their bizarre theories until they finally prattle to themselves for all of eternity in the spam filter of our email inboxes. The claim that she was in possession of some sort of explosive and damning information that would blow the Mueller investigation wide open was laughable. In her post, she claimed she "always planned to disclose this when this person's role was publicly revealed," but to date -- almost two years later -- she has never revealed "this person's" identity because, from all appearances, the Mueller report never relied on Wheeler's intrepid reporting or her supposedly red-hot secrets.

Like so many other Russiagate obsessives who turned into social media and MSNBC/CNN #Resistance stars, Wheeler was living a wild, self-serving fantasy, a Cold War Tom Clancy suspense film that she invented in her head and then cast herself as the heroine: a crusading investigative dot-connecter uncovering dangerous, hidden conspiracies perpetrated by dangerous, hidden Cold War-style villains (Putin) to the point where her own life was endangered by her bravery. It was a sad joke, a depressing spectacle of psycho-drama, but one that could have had grave consequences for the person she voluntarily ratted out to the FBI. Whatever else is true, this episode inflicted grave damage on American journalism by having mainstream, Russia-obsessed journalists not denounce her for her egregious violation of journalistic ethics but celebrate her for turning journalism on its head.

Why? Because, as Smith said in his Farrow article, she was "swim[ing] ably along with the tides of social media and produc[ing] damaging reporting about public figures most disliked by the loudest voices" and thus "the old rules of fairness and open-mindedness [were] more like impediments than essential journalistic imperatives." Margaret Sullivan, the former New York Times public editor and now the Washington Post's otherwise reliably commendable media reporter, celebrated Wheeler's bizarre behavior under the headline: "A journalist's conscience leads her to reveal her source to the FBI."

Despite acknowledging that "in their reporting, journalists talk to criminals all the time and don't turn them in" and that "it's pretty much an inviolable rule of journalism: Protect your sources," Sullivan heralded Wheeler's ethically repugnant and journalism-eroding violation of those principles. "It's not hard to see that her decision was a careful and principled one," Sullivan proclaimed.

She even endorsed Wheeler's cringe-inducing, self-glorifying claims about her life being endangered by invoking long-standard Cold War clichés about the treachery of the Russkies ("Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for disposing of people they find threatening."). The English language is insufficient to convey the madness required to believe that the Kremlin wanted to kill Marcy Wheeler because her blogging was getting Too Close to The Truth, but in the fevered swamps of resistance journalism, literally no claim was too unhinged to be embraced provided that it fed the social media #Resistance masses.

Sullivan's article quoted no critics of Wheeler's incredibly controversial behavior -- no need to: She was on the right side of social media reaction. And Sullivan never bothered to return to wonder why her prediction -- "Wheeler hasn't named the source publicly, though his name may soon be known to all who are following the Mueller investigation" -- never materialized. Both CNN and, incredibly, the Columbia Journalism Review published similarly sympathetic accounts of Wheeler's desperate attempts to turn over her source to the FBI and then cosplay as though she were some sort of insider in the Mueller investigation. The most menacing attribute of what Smith calls "Resistance Journalism" is that it permits and tolerates no dissent and questioning: perhaps the single most destructive path journalism can take. It has been well-documented that MSNBC and CNN spent three years peddling all sorts of ultimately discredited Russiagate conspiracy theories by excluding from their airwaves anyone who dissented from or even questioned those conspiracies. Instead, they relied upon an increasingly homogenized army of former security state agents from the CIA, FBI, and NSA to propound, in unison, all sorts of claims about Trump and Russia that turned out to be false, and peppered their panels of "analysts" with journalists whose career skyrocketed exclusively by pushing maximalist Russiagate claims, often by relying on the same intelligence officials these cable outlets sat them next to.

That NBC & MSNBC hired as a "news analyst" John Brennan - who ran the CIA when the Trump/Russia investigation began & was a key player in the news he was shaping as a paid colleague of their reporters - is a huge ethical breach. And it produced this: pic.twitter.com/nPlaq5YVxf

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 2, 2019
This trend -- whereby diversity of opinion and dissent from orthodoxies are excluded from media discourse -- is worsening rapidly due to two major factors. The first is that cable news programs are constructed to feed their audiences only self-affirming narratives that vindicate partisan loyalties. One liberal cable host told me that they receive ratings not for each show but for each segment , and they can see the ratings drop off -- the remotes clicking away -- if they put on the air anyone who criticizes the party to which that outlet is devoted (Democrats in the case of MSNBC and CNN, the GOP in the case of Fox).

But there's another more recent and probably more dissent-quashing development: the disappearance of media jobs. Mass layoffs were already common in online journalism and local newspapers prior to the coronavirus pandemic , and have now turned into an industrywide massacre . With young journalists watching jobs disappearing en masse, the last thing they are going to want to do is question or challenge prevailing orthodoxies within their news outlet or, using Smith's "Resistance Journalism" formulation, to "swim against the tides of social media" or question the evidence amassed against those "most disliked by the loudest voices."

Affirming those orthodoxies can be career-promoting, while questioning them can be job-destroying. Consider the powerful incentives journalists face in an industry where jobs are disappearing so rapidly one can barely keep count. During Russiagate, I often heard from young journalists at large media outlets who expressed varying degrees of support for and agreement with the skepticism which I and a handful of other journalists were expressing, but they felt constrained to do so themselves, for good reason. They watched the reprisals and shunning doled out even to journalists with a long record of journalistic accomplishments and job security for the crime of Russiagate skepticism, such as Taibbi (similar to the way MSNBC fired Phil Donahue in 2002 for opposing the invasion of Iraq), and they know journalists with less stature and security than Taibbi could not risk incurring that collective wrath.

All professions and institutions suffer when a herd, groupthink mentality and the banning of dissent prevail. But few activities are corroded from such a pathology more than journalism is, which has as its core function skepticism and questioning of pieties. Journalism quickly transforms into a sickly, limp version of itself when it itself wages war on the virtues of dissent and airing a wide range of perspectives.

I do not know how valid are Smith's critiques of Farrow's journalism. But what I know for certain is that Smith's broader diagnosis of "Resistance Journalism" is dead-on, and the harms it is causing are deep and enduring. When journalists know they will thrive by affirming pleasing falsehoods, and suffer when they insist on unpopular truths, journalism not only loses its societal value but becomes just another instrument for societal manipulation, deceit, and coercion.

[May 19, 2020] Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

Images removed
Those are far from failures, those were successful disinformation/propaganda operations conducted with a certain goal -- remove Trump -- which demonstrate the level of intelligence agencies control of the MSM. In other words those are parts of a bigger intelligence operation -- the color revolution against Trump led most probably by Obama and Brennan.
Now we know that Obama played an important role in Russiagate media hysteria and, most porbably, in planning and executing the operation to entrap Flynn.
Notable quotes:
"... They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused ..."
"... Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script: ..."
"... Crowdstrike, the firm hired by the DNC, claimed they had evidence that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery apps; they then retracted it . ..."
"... The U.S. media and Democrats spent six months claiming that all "17 intelligence agencies" agreed Russia was behind the hacks; the NYT finally retracted that in June, 2017: "The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... Widespread government and media claims that accused Russian agent Maria Butina offered "sex for favors" were totally false (and scurrilous). ..."
Jan 20, 2019 | theintercept.com
BuzzFeed was once notorious for traffic-generating "listicles," but has since become an impressive outlet for deep investigative journalism under editor-in-chief Ben Smith. That outlet was prominently in the news this week thanks to its "bombshell" story about President Trump and Michael Cohen: a story that, like so many others of its kind, blew up in its face , this time when the typically mute Robert Mueller's office took the extremely rare step to label its key claims "inaccurate."

But in homage to BuzzFeed's past viral glory, following are the top ten worst media failures in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end with (dis)honorable mention status.

Note that all of these "errors" go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle's connection to it. It's inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that's being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here. Just as was true in 2002 and 2003, when the media clearly wanted to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and thus all of its "errors" went in that direction, virtually all of its major "errors" in this story are devoted to the same agenda and script:

10. RT Hacked Into and Took Over C-SPAN (Fortune)

On June 12, 2017, Fortune claimed that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN and that C-SPAN "confirmed" it had been hacked. The whole story was false:

C-SPAN Confirms It Was Briefly Hacked by Russian News Site https://t.co/NUFD662FMz pic.twitter.com/POstGFzvNE

-- Fortune Tech (@FortuneTech) January 12, 2017

Kremlin-funded Russian news network RT interrupted C-SPAN's online feed for about ten minutes Thursday afternoon https://t.co/Z25LqoCW2H

-- New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 12, 2017

Holy shit. Russia state propaganda (RT) "hacked" into C-SPAN feed and took over for a good 40 seconds today? In middle of live broadcast. https://t.co/pwWYFoDGDU

-- Isaac Saul (@Ike_Saul) January 12, 2017

RT America ominously takes over C-SPAN feed for ten minutes @tommyxtopher reviews today's events for #shareblue https://t.co/uiiU5awSMs

-- Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath) January 12, 2017

After investigation, C-SPAN has concluded that the RT interruption was not the result of a hack, but rather routing error.

-- ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) January 18, 2017
9. Russian Hackers Invaded the U.S. Electricity Grid to Deny Vermonters Heat During the Winter (WashPost)

On December 30, 2016, the Washington Post reported that "Russian hackers penetrated the U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont," causing predictable outrage and panic, along with threats from U.S. political leaders. But then they kept diluting the story with editor's notes – to admit that the malware was found on a laptop not connected to the U.S. electric grid at all – until finally acknowledging, days later, that the whole story was false, since the malware had nothing to do with Russia or with the U.S. electric grid:

Breaking: Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont https://t.co/LED11lL7ej

-- The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) December 31, 2016

NEW: "One of the world's leading thugs, [Putin] has been attempting to hack our electric grid," says VT Gov. Shumlin https://t.co/YgdtT4JrlX pic.twitter.com/AU0ZQjT3aO

-- ABC News (@ABC) December 31, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9ktNVW_TblI?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=1

Washington Post retracts story about Russian hack at Vermont utility https://t.co/JX9l0926Uj via @nypost

-- Kerry Picket (@KerryPicket) January 1, 2017
8. A New, Deranged, Anonymous Group Declares Mainstream Political Sites on the Left and Right to be Russian Propaganda Outlets and WashPost Touts its Report to Claim Massive Kremlin Infiltration of the Internet (WashPost)

On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post published one of the most inflammatory, sensationalistic stories to date about Russian infiltration into U.S. politics using social media, accusing "more than 200 websites" of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans." It added: "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign [on Facebook] were viewed more than 213 million times."

Unfortunately for the paper, those statistics were provided by a new, anonymous group that reached these conclusions by classifying long-time, well-known sites – from the Drudge Report to Clinton-critical left-wing websites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report, Truthdig, and Naked Capitalism, as well as libertarian venues such as Antiwar.com and the Ron Paul Institute. – as "Russian propaganda outlets," producing one of the longest Editor's Note in memory appended to the top of the article (but not until two weeks later , long after the story was mindlessly spread all throughout the media ecosystem):

Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent researchers https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q

-- Marty Baron (@PostBaron) November 25, 2016

Just want to note I hadn't heard of Propornot before the WP piece and never gave permission to them to call Bellingcat "allies" https://t.co/jQKnWzjrBR

-- Eliot Higgins (@EliotHiggins) November 25, 2016

Marty, I would like to more about PropOrNot, "experts" cited in the article. Their website provides little in the way of ID. https://t.co/ZiK8pKzUwx

-- Jack Shafer (@jackshafer) November 25, 2016
7. Trump Aide Anthony Scaramucci is Involved in a Russian Hedge Fund Under Senate Investigation (CNN)

On June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not. CNN retracted the story and forced the three reporters who published it to leave the network. 6. Russia Attacked U.S. "Diplomats" (i.e. Spies) at the Cuban Embassy Using a Super-Sophisticated Sonic Microwave Weapon (NBC/MSNBC/CIA)

On September 11, 2017, NBC News and MSNBC spread all over its airwaves a claim from its notorious CIA puppet Ken Dilanian that Russia was behind a series of dastardly attacks on U.S. personnel at the Embassy in Cuba using a sonic or microwave weapon so sophisticated and cunning that Pentagon and CIA scientists had no idea what to make of it.

But then teams of neurologists began calling into doubt that these personnel had suffered any brain injuries at all – that instead they appear to have experienced collective psychosomatic symptoms – and then biologists published findings that the "strange sounds" the U.S. "diplomats" reported hearing were identical to those emitted by a common Caribbean male cricket during mating season.

An @NBCNews exclusive: After more than a year of mystery, Russia is the main suspect in the sonic attacks that sickened 26 U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials in Cuba. @MitchellReports has the latest. pic.twitter.com/NEI9PJ9CpD

-- TODAY (@TODAYshow) September 11, 2018

Wow >> U.S. has signals intelligence linking the sonic attacks on Americans in Cuba and China to *Russia* https://t.co/FbNla0vu9W

-- Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) September 11, 2018

Following NBC report about sonic attacks, @SenCoryGardner renews calls for declaring Russia a state sponsor of terror https://t.co/wrnubfecom

-- Niels Lesniewski (@nielslesniewski) September 11, 2018

5. Trump Created a Secret Internet Server to Covertly Communicate with a Russian Bank (Slate)

Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU

-- Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016

It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX

-- Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016
4. Paul Manafort Visited Julian Assange Three Times in the Ecuadorian Embassy and Nobody Noticed (Guardian/Luke Harding)

On November 27, 2018, the Guardian published a major "bombshell" that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had somehow managed to sneak inside one of the world's most surveilled buildings, the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and visit Julian Assange on three different occasions. Cable and online commentators exploded.

Seven weeks later, no other media outlet has confirmed this ; no video or photographic evidence has emerged; the Guardian refuses to answer any questions; its leading editors have virtually gone into hiding; other media outlets have expressed serious doubts about its veracity; and an Ecuadorian official who worked at the embassy has called the story a complete fake:

Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump's campaign, the Guardian has been told. https://t.co/Fc2BVmXipk

-- Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) November 27, 2018

The sourcing on this is a bit thin, or at least obscured. But it's the ultimate Whoa If True. It's...ballgame if true.

-- Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) November 27, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4A2cuuRK2NU?autoplay=0&rel=0&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheintercept.com&widgetid=7

The Guardian reports that Paul Manafort visited Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, the same month that Manafort joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016, a meeting that could carry vast implications for the Russia investigation https://t.co/pYawnv4MHH

-- Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 27, 2018
3. CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source – For a Story Whose Substance Was Also False: Cohen Would Testify that Trump Knew in Advance About the Trump Tower Meeting (CNN)

On July 27, 2018, CNN published a blockbuster story : that Michael Cohen was prepared to tell Robert Mueller that President Trump knew in advanced about the Trump Tower meeting. There were, however, two problems with this story: first, CNN got caught blatantly lying when its reporters claimed that "contacted by CNN, one of Cohen's attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment" (in fact, Davis was one of CNN's key sources, if not its only source, for this story), and second, numerous other outlets retracted the story after the source, Davis, admitted it was a lie. CNN, however, to this date has refused to do either: 2. Robert Mueller Possesses Internal Emails and Witness Interviews Proving Trump Directed Cohen to Lie to Congress (BuzzFeed)

BREAKING: President Trump personally directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow in order to obscure his involvement. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn

-- BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 18, 2019

BOOM! https://t.co/QDkUMaEa7M pic.twitter.com/9kcZZ8m1gt

-- Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) January 18, 2019

The allegation that the President of the United States may have suborned perjury before our committee in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings with Russia is among the most serious to date. We will do what's necessary to find out if it's true. https://t.co/GljBAFqOjh

-- Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) January 18, 2019

If the @BuzzFeed story is true, President Trump must resign or be impeached.

-- Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) January 18, 2019

Listen, if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress, then we need to know this ASAP. Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act. https://t.co/ekG5VSBS8G

-- Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 18, 2019

UPDATE: A spokesperson for the special counsel is disputing BuzzFeed News' report. https://t.co/BEoMKiDypn pic.twitter.com/GWWfGtyhaE

-- BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 19, 2019

To those trying to parse the Mueller statement: it's a straight-up denial. Maybe Buzzfeed can prove they are right, maybe Mueller can prove them wrong. But it's an emphatic denial https://t.co/EI1J7XLCJe

-- Devlin Barrett (@DevlinBarrett) January 19, 2019

. @Isikoff : "There were red flags about the BuzzFeed story from the get-go." Notes it was inconsistent with Cohen's guilty plea when he said he made false statements about Trump Tower to Congress to be "consistent" with Trump, not at his direction. pic.twitter.com/tgDg6SNPpG

-- David Rutz (@DavidRutz) January 19, 2019

We at The Post also had riffs on the story our reporters hadn't confirmed. One noted Fox downplayed it; another said it "if true, looks to be the most damning to date for Trump." The industry needs to think deeply on how to cover others' reporting we can't confirm independently. https://t.co/afzG5B8LAP

-- Matt Zapotosky (@mattzap) January 19, 2019

Washington Post says Mueller's denial of BuzzFeed News article is aimed at the full story: "Mueller's denial, according to people familiar with the matter, aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate."
https://t.co/ene0yqe1mK

-- andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) January 19, 2019

If you're one of the people tempted to believe the self-evidently laughable claim that there's something "vague" or unclear about Mueller's statement, or that it just seeks to quibble with a few semantic trivialities, read this @WashPost story about this https://t.co/0io99LyATS pic.twitter.com/ca1TwPR3Og

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2019

You can spend hours parsing the Carr statement, but given how unusual it is for any DOJ office to issue this sort of on the record denial, let alone this office, suspect it means the story's core contention that they have evidence Trump told Cohen to lie is fundamentally wrong.

-- Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) January 19, 2019

New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive -- and now seriously challenged -- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW

-- ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) January 19, 2019

I can't speak to Buzzfeed's sourcing, but, for what it's worth, I declined to run with parts of the narrative they conveyed based on a source central to the story repeatedly disputing the idea that Trump directly issued orders of that kind.

-- Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) January 19, 2019

FWIW in all our reporting I haven't found any in the Trump Org that have met with or been interviewed by Mueller. https://t.co/U4eV1MZc8p

-- John Santucci (@Santucci) January 18, 2019
1. Donald Trump Jr. Was Offered Advanced Access to the WikiLeaks Email Archive (CNN/MSNBC)

The morning of December 9, 2017, launched one of the most humiliating spectacles in the history of the U.S. media. With a tone so grave and bombastic that it is impossible to overstate, CNN went on the air and announced a major exclusive: Donald Trump, Jr. was offered by email advanced access to the trove of DNC and Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks – meaning before those emails were made public. Within an hour, MSNBC's Ken Dilanian, using a tone somehow even more unhinged, purported to have "independently confirmed" this mammoth, blockbuster scoop, which, they said, would have been the smoking gun showing collusion between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over the hacked emails (while the YouTube clips have been removed, you can still watch one of the amazing MSNBC videos here ).

There was, alas, just one small problem with this massive, blockbuster story: it was totally and completely false. The email which Trump, Jr. received that directed him to the WikiLeaks archive was sent after WikiLeaks published it online for the whole world to see, not before. Rather than some super secretive operative giving Trump, Jr. advanced access, as both CNN and MSNBC told the public for hours they had confirmed, it was instead just some totally pedestrian message from a random member of the public suggesting Trump, Jr. review documents the whole world was already talking about. All of the anonymous sources CNN and MSNBC cited somehow all got the date of the email wrong.

To date, when asked how they both could have gotten such a massive story so completely wrong in the same way, both CNN and MSNBC have adopted the posture of the CIA by maintaining complete silence and refusing to explain how it could possibly be that all of their "multiple, independent sources" got the date wrong on the email in the same way, to be as incriminating – and false – as possible. Nor, needless to say, will they identify their sources who, in concert, fed them such inflammatory and utterly false information.

Sadly, CNN and MSNBC have deleted most traces of the most humiliating videos from the internet, including demanding that YouTube remove copies. But enough survives to document just what a monumental, horrifying, and utterly inexcusable debacle this was. Particularly amazing is the clip of the CNN reporter (see below) having to admit the error for the first time, as he awkwardly struggles to pretend that it's not the massive, horrific debacle that it so obviously is:

Knowingly soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national for campaign purposes violates the Federal Election Campaign Act. If it's worth over $2,000 then penalties include fines & IMPRISONMENT. @DonaldJTrumpJr may be in bigly trouble. #FridayFeeling https://t.co/dRz6Ph17Er

-- Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) December 8, 2017

boom https://t.co/9RPPltRq8k pic.twitter.com/eyYHkOMEPi

-- Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) December 8, 2017

CNN is leading the way in bashing BuzzFeed but it's worth remembering CNN had a humiliation at least as big & bad: when they yelled that Trump Jr. had advanced access to the WL archive (!): all based on a wrong date. They removed all the segments from YouTube, but this remains: pic.twitter.com/0jiA50aIku

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2019

Dishonorable Mention:

[May 16, 2020] Bought MSM experts typically are just MIC prostitutes: most are neocons and "Russiagaters"

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... War is too important to be left to the generals ..."
May 16, 2020 | www.rt.com

Originally from: Covid-19, Russiagate, Iraq – politicians are too happy to defer to convenient 'experts' -- RT Op-ed

So-called "experts" are too narrow in their focus and too often wrong in their judgments to be able to decide the sorts of life-and-death issues a nation's political leaders are asked to decide. If " War is too important to be left to the generals ," as Georges Clemenceau, (France's prime minister during World War I) claimed, then foreign policy is too important to be left to the intelligence agencies, and public policy is too important to be left to the scientists.

From the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, politicians and media fell over themselves in their rush to defer to the " experts. " Apparently, it was up to scientists to decide whether a country should shut down its economy and keep its citizens locked up in their homes in perpetuity. It was up to scientists to determine whether a country can, if ever, resume normal life. As for the consequences -- economic depression, exploding national debt, lost businesses and means of livelihood, growing alcoholism and drug abuse, rise in suicides, spiraling untreated medical problems -- those are things the public would just have to live with, because there could be no second-guessing of the scientists.

[May 16, 2020] Putin's Call For A New System and the 1944 Battle Of Bretton Woods

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Our Job in the Pacific ..."
"... "supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking." ..."
"... General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money ..."
"... "contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires." ..."
May 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

On the one side, figures allied to American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's vision for an anti-Imperial world order lined up behind FDR's champion Harry Dexter White while those powerful forces committed to maintaining the structures of a bankers' dictatorship (Britain was always primarily a banker's empire) lined up behind the figure of John Maynard Keynes[ 1 ].

John Maynard Keynes was a leading Fabian Society controller and treasurer of the British Eugenics Association (which served as a model for Hitler's Eugenics protocols before and during the war). During the Bretton Woods Conference, Keynes pushed hard for the new system to be premised upon a one world currency controlled entirely by the Bank of England known as the Bancor. He proposed a global bank called the Clearing Union to be controlled by the Bank of England which would use the Bancor (exchangeable with national currencies) and serve as unit of account to measure trade surpluses or deficits under the mathematical mandate of maintaining "equilibrium" of the system.

Harry Dexter White, on the other hand, fought relentlessly to keep the City of London out of the drivers' seat of global finance and instead defended the institution of national sovereignty and sovereign currencies based on long term scientific and technological growth.

Although White and FDR demanded that US dollars become the reserve currency in the new world system of fixed exchange rates, it was not done to create a "new American Empire" as most modern analysts have assumed, but rather was designed to use America's status as the strongest productive global power to ensure an anti-speculative stability among international currencies which entirely lacked stability in the wake of WWII.

Their fight for fixed exchange rates and principles of "parity pricing" were designed by FDR and White strictly around the need to abolish the forms of chaotic flux of the un-regulated markets which made speculation rampant under British Free Trade and destroyed the capacity to think and plan for the sort of long term development needed to modernize nation states. Theirs was not a drive for "mathematical equilibrium" but rather a drive to "end poverty" through REAL physical economic growth of colonies who would thereby win real economic independence.

As figures like Henry Wallace (FDR's loyal Vice President and 1948 3rd party candidate), Representative Wendell Wilkie (FDR's republican lieutenant and New Dealer), and Dexter White all advocated repeatedly, the mechanisms of the World Bank, IMF, and United Nations were meant to become drivers of an internationalization of the New Deal which transformed America from a backwater cesspool in 1932 to becoming a modern advanced manufacturing powerhouse 12 years later. All of these Interntional New Dealers were loud advocates of US-Russia –China leadership in the post war world which is a forgotten fact of paramount importance.

In his 1944 book Our Job in the Pacific , Wallace said:

It is vital to the United States, it is vital to China and it is vital to Russia that there be peaceful and friendly relations between China and Russia, China and America and Russia and America. China and Russia Complement and supplement each other on the continent of Asia and the two together complement and supplement America's position in the Pacific.

Contradicting the mythos that FDR was a Keynesian, FDR's assistant Francis Perkins recorded the 1934 interaction between the two men when Roosevelt told her:

"I saw your friend Keynes. He left a whole rigmarole of figures. He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist."

In response Keynes, who was then trying to coopt the intellectual narrative of the New Deal stated he had "supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking."

In his 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money , Keynes wrote:

For I confess that much of the following book is illustrated and expounded mainly with reference to the conditions existing in the Anglo Saxon countries. Nevertheless, the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state.

While Keynes represented the "soft imperialism" for the "left" of Britain's intelligentsia, Churchill represented the hard unapologetic imperialism of the Old, less sophisticated empire that preferred the heavy fisted use of brute force to subdue the savages. Both however were unapologetic racists and fascists (Churchill even wrote admiringly of Mussolini's black shirts) and both represented the most vile practices of British Imperialism.

FDR's Forgotten Anti-Colonial Vision Revited

FDR's battle with Churchill on the matter of empire is better known than his differences with Keynes whom he only met on a few occasions. This well documented clash was best illustrated in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt's book As He Saw It (1946) who quoted his father:

I've tried to make it clear that while we're [Britain's] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we're in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas I hope they realize they're not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.

[ ]

The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements – all you're doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you're doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.

Writing from Washington in a hysteria to Churchill, Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden said that Roosevelt "contemplates the dismantling of the British and Dutch empires."

Unfortunately for the world, FDR died on April 12, 1945. A coup within the Democratic establishment, then replete with Fabians and Rhodes Scholars, had already ensured that Henry Wallace would lose the 1944 Vice Presidency in favor of Anglophile Wall Street Stooge Harry Truman.

Truman was quick to reverse all of FDR's intentions, cleansing American intelligence of all remaining patriots with the shutdown of the OSS and creation of the CIA, the launching of un-necessary nuclear bombs on Japan and establishment of the Anglo-American special relationship.

Truman's embrace of Churchill's New World Order destroyed the positive relationship with Russia and China which FDR, White and Wallace sought and soon America had become Britain's dumb giant.

The Post 1945 Takeover of the Modern Deep State

FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous insight:

You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.

As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of 'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office

Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the Cold War, Wallace stated:

American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State [ ] Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.

In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said:

Before the blood of our boys is scarcely dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as in war.

Indeed this is exactly what occurred. Dexter White's three year run as head of the International Monetary Fund was clouded by his constant attacks as being a Soviet stooge which haunted him until the day he died in 1948 after a grueling inquisition session at the House of Un-American Activities.

White had previously been supporting the election of his friend Wallace for the presidency alongside fellow patriots Paul Robeson and Albert Einstein.

Today the world has captured a second chance to revive the FDR's dream of an anti-colonial world . In the 21st century, this great dream has taken the form of the New Silk Road, led by Russia and China (and joined by a growing chorus of nations yearning to exit the invisible cage of colonialism).

If western nations wish to survive the oncoming collapse, then they would do well to heed Putin's call for a New International system, join the BRI, and reject the Keynesian technocrats advocating a false "New Bretton Woods" and "Green New Deal" .

Originally published on The Saker

[1] You may be thinking "wait! Wasn't FDR and his New Deal premised on Keynes' theories??" How could Keynes have represented an opposing force to FDR's system if this is the case? This paradox only exists in the minds of many people today due to the success of the Fabian Society's and Round Table Movement's armada of revisionist historians who have consistently created a lying narrative of history to make it appear to future generations trying to learn from past mistakes that those figures like FDR who opposed empire were themselves following imperial principles.

Another example of this sleight of hand can be seen by the sheer number of people who sincerely think themselves informed and yet believe that America's 1776 revolution was driven by British Imperial philosophical thought stemming from Adam Smith, Bentham and John Locke.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk , regular author with Strategic Culture, the Duran and Fort Russ and has authored 3 volumes of 'Untold History of Canada' book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation and can be reached at [email protected]

[May 15, 2020] Lies, damned lies and statistics

May 15, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al May 11, 2020 at 9:11 am

al-Beeb s'Allah live news feed on their website Summary: Russia now has the third-highest number of confirmed cases in the world, overtaking UK and Italy .

Three pages further on the live feed you can read:* Russia has confirmed 2,009 deaths in total. You have to go to page four for the actual story @13:07 that links to the summary to actual story details (there are no links in the summary at all!) to read taking the total death toll to 2,009, which is far lower than the numbers reported in many other countries. (my emphasis) *** So well below the UK's own tally of 32,000 heroic deaths. That's good to know.

As others have pointed out, Russia has carried out the highest number of tests in u-Rope, now greater than 4.5 million, which is only behind the US globally

Thank God there is the BBC to put things in to proper perspective in such a professional way / sarc.

* https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-52612438/page/3
** https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-52612438/page/4

[May 15, 2020] Why so few young Russians show support for "'classical' civil and political liberties". My guess is that 20 years of observation of Western practice of these noble ideals has soured them.

May 15, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

RUSSIAN YOUTH. It's a widespread delusion, strengthened by the narrow circle Western reporters talk to in Russia, that " the government's anti-Western agenda and reports of widespread corruption are turning young Russians against the leader ."

Levada has done a survey of Russian youth and that's pretty hard to find; in general they're not far off their parents: a bit more liberal but also a bit more nationalist. Perhaps the most interesting result was that a solid majority thought Russia was not European.

Robinson discusses. He wonders why so few show much support for "'classical' civil and political liberties".

My guess is that 20 years of observation of Western practice of these noble ideals has soured them.

[May 15, 2020] "Travel brings wisdom only to the wise. It renders the ignorant more ignorant than ever."

Joe Abercrombie, from "Last Argument of Kings"
May 15, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al May 9, 2020 at 10:53 am

al-Beeb s'Allah: Coronavirus: Belarus WW2 parade defies pandemic and upstages Putin

the Fraudian: Victory Day: Belarus swaggers on parade as Russians leave Red Square deserted
####

[May 15, 2020] Russia can be anything you like, provided your objective is to shit on it

May 15, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

"Do you remember that part, in the Wizard of Oz, when the witch is dead and the Munchkins start singing? Think that kind of happiness."

Julie Mulhern, from "The Deep End"

The New York Times is unable to contain its glee at Russia's having had to cancel its Victory Day celebrations. There was no end of negative press directed at Putin for having not yet announced postponement or cancellation, because it looked for a bit as if Russia was going to go for herd immunity rather than bringing everything to a grinding halt, and sequestering its terrified citizens in their homes as the west has done. But finally the number of Russian infections began to rocket encouragingly upward, and something had to be done. So it was lockdown, Victory Day postponed indefinitely, and the Times couldn't be happier.

The Times has been going downhill at quite a clip ever since the mendacious aluminum-tubes nonsense in the runup to the American invasion of Iraq, and in fact the Times was an enthusiastic promoter of that war in general, swaddling itself in righteousness when serial liar Judith Miller went to jail rather than reveal her sources. It was a 'proud but awful moment for The Times' , but heroine Miller 'surrendered her liberty in defense of a greater liberty'. Give me a moment, will you? I want to put on some violins.

Ah, that's better. Inspiring, thank you, Judith. But in the end the Times' blubbering about greater liberty looked a lot more like a heartstrings strumfest in defense of telling outrageous lies that got thousands upon thousands of innocent people killed, brought out the very worst in Americans in the grimy corridors of Abu Ghraib , and left a country so battered, demoralized and divided that it has never recovered to this day.

The foregoing is simply a measure of how far the Times has fallen, from standard-bearer for journalistic excellence to liberal demagogue, not fit to wrap fish and chips in. And the unseemly sneering and giggling of the authors of the subject piece should be regarded with the same contempt which would surely be directed at Russians who cheered at Independence Day celebrations having to be canceled in the United States – stick your tailgate parties up your tailgate, Amerikanski!

But since we're here, let's take a look at what a journalist's salary at The New York Times buys you these days, shall we?

First of all, what does Victory Day celebrate? Because the Nazi surrender was actually tendered twice; it was signed May 7th, 1945 at Reims, by Alfred Jodl for Germany, Walter Bedell Smith for the Allied Expeditionary Force, and Ivan Susloparov for the Soviet High Command. But the latter was only a junior officer who did not have the authority to sign on behalf of the state, and the Soviet High Command had not approved the text of the surrender agreement. Stalin insisted on a second ceremony, said that the first ceremony constituted a preliminary agreement only, and insisted on the surrender being signed in Berlin, 'center of Nazi aggression'.

"Today, in Reims, Germans signed the preliminary act on an unconditional surrender. The main contribution, however, was done by Soviet people and not by the Allies, therefore the capitulation must be signed in front of the Supreme Command of all countries of the anti-Hitler coalition, and not only in front of the Supreme Command of Allied Forces. Moreover, I disagree that the surrender was not signed in Berlin, which was the center of Nazi aggression. We agreed with the Allies to consider the Reims protocol as preliminary."

Eisenhower immediately agreed, and the final Instrument of Surrender was signed May 9th, 1945, by Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel for Germany, Marshal Georgy Zhukov for the Soviet High Command, and Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder for the Allied Expeditionary Force. This is the date which has been celebrated every year since, by the Soviet Union and its inheritor, the Russian Federation.

What does it commemorate? The loss, according to credible research , of 23.8 million Soviet citizens due to war and occupation, 7.2 million of them soldiers who died on the front lines, 3.1 million more Soviet prisoners of war in German custody, .9 million dead – many of them starved to death – in the siege of Leningrad, and 2.5 million in the Jewish holocaust.

The USA lost a total of 418,500 .

Victory Day is not about we-had-more-people-killed-than-you. But just to put the magnitude of Soviet losses in perspective – total deaths in World War II, what the Soviets called the Great Patriotic War, were around 60 million people. The Soviet Union accounted for nearly half the dead of the global total.

And another thing; the war was fought mostly in Europe, and if you look down the rows of national casualties, you will notice a pattern – once you add civilian casualties on to the military deaths, the total takes a huge jump. Austria; 261,000 military dead – total deaths, 384,700. Belgium, 12,100 military dead. Total deaths, 86,000. France; military deaths, 217,600. Total deaths, 567,600. You see what I mean, I'm sure.

United States of America; military deaths, 416,800. Total deaths, 418,500. 1,700 civilian deaths of American citizens. For each American soldier killed in battle, the Soviet Union lost 17.

And even the most pessimistic would have to admit that the USA came out of World War II in a pretty good position; my, yes. Incredibly, American managers of General Motors and Ford went along with the conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home.

"When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken. It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel -- a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary -- and flying Opel-built warplanes."

America profited handsomely, both by doing business with the Nazis right up until it was forced to stop, while at the same time America was churning out war materiel to support the allies as fast as factory lines could be made to run. Nice work if you can get it. The Bretton Woods agreement , concluded in 1944, abandoned the gold standard as the global currency in favour of the US greenback, putting America in the driver's seat as the dominant world power. The Soviets were left with a country in smoking ruins, as apple-cheeked America went back to work with a whistle on its lips. Right away, muttering started about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which has recently exploded into accusation by the US Ambassador to Poland that Russia started the war. The Moscow Times, a militantly pro-western newspaper, ponders why Russia will not 'confront its role in the war', and decides it must be Putin's fault .

"Teaching history has never been easy in Russia, where archives are closed and transparent discussions about the country's Soviet past are met with hostility. Even then, teaching World War II is more difficult: with every year that Putin is in power, Russia fails to confront its role in the war head on."

And now some fucking American chowderhead – in Moscow – openly snickers over the cancellation of the Victory Day parade and celebration, in between boasting about how he carries a shopping bag with him every time he decides to go out for a stroll, so police won't challenge him on why he's not at home.

"I prefer going out during the day, walking with my wife, shielded by a big shopping bag in the hope that the police will let us be."

And of course, the canard we have all become accustomed to, Russia is aflame with coronavirus, with over 10.000 new cases per day for the last three days straight. As of the middle of April, Russia reported that nearly half its new cases were asymptomatic , and that proportion continues to increase – it seems reasonable to assume the high numbers result from increased testing. Deaths from coronavirus in Russia remain extremely low. 1,723 COVID victims have died, of a total 187,859 cases since the beginning of the outbreak, a mortality rate so far of .91%, about the same as the seasonal flu.

"Travel brings wisdom only to the wise. It renders the ignorant more ignorant than ever."

Joe Abercrombie, from "Last Argument of Kings"


Mark Chapman May 9, 2020 at 8:03 am

Oh, that is explained as well – "In a country with a long history of legal nihilism, the mayor's stay-at-home pleas were not expected to gain much traction. Russia is, after all, a land where, according to popular wisdom, "the severity of the law is compensated by the laxity of its enforcement" and "when something is not allowed but is greatly desired it can be done."

Again, the beauty of artistic license; on the one hand, the law in Russia is just words – nobody really pays attention to it. The only people who don't do just as they please are lazy fucking Russian puddings who can't be bothered to think big. On the other, whenever Navalny and his hamsters want to march straight into Red Square or down major streets where they can cause a traffic jam, the oppressive hand of the law is everywhere at once and screaming children are dragged off to prison, or straight to the nearest recruiting office where they are clapped into the army before they know what they're about. Depending on what kind of story you are writing for the New York Times, the law in Russia can be either wall-to-wall incompetence, Keystone Kops writ large, unenforceable and just going through the motions. Or it can be oppression, everywhere at once, brave liberals sweating over their keyboards at night in garrets, always waiting for that knock on the door, but so committed to getting the truth out that they risk their very lives.

Russia can be anything you like, provided your objective is to shit on it.

The vignette the author details above suggests that he and his wife are just out for a gratuitous stroll, to take the air – that little bit smarter than the native mugs who stay crammed into their tiny apartments, you see. It never occurs to them that all they need do is carry a shopping bag, and the cops will be either too lazy or too dumb to investigate.

moscowexile May 9, 2020 at 9:20 am
Misunderstood the above!

He's so smart!!!

He's not really shopping and the dumb Orcs don't suspect that he is fooling them!

But I see Orcs walking around outside my Moscow house all the time, and they are not carrying shopping bags and the cops do not stop them.

In fact, since this isolation regime has come into force, I have yet to see a cop in our neighborhood.

At the very beginning of the "quarantine", 2 cops came to the basketball court outside our house and told sone boys to bugger off. I am sure some old ratbag of an interfering babushka had summoned them.

Moscow Exile May 9, 2020 at 3:30 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bT8fv4Qokdw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

And the Liberasts loathe the celebration of the victory against Nazism: they think it would have been better if the filth had won.

They also detest all those who participate in the "Immortal Regiment" parade, saying they all receive payment to do so.

Note the multi ethnicity of the USSR forces and citizens in the above clip.

Remember, now, "Russians" are inveterate racists!

[May 15, 2020] Actually, Maddow considers herself a Serious Journalist

May 15, 2020 | www.unz.com

Bill Jones , says: Show Comment May 14, 2020 at 9:24 am GMT

@Sgt. Joe Friday "Actually, Maddow considers herself a Serious Journalist. She "speaks truth to power," and she'd probably be the first to tell you that. Repeatedly.

Limbaugh on the other hand, if asked to pick a word to describe his profession would likely say "entertainer.""

While in actuality, the roles are very nearly reversed. (Nearly only because I don't find Maddow amusing)

[May 14, 2020] Tucker on Obamagate

May 14, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Patient Observer May 11, 2020 at 8:50 am

Don't fuck with the Tuck:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fHh19Baj_pM?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

The guy is on fire. Per Carlson, Obama orchestrated the Russian collusion propaganda. I suspect that the lovely Ms. Hilary was a conspirator as well.

Carlson has the number 1 television news show with 4.56 million viewers on average.

https://www.nytimes.com/svc/oembed/html/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F04%2F28%2Fbusiness%2Fmedia%2Fvirus-tucker-carlson-sean-hannity-fox-ratings.html

Like Like

Mark Chapman May 11, 2020 at 9:54 am
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The 'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page, both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and gotten away with it?

It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.

Like Like

Cortes May 11, 2020 at 10:10 am
The son was being lined up for prosecution for alleged FARA violations regarding work on Turkey, I think. The son was working with the General.

Like Like

Mark Chapman May 11, 2020 at 11:45 am
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is .kind of a crime.

Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get off with nothing.

Like Like

uncle tungsten May 12, 2020 at 2:55 am
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.

If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.

Like Like

Mark Chapman May 12, 2020 at 9:37 am
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar accusations against Biden is a classic example.

Like Like

rkka May 13, 2020 at 9:33 am
Mark,

I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats. They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues. But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.

Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.

Like Like

Mark Chapman May 13, 2020 at 11:12 am
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary – while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.

[May 14, 2020] Dirty Dozen: The 12 revelations that sunk Mueller's case against Flynn

Notable quotes:
"... Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news? ..."
May 14, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

et Al May 11, 2020 at 8:22 am

JusttheNews.com: Dirty Dozen: The 12 revelations that sunk Mueller's case against Flynn
https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/dirty-dozen-12-revelations-sunk-muellers-case-against

After a prescient 2017 tip from inside the FBI, a slow drip of revelations exposed the deep problems with the Flynn prosecution.
####

All at the link.

I should add that the author, seasoned investigative reporter John Soloman, wrote much of this over at TheHill.com and was targeted for review over his clearly labelled 'opinion' pieces reporting on the Bidens in the Ukraine. The Hill's conclusion is piss weak and accuses him of what just about every other journalist in the US does and reads in particular of holding him up to a much higher standard than others. As you will see from his twatter bio, he's worked for AP, Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Hill. Some things you are just not supposed to investigate, let alone report.

https://thehill.com/author/john-solomon

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/483600-the-hills-review-of-john-solomons-columns-on-ukraine

Mark Chapman May 11, 2020 at 9:37 am
At an absolute minimum, the FBI officials involved – except those who did their jobs properly and stated their judgments at the outset that there was no evidence Flynn was not telling the truth, or believed he was – should be fired and their pensions, if applicable, rescinded.

Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news?

[May 14, 2020] Neo-McCarthyism as a classic war propaganda

May 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

utu , says: Show Comment May 14, 2020 at 5:36 am GMT

Here we come to the Fourth Pillar of Sufficient Totalitarianism: Repetition, repetition, repetition. In Mein Kampf (now removed from Amazon) Adolf said that propaganda should not be entrusted to.intellectuals They are, he said, easily bored, like sophisticated ideas, and constantly want to change the message.

Hitler indeed said it while criticizing German WWI propaganda and praising the British one. Hitler was talking of what he learned form British propaganda and that it should be emulated:

Particularly in the field of propaganda, placid aesthetes and blase intellectuals should never be allowed to take the lead. The former would readily transform the impressive character of real propaganda into something suitable only for literary tea parties. As to the second class of people, one must always beware of this pest; for, in consequence of their insensibility to normal impressions, they are constantly seeking new excitements.

Such people grow sick and tired of everything. They always long for change and will always be incapable of putting themselves in the position of picturing the wants of their less callous fellow-creatures in their immediate neighbourhood, let alone trying to understand them. The blase intellectuals are always the first to criticize propaganda, or rather its message, because this appears to them to be outmoded and trivial.

And he praised British propaganda for appealing to instincts not reason, staying on message and never being objective:

In this respect also the propaganda organized by our enemies set us an excellent example. It confined itself to a few themes, which were meant exclusively for mass consumption, and it repeated these themes with untiring perseverance. Once these fundamental themes and the manner of placing them before the world were recognized as effective, they adhered to them without the slightest alteration for the whole duration of the War. At first all of it appeared to be idiotic in its impudent assertiveness. Later on it was looked upon as disturbing, but finally it was believed.

But in England they came to understand something further: namely, that the possibility of success in the use of this spiritual weapon consists in the mass employment of it, and that when employed in this way it brings full returns for the large expenses incurred.

In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest hero type.

Vilification of the enemy by British and American propaganda worked:

On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By picturing the Germans to their own people as Barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrific weapons which those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that they had already received and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their respective governments was accordingly reinforced. Thus their rage and hatred against the infamous foe was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only another illustration of the Hunnish brutality of those barbarians; whereas on the side of the Entente no time was left the soldiers to meditate on the similar havoc which their own weapons were capable of. Thus the British soldier was never allowed to feel that the information which he received at home was untrue.

While Germans did not have that strong animus to vilify. They rather ridiculed the enemy and it was a mistake:

It was, for example, a fundamental mistake to ridicule the worth of the enemy as the Austrian and German comic papers made a chief point of doing in their propaganda. The very principle here is a mistaken one; for, when they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results. Once the German soldier realised what a tough enemy he had to fight he felt that he had been deceived by the manufacturers of the information which had been given him. Therefore, instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the contrary effect. Finally he lost heart.

And the greatest mistake of German propaganda was that sometimes it was trying to be objective or even handed:

The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each its due, but exclusively to emphasize the right which we are asserting. Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side.

It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was responsible for the outbreak of the war and declare that the sole responsibility could not be attributed to Germany. The sole responsibility should have been laid on the shoulders of the enemy, without any discussion whatsoever.

And what was the consequence of these half-measures? The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon as our own propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certain amount of justice on his side, then we laid down the basis on which the justice of our own cause could be questioned. The masses are not in a position to discern where the enemy's fault ends and where our own begins

[May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy

Highly recommended!
This is MIGA in action...
Notable quotes:
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
May 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ).

And now the top US special envoy to region, James Jeffrey, has this to say on US troops in Syria :

"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :

Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government."

"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery

He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh

-- Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) May 12, 2020

But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).

As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops "securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.

* * *

Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OJ3fTFHQ0KA

[May 13, 2020] IRRUSSIANALITY

Notable quotes:
"... It's not been a great week for proponents of Russiagate conspiracies. A release of transcripts of meetings of the American House of Representatives Intelligence Committee revealed that person after person interviewed by the Committee denied having any knowledge of collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign on the one hand and the Russian state on the other. This was despite the fact that many of those so interviewed had claimed in public that such collusion had taken place. The discrepancy between their public and private utterances has rightfully been interpreted as further evidence that the whole collusion story was a fabrication from start to finish. ..."
"... Collusion was only half of Russiagate. The other half was the allegation of Russian 'interference' in the US election, founded especially on claims that the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, had hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This allegation was based on research undertaken by a private company Crowdstrike, but now the Intelligence Committee minutes reveal that Crowdstrike couldn't even confirm that how the DNC data had been leaked let alone that the Russians were responsible. All they had, according to the testimony, was 'circumstantial evidence' and 'indicators' – not exactly solid proof. ..."
"... The Atlantic ..."
May 13, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

#DemocracyRIP and the narcissism of Russiagate May 12, 2020 PaulR 12 Comments

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. [Gone with the Wind]

It's not been a great week for proponents of Russiagate conspiracies. A release of transcripts of meetings of the American House of Representatives Intelligence Committee revealed that person after person interviewed by the Committee denied having any knowledge of collusion between Donald Trump and his campaign on the one hand and the Russian state on the other. This was despite the fact that many of those so interviewed had claimed in public that such collusion had taken place. The discrepancy between their public and private utterances has rightfully been interpreted as further evidence that the whole collusion story was a fabrication from start to finish.

Collusion was only half of Russiagate. The other half was the allegation of Russian 'interference' in the US election, founded especially on claims that the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, had hacked and leaked documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This allegation was based on research undertaken by a private company Crowdstrike, but now the Intelligence Committee minutes reveal that Crowdstrike couldn't even confirm that how the DNC data had been leaked let alone that the Russians were responsible. All they had, according to the testimony, was 'circumstantial evidence' and 'indicators' – not exactly solid proof.

Given this, you'd imagine that this would be a good time for Russiagaters to slink off into a dark corner somewhere and hope that people forget all the nonsense they've been spouting for the past four years. But not a bit of it, for what do we find in the latest edition of The Atlantic magazine than an article by Franklin Foer with the scary title 'Putin is well on the way to stealing the next election'.

Foer is in some respects the original Russiagater. He was well ahead of the game, and in a July 2016 article in Slate laid out the basic narrative many months before others latched onto it. The article has it all: a scary title ('Putin's Puppet' – meaning Trump); Vladimir Putin's evil plan to destroy Europe and the United States; a cast of characters with allegedly dubious connections to the Kremlin (Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Carter Page, etc. – you met them first in Foer's article); Trump's supposed desperation to break into the Moscow real estate market; allegations of Trump's lack of creditworthiness leading him to seek shady Russian sources of finance; and so on – in short, the whole shebang long before it was on anyone else's radar.

Not wanting to let a good story go to waste, Foer has been on it ever since, and gained a certain amount of notoriety when he broke the 'story' that US President Donald Trump was secretly exchanging messages with the Russian government via the computer servers of Alfa Bank. Unfortunately for Foer, it didn't take more than a minute or three for researchers to expose his revelation as utter nonsense. This, however, didn't seem to shake him. In the world of journalism there appears to be no such thing as accountability for those who publish fake news about Russians producing fake news, and so it is that Foer is back on the Russiagate wagon with his new piece in the Atlantic , warning us that it's bad enough that Putin elected Trump once, but now he's going to do it all over again.

The basic theme of Foer's latest is pretty much the same as in his original article of July 2016. Back then Foer informed readers that, 'Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying the West – and that plan looks a lot like Donald Trump'. 'The destruction of Europe is a grandiose objective; so is the weakening of the United States', Foer went on, keen to let us know that Putin's aims were nothing if not extreme ('The destruction of Europe' no less!!). Now, nearly four years later, he tell us breathlessly that 'Vladimir Putin dreams of discrediting the American democratic system' (How does he know this? Does he have some special dream detection equipment he's snuck into the Kremlin? Alas, Foer doesn't tell.) According to Foer:

It's possible, however, to mistake a plot point – the manipulation of the 2016 election – for the full sweep of the narrative. Events in the United States have unfolded more favorably than any operative in Moscow could have dreamed: Not only did Russia's preferred candidate win, but he has spent his first term fulfilling the potential it saw in him, discrediting American institutions, rending the seams of American culture, and isolating a nation that had styled itself as indispensable to the free world. But instead of complacently enjoying its triumph, Russia almost immediately set about replicating it. Boosting the Trump campaign was a tactic; #DemocracyRIP remains the larger objective.

#DemocracyRIP?? Seriously? Where does Foer get this? I'm willing to offer him a challenge. I'll pay him $100 (Canadian not US) if he can find anywhere, anywhere, any statement by Vladimir Putin or another top official in the Russian Federation in which they state any sort of preference for what sort of political system the United States has, and in particular state a preference that the USA ceases to be a democracy. If he can't, he'll have to pay me $100. I'm confident I'll win. The truth, as far as I can see, is that like Rhett Butler, they don't give a damn. America can be a democracy, or an autocracy, or any other thing as far as they're concerned, as long as it just leaves them alone. Insofar as thinking Russians do discuss the matter, I get a strong impression they generally regard the problem not as being that America is a democracy so much as being that it isn't, not really, as actual power is seen as lying in the hands of special interests and some sort of version of the 'deep state'. More democracy, not less, would be the preferred solution.

So where does all the nonsense about Putin wanting to destroy democracy come from? It certainly doesn't come from anything he's ever said. And it certainly doesn't come from a serious examination of Russia's true potential. Russia can no more destroy American democracy than it send a man to Alpha Centauri. And its leaders know that perfectly well. So why do Americans think that Putin is lying in his bed, 'dreaming' about the 'destruction of Europe', the 'weakening of America' and '#DemocracyRIP'? I'll hazard a guess – it's a serious case of narcissism. America believes it is the centre of the universe, and it also imagines itself a democracy, and so it thinks that American democracy must be what's at the centre of everybody else's universe too. Well, sorry, Franky boy, it just ain't so. #DemocracyRIP?? In your dreams, perhaps, but certainly not in Putin's.

[May 13, 2020] John Brennan Concealed 'High-Quality' Intelligence That Russia Wanted Hillary Clinton To Win Report

Notable quotes:
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
May 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.

During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity, she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable, while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xWSWdS8rILs

Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000 payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.

And as Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on April 22:

House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .

Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.

Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz .

Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.

And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.

[May 12, 2020] Six big lies you have been told about Russiagate

May 12, 2020 | www.rt.com

By Nebojsa Malic

Russian 'meddling' in the 2016 US presidential election has become an article of faith, not just among Democrats but many Republicans as well, thanks to the endless repetition of vague talking points, none of which hold water. It all began with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) claiming in June 2016 that Russia hacked their computers, after documents were published revealing the party's rigging of the primaries. This was followed by Hillary Clinton accusing her rival for the presidency Donald Trump that he was "colluding" with Russia by asking Moscow for her emails – the ones she deleted from a private server she used to conduct State Department business, that is.

With a little help of the mainstream media, which overwhelmingly endorsed Clinton and predicted her victory, her efforts to cover up her email scandal turned into Russia "hacking our democracy," eventually spawning the 'Russiagate' investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a series of failed attempts to derail Trump's election and oust him from the White House.

Lie #1: Russia hacked the DNC

The infamous US intelligence community assessment (ICA) of January 2017, and the Senate Intelligence Committee report based on it – as well as 'analysis' by actual election meddlers , among others – all claimed that the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin personally were behind the "hack" and publication of DNC documents. These have always been assertions, and no evidence was ever provided.

Also on rt.com We want to believe: 'Russian hacking' memo REVEALS how US intel pinned leaks to Kremlin

Last week's declassification of 50+ interviews in the probe conducted by the House Intelligence Committee revealed that the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, brought in by the DNC lawyers to fix the "hack," did not have evidence either.

CrowdStrike's president, ex-FBI official Shawn Henry, testified that they "saw activity that we believed was consistent with activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government." [emphasis added]

In the same testimony, Henry also testified that CrowdStrike never had any evidence the data was actually "exfiltrated," i.e. stolen from the DNC servers.

I want to stress what a pretty big revelation this is. Crowdstrike, the firm behind the accusation that Russia hacked & stole DNC emails, admitted to Congress that it has no direct evidence Russia actually stole/exfiltrated the emails. More from Crowdstrike president Shaun Henry: pic.twitter.com/UCGSyO2rLt

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) May 8, 2020

CrowdStrike's feelings about the hack remain the only "evidence" so far, since the FBI never asked them or the DNC for the actual server, as Henry also confirmed. Meanwhile, former NSA official and whistleblower William Binney argued back in November 2017 that actual evidence showed a leak from the inside, not a hack.

Also on rt.com 'Zero evidence' that Russia hacked DNC, says NSA whistleblower (VIDEO) Lie #2: Russia hacked Podesta's emails and published them in collusion with WikiLeaks

There is likewise zero proof that the Russian government had anything to do with the private email account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chair, which a staffer admitted had been compromised when someone fell for a phishing scam.

Instead, the key argument that WikiLeaks was somehow 'colluding' with Russia over the publication of the emails rests on a conspiracy theory promoted by the Clinton campaign staff, after RT reported on a fresh batch of emails before WikiLeaks got around to tweeting about them – but after they were published on the website and available to anyone willing to do actual journalism.

Also on rt.com RT beats internet to break #Podestaemails6 & everybody loses their minds (conspiracy theory warning)

In fact, the existence of RT has been a major "argument" of Russiagaters; a third of the ICA intended to show 'Russian meddling' consisted of a four-year-old appendix about RT that was in no way relevant to the 2016 situation but lamented its coverage of fracking and 'Occupy Wall Street' protests, for example.

Lie #3: The Steele 'pee tape' dossier was irrelevant

As it later emerged, Clinton's claims about 'Russian collusion' were based on a dodgy dossier her campaign commissioned through the DNC and a firm called Fusion GPS from a British spy named Christopher Steele. It said that the Kremlin was blackmailing Trump with a tape of depraved sex acts in a Moscow hotel, with prostitutes supposedly paid to urinate on a bed President Barack Obama had slept on.

It was clearly ridiculous and entirely evidence-free. Democrats claimed it played no role in Russia investigations. Yet the FBI paid Steele for information from the dossier, and used it to justify a FISA warrant for the surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page – and with him the campaign itself – starting right before the election, and renewed three times.

Also on rt.com 'Spygate' update: At least two FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page were 'not valid,' DOJ says

By January 2020, the DOJ had formally disavowed the dossier and all four FISA warrants, along with any information obtained from them, saying "there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause."

Lie #4: General Michael Flynn treasonously colluded with Russia and lied about it to the FBI

Trump's first national security adviser was hounded out of the White House after less than two weeks on the job, after media leaks insinuated he had improperly discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, violating the Logan Act, and then lied to the FBI about it.

After FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump in May 2017, he told the media the president had urged him to drop the investigation of Flynn, which was quickly construed as "obstruction" and used as one of the pretexts to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel into 'Russiagate.'

Also on rt.com 'Get him to lie so we can prosecute him': New docs reveal FBI plan to set up General Flynn in perjury trap

When actual evidence was finally coaxed out of prosecutors, however, it showed that the FBI sought to frame Flynn in a perjury trap, and that the people involved were Comey himself, his deputy Andrew McCabe, disgraced lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, and others. All charges against Flynn were dropped.

Flynn didn't even lie to Strzok and the other agent interviewing him – and the memo of that conversation had been first heavily edited, then destroyed. Basically, everything about the Flynn case has been as false as ABC's December 2017 bombshell report about his "collusion" with Russia that got Brian Ross fired.

Also on rt.com ABC's fake news about Flynn & Russia causes stocks to crash Lie #5: Mueller found collusion, or at least Russian meddling

When Mueller's final report came out, in the spring of 2019, it found zero evidence of "collusion" but insisted there had been Russian "meddling" in the election. The only trouble was that he had no proof of meddling , basing it entirely on the above-mentioned intelligence "assessments" and his own indictments.

A Russian company named in one of the indictments actually contested it in US court and won. First, a federal judge slapped down Mueller's prosecutors for violating rules by presenting allegations as "established" and "confirmed" facts and ruling that no link was actually established behind a catering company accused of "sowing discord" on social media – a far cry from hacking the DNC! – and the Russian government.

Also on rt.com Another nail in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim

The DOJ quietly dropped that particular case in March, just as coronavirus shutdowns were starting across the US, using "recent events" and a change in classification of some of its evidence as a face-saving excuse.

Lie #6: Paul Manafort was Trump's conduit to Russia

Paul Manafort, who ran Trump's campaign between March and August 2016, was convicted of multiple counts of conspiracy against the US and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. However, despite repeated attempts by the media to present him as some kind of liaison between Trump and Russia, the entirety of things that got him in trouble with the law had to do with tax evasion on money he made lobbying for and in Ukraine.

Also on rt.com Collusion with Ukraine? NY Times corrects its bombshell 'Russiagate' report

During the two trials against Manafort, it emerged that he and his business partner Rick Gates had worked with Podesta's brother Tony to fleece Ukrainian oligarchs for years, and stash the profits in tax havens.

The Ukrainian officials who leaked the so-called "black ledger" implicating Manafort to the US media were even convicted of election meddling by a court in Kiev, and the whole thing may have been solicited by a Ukrainian-American DNC contractor The US media have been curiously uninterested in that particular "collusion," needless to say.

Also on rt.com DNC contractor asked Ukrainian Embassy for dirt on Trump campaign, envoy confirms

Peel back all these layers of misinformation, like an onion, and what's left is an empty talking point, endlessly repeated by Democrats like Adam Schiff (D-California), that "Russia hacked our democracy."

The charge is vague enough that it can mean anything, and deliberately so. No evidence is ever offered, because there isn't any – as the years of investigations and boxes full of documents have clearly shown.

[May 12, 2020] Geoffrey Roberts 75 years on let's hope the Covid-19 crisis re-energises global efforts to avoid war

May 12, 2020 | www.irishexaminer.com

When Putin came to power 20 years ago, he was a pro-western leader who, in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, sought to recreate a contemporary version of the wartime grand alliance.

Putin's vision of renewed great power collaboration has been undermined but not yet obliterated by a succession of Russian-Western crises and disputes over Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, as well as NATO expansionism, the Skripal poisoning affair and Donald Trump's election as American president.

Critics often accuse Putin of being opposed to a rules-based world order. Rather, it is that he rejects the self-serving rules some western states are seeking to impose on Russia under the guise of improving global security.

As recently as January this year, Putin called for a five-power summit of the UN Security Council's permanent members - Russia, China, the US, France and Britain - to discuss common economic, security and environmental issues.

Maybe we can hope the current emergency will re-energise efforts to achieve a multi-lateral approach to global challenges without the necessity for war.

Geoffrey Roberts is Emeritus Professor of History at University College Cork.

His latest book (with Martin Folly and Oleg Rzheshevsky) is Churchill and Stalin: Comrades-in-Arms during the Second World War.

[May 11, 2020] Twin Pillars of Russiagate Crumble by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
So the RussiaGate was giant gaslighting of the US electorate by Clinton gang and intelligence agencies rogues.
Notable quotes:
"... For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks ..."
"... Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left." ..."
"... This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network. ..."
"... Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive." ..."
"... Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled. ..."
"... Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."] ..."
"... Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it. ..."
"... Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come. ..."
May 11, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.

House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.

The until-now-buried, closed-door testimony came on Dec. 5, 2017 from Shawn Henry, a protégé of former FBI Director Robert Mueller (from 2001 to 2012), for whom Henry served as head of the Bureau's cyber crime investigations unit.

Henry retired in 2012 and took a senior position at CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to investigate the cyber intrusions that occurred before the 2016 presidential election.

The following excerpts from Henry's testimony speak for themselves. The dialogue is not a paragon of clarity; but if read carefully, even cyber neophytes can understand:

Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC? when would that have been?

Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was exfiltrated (sic). There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left.

Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence that they actually were exfiltrated?

Mr. Henry: There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.

Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?

Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network.

Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've indicated.

Mr. Henry: "We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.

In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic: "Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike's "belief" that Russia hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: "There are other nation-states that collect this type of intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state."

Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry's testimony. Henry is asked when "the Russians" exfiltrated the data from DNC.

Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated." ?? pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P

-- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) May 8, 2020

Not Transparent

Try as one may, some of the testimony remains opaque. Part of the problem is ambiguity in the word "exfiltration."

The word can denote (1) transferring data from a computer via the Internet (hacking) or (2) copying data physically to an external storage device with intent to leak it.

As the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has been reporting for more than three years, metadata and other hard forensic evidence indicate that the DNC emails were not hacked – by Russia or anyone else.

Rather, they were copied onto an external storage device (probably a thumb drive) by someone with access to DNC computers. Besides, any hack over the Internet would almost certainly have been discovered by the dragnet coverage of the National Security Agency and its cooperating foreign intelligence services.

Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network.

Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive."

The So-Called Intelligence Community Assessment

There is not much good to be said about the embarrassingly evidence-impoverished Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017 accusing Russia of hacking the DNC.

But the ICA did include two passages that are highly relevant and demonstrably true:

(1) In introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution", the authors of the ICA made a highly germane point: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation – malicious or not – leaves a trail."

(2) "When analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' [these] are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong." [And one might add that they commonly ARE wrong when analysts succumb to political pressure, as was the case with the ICA.]

The intelligence-friendly corporate media, nonetheless, immediately awarded the status of Holy Writ to the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" (it was a rump effort prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only CIA, FBI, and NSA), and chose to overlook the banal, full-disclosure-type caveats embedded in the assessment itself.

Then National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017, the day before they gave it personally to President-elect Donald Trump.

On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language on the key issue of how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks , in an apparent effort to cover his own derriere.

Obama: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."

So we ended up with "inconclusive conclusions" on that admittedly crucial point. What Obama was saying is that U.S. intelligence did not know -- or professed not to know -- exactly how the alleged Russian transfer to WikiLeaks was supposedly made, whether through a third party, or cutout, and he muddied the waters by first saying it was a hack, and then a leak.

From the very outset, in the absence of any hard evidence, from NSA or from its foreign partners, of an Internet hack of the DNC emails, the claim that "the Russians gave the DNC emails to WikiLeaks " rested on thin gruel.

In November 2018 at a public forum, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still had serious doubts in late Jan. 2017, less than two weeks after Clapper and the other intelligence chiefs had thoroughly briefed the outgoing president about their "high-confidence" findings.

Clapper replied : "I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we're, we're pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails." Pretty sure?

Preferring CrowdStrike; 'Splaining to Congress

CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks . It had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's struggle with separatists supported by Russia. A Voice of America report explained why CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim.

Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers.

"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey described CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.

Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.

Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:

BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?

COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access.

BURR: But no content?

COMEY: Correct.

BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?

COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.

In June last year it was revealed that CrowdStrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the government because the FBI never required it to, according to the Justice Department.

By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble, as should Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. Additional evidence of FBI misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week – whether the abuses of FISA, misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.

Schiff: Every Confidence, But No Evidence

Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled.

Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."]

Five days after Trump took office, I had an opportunity to confront Schiff personally about evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails. He had repeatedly given that canard the patina of flat fact during an address at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta "think tank," The Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SdOy-l13FEg

Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come.

Given the timid way Trump has typically bowed to intelligence and law enforcement officials, including those who supposedly report to him, however, one might rather expect that, after a lot of bluster, he will let the too-big-to-imprison ones off the hook. The issues are now drawn; the evidence is copious; will the Deep State, nevertheless, be able to prevail this time?

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This originally appeared at Consortium News .

[May 11, 2020] Guardian adopted McCarthyism as editorial policy

The text below speaks for itself
May 11, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

Under the subtitle The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare, Thomas Rid helps remind us how we reached this morass, one with antecedents reaching back to Czarist Russia and the Bolshevik revolution. To be sure, the US can use all the help it can get as it navigates the current election cycle and the lies, rumours and uncertainty that shroud the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.

Rid was born in West Germany amid the cold war. The Berlin Wall fell when he was a teenager. He is now a professor at Johns Hopkins.

So what are “active measures”? Previously, Rid testified they were “semi-covert or covert intelligence operations to shape an adversary’s political decisions”.

“Almost always,” he explained, “active measures conceal or falsify the source.”

The special counsel’s report framed them more narrowly as “operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of international affairs”. Add in technology and hacking, and an image of modern asymmetric warfare emerges.

Rid travels back to the early years of communist Russia, recounting the efforts of the government to discredit the remnants of the ancien régime and squash attempts to restore the monarchy. The Cheka, the secret police, hatched a plot that involved forged correspondence, a fictitious organization, a fake counter-revolutionary council and a government-approved travelogue.

Words and narratives morphed into readily transportable munitions. The émigré community was declawed and the multi-pronged combination deemed “wildly successful”. The project also “served as an inspiration for future active measures”. A template had been set.

Fast forward to the cold war and the aftermath of the US supreme court’s landmark school desegregation case. The tension between reality and the text and aspirations of the Declaration of Independence was in the open again. Lunch-counter sit-ins and demands for the vote filled newspapers and TV screens. The fault lines were plainly visible – and the Soviet Union pounced.

In 1960, the KGB embarked on a “series of race-baiting disinformation operations” that included mailing Ku Klux Klan leaflets to African and Asian delegations to the United Nations on the eve of a debate on colonialism. At the same time, Russian “operators posed as an African American organization agitating against the KKK”.

More than a half-century later, Russia ran an updated version of the play. Twitter came to host the fake accounts of both “John Davis”, ostensibly a gun-toting Texas Christian and family man, and @BlacktoLive”, along with hundreds of others.

The Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian troll factory, organized pro-Confederate flag rallies. As detailed by Robert Mueller, the IRA also claimed that the civil war was not “about slavery” and instead was “all about money”, a false trope that continues to gain resonance among Trump supporters and proponents of the “liberate the states” movement. According to Brian Westrate, treasurer of the Wisconsin Republican party, “the Confederacy was more about states’ rights than slavery.”

Depicting West Germany as Hitler’s heir was another aim. At the time, “some aging former Nazis still held positions of influence”, Rid writes. In the late 1960s, “encouraging ‘anti-German tendencies in the West’ was very much a priority”.

In 1964, with Russian assistance, Czech intelligence mounted Operation Neptun, sinking Nazi wartime documents to the bottom of the ominous sounding Black Lake, near the German border. The cache was then “discovered” – media pandemonium ensued. Four years later the mastermind of the scheme, Ladislav Bittman, defected to the US.

Prior to 2016, Russia’s most notable active measure using the US as a foil was the lie that Aids was “made in the USA”. In retaliation for US reports of Soviet use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan, the KGB unfurled Operation Denver, a multi-platformed campaign that falsely claimed “Aids was an American biological weapon developed at Fort Detrick, Maryland”. Central to the effort was the earlier publication of an anonymous letter with a New York byline by an Indian newspaper. The forged missive claimed “Aids may invade India: mystery disease caused by US lab experiments.”

[May 11, 2020] the pro-NATO propagandists often exploit the so-called 'Russian threat' concept; however, this merely provides a cover for their aggressive actions to silence and discredit opposing opinions and sources of information they deem to be counter to their own interests.

May 11, 2020 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [208] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 11, 2020 at 10:43 am GMT

To achieve their goals, the pro-NATO propagandists often exploit the so-called 'Russian threat' concept; however, this merely provides a cover for their aggressive actions to silence and discredit opposing opinions and sources of information they deem to be counter to their own interests.

The reason behind their activity is simple – they must justify their existence in reports to their sponsors. They are constantly and fiercely working to engineer 'successful actions' regardless of their validity. In order to continue securing funding to expose and defeat an imaginary enemy, they must create imaginary victories, irrespective of reality.

Uh, the author obviously knows better so why promote this narrative? These operatives are not going after "wrong", or "invalid" targets to justify their funding. They're specifically hired to do what they're doing now.

[May 11, 2020] Tucker: Adam Schiff should resign

This is nationwide gaslighting by Clinton gang of neoliberals who attempted coup d'état, and Adam Schiff was just one of the key figures in this coupe d'état, king of modern Joe McCarthy able and willing to destroy a person using false evidence
What is interesting is that Tucker attacked Republicans for aiding and abetting the coup d'état against Trump
May 11, 2020 | www.youtube.com

RionE23 , 2 days ago

I'm sick of politicians getting a free pass by "resigning" no, they break the law they go to jail.. just like the rest of us.

shannon11590 , 1 day ago

Adam Schiff simply needs to be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned for the countless number of criminal acts that he committed while in Congress.

[May 11, 2020] Anti-Russian hysteria as the key feature of American neofascism. In a way RussiaGate is a neofascist putsch

May 11, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous insight:

"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of 'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office ."

Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the Cold War, Wallace stated:

"American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. "Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes."

In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission , Wallace said " Before the blood of our boys is scarcely dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as in war."

[May 10, 2020] Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security by Kevin R. Brock

Highly recommended!
This was a coup d'état and it has little to do with the protection of Oabama policies, but a lot with protection of Clinton clan to which Obama belongs.
FBI investigators were corrupt and acted as a political police
Notable quotes:
"... Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.) ..."
"... FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy. ..."
"... None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues." ..."
"... Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies. ..."
May 10, 2020 | thehill.com
investigation of Michael Flynn , the more it appears he was targeted precisely because, as the national security adviser to the incoming Trump administration, he signaled that the new administration might undo Obama administration policies -- which is kind of what the American people voted for in 2016.

Some will say that Gen. Flynn was investigated for legitimate criminal or national security reasons. Yet, the FBI's ultimate interview of Flynn addressed none of the grounds that the FBI used to open the original case against him. For those of us who have run FBI investigations, that is more than odd.

Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.)

For the record, Flynn clearly exercised poor judgment as a result of being interviewed by the FBI. The larger question is whether the team under then-Director James Comey had a legitimate basis to conduct the interview at all.

FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy.

None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues."

Let me be clear: That is not a legitimate justification to investigate an American citizen.

There is a theme that runs through the entire Crossfire Hurricane disaster, which has been publicly articulated by Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe : They saw themselves as stalwarts in the breach defending America from a presidential candidate who they believed was an agent of Russia .

... ... ...

Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies.

[May 10, 2020] Does Obama now feels his potential liability for staging coup d' tat and gaslighting the whole nation?

Highly recommended!
All-in-all Obama was a CIA sponsored fraud: In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Notable quotes:
"... Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK ..."
"... Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!). ..."
"... In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises." ..."
May 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Prof K , May 10 2020 16:05 utc | 9

Posted by: Prof K | May 10 2020 16:05 utc | 9

Obama weighed in this week...on Flynn. Why?

What is he trying to preempt?

He only steps in at critical moments to stop something, as he did before SC to block Bernie.

Now this. How does it relate to Russiagate and his potential liability?


Likklemore , May 10 2020 17:08 utc | 18

@ ProfK 9

Whether or not General Flynn is loathed or liked, there is Supreme Court decisions setting precedence for dropping a case when found to be wrapped in prosecutorial misdeeds:

As for the first 'black' president out from the shadows;

Obama, the petit constitutional law scholar, signed the NDAA National Defence Authorization Act which allows imprisonment of Americans forever has no standing to claim the "rule of law is at risk" and he may want to call Eric Holder.

Certified Hypocrite.

Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK

Jackrabbit , May 10 2020 17:31 utc | 19
Likklemore @ May10 17:08
Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security?

Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!).

!!

Likklemore , May 10 2020 18:11 utc | 22
@ Jackrabbit 19

Thanks for that additional link. And that's why Obama could not standby with Flynn in the NSA role. Recall Hillary's on Trump- "if he is elected we'll hang" (paraphrased)

In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."

Fast Forward to 2011 he signs NDAA. "How Obama disappointed the world." Der Spiegel had such an article 9 Aug.2011. But he was re-(S)-elected.

[May 10, 2020] Fear to tell truth, smoke mirrors, writing not for readers but for other journalists - How UK press got to be the LEAST trust by Neil Clark

MSM now run under control of intelligence agencies and use State Department of Foreign Office talking points, much like in the USSR, where this role was played by communist Party
Notable quotes:
"... Part of the problem is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s, leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported factually and without a 'bent'. ..."
"... Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing. I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists. The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished. ..."
May 06, 2020 | www.rt.com

Trust in the written press in Britain is the lowest in 33 European countries. That's hardly surprising seeing how so many journalists have become mere stenographers for, or lackeys of, the Establishment power elites. Just when you think the reputation of the UK media couldn't sink any lower, it just did. An annual survey undertaken by EurobarometerEU, across 33 countries, puts the UK at the bottom, with a net trust of -60. Yes that's right, minus 60 . It's a fall of 24 points since last year. Just 15 percent of Brits trust their print media. But it's not the only survey showing a similar trend.

The attached graphic about trust in the written press, published last week, has not been widely reported in Britain. This is a huge annual survey by @EurobarometerEU across 33 countries. It's the ninth year out of the past ten that the UK has been last. We have a problem. pic.twitter.com/8eYoQR7XZw

-- Brian Cathcart (@BrianCathcart) May 5, 2020

Newspapers came in rock bottom (with a rating of -50) in a YouGov poll on Sky where the question was asked, "How much do you trust the following on Coronavirus?" And in case you think it's only the Sun we're talking about here, another poll showed that distrust of so-called 'upmarket' papers was running at 52 percent.

How did we get here? I've got a collection of old newspapers and magazines dating back several decades. Part of the problem is that newspapers have morphed into viewspapers. The distinction between reporting and comment has been blurred. Back in the 70s, leading publications only had one comment piece and an editorial. Their pages were packed with news items, with stories reported factually and without a 'bent'.

Read more The BBC used to be gold standard, now it's losing public trust with political meddling

Today, comment has taken over, but while there's no shortage of 'opinion', most of it is saying very much the same thing. I think we first saw this phenomenon in the lead up to the Iraq War. I was one of the very few mainstream commentators who ridiculed the claim that Iraq had WMDs. It was obvious to me that if the leaders of the UK and US genuinely believed Saddam possessed these terrible weapons, they wouldn't be planning to do the one thing which would provoke the Iraqi leader into using them, i.e. invade his country. Yet the Great WMDs Hoax, which a child of five could see through, was promoted by nearly all 'serious' journalists. The most vociferous media cheerleaders for the invasion faced no professional blowback, on the contrary, their careers have flourished.

As bad as the Iraq War propaganda was, things have got even worse since then. Obnoxious gatekeepers have ensured that the parameters of what can and can't be said in print have narrowed still further.

In the mid-Noughties, I was writing regularly in the UK mainstream print media. So too was John Pilger. Our articles were popular with readers, but not with the gatekeepers. When I wrote a balanced, alternative view on Belarus for the New Statesman in 2011, I came under fierce gatekeeper attack.

I forgot that on Belarus and many other issues, only one point of view was allowed. Silly me.

Only one thing can save UK print press

Today, the lack of diversity of opinion is one of the reasons why newspaper sales have crashed – (sales have slumped by two-thirds in the past 20 years), and conversely why 'alternative' sites, and media outlets where a wide range of opinions ARE heard have done so well. Who wants to pay money for a paper when the political views published in it range from pro-war centrist-left, to pro-war centrist-right?

If there was a single newspaper or magazine column which examined forensically whether Labour really did have an anti-Semitism 'crisis' under Jeremy Corbyn, I must have missed it.

And apart from Mary Dejevsky in the i paper, where was the journalism examining the many inconsistencies in the official narrative of the Skripal case? Why has 'Private Eye', which bills itself as 'anti-Establishment', not covered the ongoing Philip Cross Wikipedia editing scandal ?

Also on rt.com 'One way to pay for headlines': Backlash after UK govt gifts newspapers Ł35m Covid-19 advertising bump

I'm sure the old 'Eye' of Richard Ingrams and Bron Waugh would have if Wikipedia had been around then.

And what about the Covid-19 coverage? Has any journalist asked the very simple question: if the virus is as bad as the government says it is, and a domestic lockdown is necessary to stop its spread, why have flights continued to come into the country (including from virus hotspots) unchecked?

Don't get me wrong, there are still some good columnists out there, but sadly you can count them on one hand.

The only thing that can save UK print media from total collapse is if there is a large-scale clear-out of the faux-left/neocon-dominated commentariat and their replacement by writers who actually address the issues that readers are interested in. Newspapers used to be published for their readers, now it seems most are published for people who write for other newspapers – and to enable 'Inside the Tenters' to congratulate each other for their 'brilliant' articles on Twitter.

The smug, mutual back-slapping nonsense, seen at its worst at journalist 'award' ceremonies, has gone on for too long. We need more old-style chain-smoking journos, not frightened of telling truth to power – and less smoke and mirrors.

Trust in British print media can be restored, but only if we go back to the future.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

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

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 6 May, 2020 17:39 Get short URL

[May 10, 2020] What did Obama know, and when did he know it

FBI under Obama acted as Gestapo -- the political police. Obama looks now especially bad and probably should be prosecuted for the attempt to stage coup d'état against legitimately elected president. His CIA connections need to investigated and prosecuted too, and first of all Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings. ..."
"... "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that." ..."
"... Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded. ..."
"... Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner ..."
"... Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl ..."
"... All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion! ..."
"... I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?" ..."
"... So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit. ..."
"... Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand. ..."
"... Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other. ..."
"... I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate? ..."
May 09, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

" Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told special counsel Robert Mueller's team that she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn's late 2016 conversations with a Russian envoy following a Jan. 5, 2017, national security meeting at the White House. It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama.

Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings.

These revelations appear in declassified FBI interview notes of the Mueller team's conversation with Yates in August 2017, highlighted by the Justice Department on Thursday as U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea moved to drop its criminal charges against Flynn.

"One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."

Yates told Mueller's team she first learned of the Flynn recordings following a White House meeting about the Intelligence Community Assessment attended by Yates, Comey, Vice President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others. Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded.

Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner

-------------

Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/sally-yates-learned-of-flynn-targeting-from-obama-as-comey-kept-her-in-the-dark-declassified-documents-show


Jack , 09 May 2020 at 12:40 PM

Sir

All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion!

Devin Nunes was spot on and correct that there was an attempted coup. All the media and even many Republicans called him a conspiracy theorist.

SST maintaining its glorious tradition was spot on in its analysis with the limited data available that there was a coup and the traitors were not those in the Trump campaign but the leadership in law enforcement and intelligence. A big shoutout to you, Larry and David Habakkuk.

Trump himself was like deer caught in the headlights. Furiously tweeting but not doing much of anything else while his own nominees at the DOJ and FBI were plotting and acting to destroy his presidency. Devin Nunes imploring him to declassify and expose all the evidence from the FISA applications, the 302s, the internal communications among the plotters including the prolific FBI lovers. He still hasn't.

What happens next? Will the whole coup be exposed in its entirety? Will anyone be held to account?

If Trump doesn't care enough even when his ass was being fried to disclose all the evidence with the stroke of his pen and if all he cares is to tweet "witch-hunt" and "Drain the Swamp", how realistic is it that any of the coup plotters will be tried for treason?

Deap , 09 May 2020 at 01:01 PM
Barry was doing his usual thing, the signature move of his entire political career: .... voting "present". His CYA equivalent of no comment.

Plausible deniability was a high art form for Barry. Where was Barry Soetoro between 16:00 and 22:00 on Sept 11, 2012? We still do not know.

Jim Henely , 09 May 2020 at 01:07 PM
I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?"
RussianBot , 09 May 2020 at 01:40 PM
So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit.

Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand.

Yahoo released a leaked call today of Obama criticizing Trump's response over coronavirus. Here's the big headline Yahoo is running:

Exclusive: Obama says in private call that 'rule of law is at risk' in Michael Flynn case

https://news.yahoo.com/obama-irule-of-law-michael-flynn-case-014121045.html

The Flynn case was invoked by Obama as a principal reason that his former administration officials needed to make sure former Vice President Joe Biden wins the November election against President Trump. "So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency that I do," he said. "Whenever I campaign, I've always said, 'Ah, this is the most important election.' Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like it's the most important election. This one -- I'm not on the ballot -- but I am pretty darn invested. We got to make this happen."
Obama misstated the charge to which Flynn had previously pleaded guilty. He was charged with false statements to the FBI, not perjury.

Misstated seems like a stretch. The call sounds scripted and I suspect the leak was deliberate.

Keith Harbaugh , 09 May 2020 at 02:12 PM
Sundance covered in great detail the context in which that 2017-01-05 meeting occurred:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/01/why-was-flynn-targeted-a-timeline-review-of-the-three-phases/

A YouTube video of Barry's cry of dismay (and fear) over the dismissal of charges against Flynn is here:
https://youtu.be/tbQ8P3GhD-c

EmJay72159508 , 09 May 2020 at 04:50 PM
Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other.
JMH , 09 May 2020 at 04:58 PM
Keith Harbaugh,

O'Biden's Dad just wheeled around the corner in a wood paneled station wagon and dressed down the neighborhood kids who took O'Biden's ball. A humiliating experience for O'Biden who sits in the passenger seat as a mere spectator.

Keith Harbaugh , 09 May 2020 at 07:35 PM
Sundance just posted an astoundingly detailed account of
how illegal surveillance was conducted by unauthorized FBI-contractors
while the GOP was sorting out the candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/05/09/why-is-obama-panicking-now-the-importance-of-understanding-political-surveillance-in-the-era-of-president-obama/

The open question is: Just who were those contractors?
Surely that is known to some, and is significant to current politically-charged inquiries.
Just why that information has not become public is a good question.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for that information?

Jack , 09 May 2020 at 09:30 PM
It is unsurprising @realDonaldTrump enjoys wallowing in his fetid self-indulgence, but I find it surreal that so many other government officials encourage his ignorance, incompetence, & destructive behavior.

BTW, history will be written by the righteous, not by his lickspittle.

https://twitter.com/johnbrennan/status/1259191320515616770?s=21

Is Brennan always like this? His tweets seem unhinged.

Fred , 09 May 2020 at 09:55 PM
"Deputy Attorney General Yates"

She served as Acting AG, accepting the post when Trump was inaugurated. What did she tell him about his whole affair? Was the opposition to the EO 13769 just an excuse to have herself fired so she would not have to either perjure herself or reveal the truth to Trump?

Jack,
"All this was known in DC for the past few years."

You left out that Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House because the Republicans were in the majority then and the HPSCI under his term as speaker did not subpoena a very large group of people, didn't ask relevant questions, didn't release information to the public and thus ensuring the left took over the House after the 2016 elections.

JerseyJeffersonian , 09 May 2020 at 10:33 PM
I, too, coincidentally just concluded a close reading of the Conservative Tree House post that Mr. Harbaugh just recommended. It is, indeed, well worth such a close reading. There have been various puzzling things along the way these last few years for which this post provides explanations. Of particular utility, is its inclusion of a timeline of the arc of the episodes of illegal government surveillance that began (?) with the IRS spying of 2012, and how - and why - it evolved from that episode into the massive abuses of the FISA process of which we are becoming increasingly aware as revelations are forthcoming.

CTH's work is superb, but I do want to say that I am also supremely grateful for all of the good work and analysis from Larry Johnson, and other contributors, as well as for the trenchant comments of Col. Lang. Multivalent sources of information, analysis, and comment provide one with the parallax requisite to understanding this web of perfidy. My gratitude also is owing to all of you Members of the Committee of Correspondence, each of whom brings personal observations and insights to bear, always much to my benefit.

Jack , 10 May 2020 at 03:51 AM
Fred,

I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate?

Jim , 10 May 2020 at 05:42 AM
["One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."]

++++++++++++

This is fascinating because: this, what Barr is discussing, on national TV, . . . this particular dimension, this Yates/Comey playing hide the bacon has nothing at all to do with actual Brady material in the Lt. Gen. Flynn case.

Barr is referring to the Special Counsel Mueller Office's interview with Yates on Aug. 15, 2017, entered into the system three weeks later. Her interview occurred more than two months prior to Flynn's coerced guilty plea.

This SCO document was released to the court May 7 as exhibit 4 attached to the DOJ motion to end the prosecution of Flynn. It was produced in line with request by defense for Brady material.

What Barr forgets to say is: This SCO interview of Yates shows that Comey and Yates talked on the phone -- prior to -- the notorious Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn.

"Comey . . . informed her that two agents were on their way to interview Flynn at the White House," the SCO said, according to the new court filing.

Yates took no action, -- she did nothing to order Comey to abort this soon-to-happen FBI interview of Flynn, this SCO interview of her shows.

She was Comey's boss, the Acting Attorney General, at the time.

It shows that she was upset precisely because she wanted the FBI to coordinate with the DOJ -- on getting Flynn screwed -- even suggesting, she told the SCO, that consideration that Flynn be recorded, instead of memorialized using standard 302 form – in-writing-only.

Yates wanted Flynn fired, she told the SCO.

Yates apparently was unable on her own to figure out, as the AG, the FBI and DOJ -- none of them had any predicate, no "materiality," nothing "tethered" to any crime, as there was no crime. And if she did not know these basic facts, had no awareness of them, then: why was she the AG in the first place?

And what did Yates glean, right after this Jan. 24 interview of Flynn?

"Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer readout the following day," which begs the question of why the original 302 of this was never produced by the DOJ, to the defense; and also, why Covington law firm never asked to see this before allowing Flynn to make his plea.

"Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself, but understood from others that their assessment was that Flynn showed no 'tells' of lying," the SCO report says.

Based on her personal preference, rather than DOJ norms, she went to the White House, and her expectation was they would fire Flynn. I fail to see how this nonsense by Yates seem to escape Barr's notice. Or, is something else also going on?

She personally went to the White House, and her smear campaign against Flynn began, went on and on and on, even after she was fired after being Acting AG for just ten days.

In her brief stint as Acting AG: Yates refused to tell the White House Counsel if Flynn was being investigated, when the WHC asked her, directly, about this, according to what she told the SCO. Can't blame this fact on the unctuous Comey.

She did tell the SCO that she wanted the WHC to know Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI – and that she had concerns about Flynn, and she said those concerns related to the Logan Act. Yates told SCO her concerns were because of the Logan Act, and that she expressed this to the White House.

The Washington Examiner reporting that "It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama" -- about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call --- this is interesting, very interesting, if true, assuming Yates was telling the SCO the truth. This is what she claims in her August 2017 interview with SCO.

But this bit of information is hardly Brady material [how is whether Obama or Comey told her materially germane to the Flynn case, viz. Brady material?].

The question the SCO should have been concerned about is: who actually leaked the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to the media?

Is this a serious crime? Or is this OK?

We still do not know this answer, and AG Barr has not told us. Nor has his boss, Trump.

It is interesting that Barr chose to highlight that Comey went around Yates' back in Comey ordering FBI to interview Flynn, but not that Yates knew of the Flynn interview before it went down, and sat on her arse about it.

In fairness to Comey, they were, as the FB of Investigations, conducting the investigation, which is their job, however rogue this FBI's I actually was, targeting Flynn.

The Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, occurring late December of 2016, was reported by the Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2017, eight days before Trump was sworn in.

And who leaked this, has anyone been prosecuted, will anyone be?

Obama still president, Loretta Lynch still AG, Yates still Deputy AG, Comey FBI director, McCabe Deputy FBI director, etc.

Starting Jan. 20 and for ten days, Yates was the AG. She appeared bent on destroying Flynn, and did nothing that I know of to prosecute who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to WAPO. Did someone on high perhaps ask her not to?

Nor was Comey and McCabe investigating this as best I can tell. Yet this was an actual, clear cut crime we all saw, plain as day. Or maybe this is OK? Was someone on high asking them not to?

I watched Barr say, during his interview with CBS news, [following the May 7 release of documents to the court]: "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Barr told Catherine Herridge.

And my first thought was: why is Barr doing an apparent CYA for Yates?

What office might she want to be running for in the future; is she a cooperating witness in the wider Durham probe, why is Yates being portrayed as someone other than what she was: A leader in the effort to destroy Michael Flynn.

She was the AG, and she failed to hold Comey accountable at the time; this is a fact, apparently, that reflects poorly on her.

She told the White House -- as best she could -- that Flynn was a piece of dung, and told the SCO, in their interview of her, that she expected the White House to fire Flynn. This reflects poorly on her.

And threatened Logan Act prosecution of Flynn to the White house. This reflects poorly on her.

She smeared Flynn in a CNN interview on May 16, the day before Mueller was appointed. This reflects poorly on her.

Well, who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, and did Yates act on that?

Folks that "should have known better" -- far and wide, smeared Flynn, justified the lawlessness against him; one of many examples, titled: "Leaking Flynn's name to the press was illegal, but utterly justified" published by TheHill.com.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/319955-yes-leaking-flynns-name-to-press-was-illegal-but

She wasn't the only one, but Yates was smack dab in the middle of enabling and perpetuating a long-running smear campaign against Flynn, to destroy him by any means necessary. This reflects poorly on her.

Why is Barr carrying water for her.

As for Obama, he did nothing to stop Comey in 2016 when Comey announced he was exonerating Clinton. Nor did AG Lynch, even though that is not the function of the FBI -- an act of insubordination, by the way, for which Rosenstein officially fired him in May 2017, which set, somehow, in motion the Mueller SC appointment by Rosenstein.

If Comey is such a rogue, and Barr is now claiming Yates tried to do the right thing, in spite of Comey, then why didn't Yates fire Comey Jan. 24 right on the spot? And end the fiasco right then and there?

In her May 16, 2017 CNN interview she only has kind words to say about him.

AS for who on high was encouraging Comey's extra legal free-lancing in the Clinton and Flynn matters is a pertinent question.

Who were the enablers, in other words?

Barr appears to imply Comey did it all on his own, which is not entirely accurate. Perhaps this also implies that Durham will prosecute Comey? I don't know if anyone will be prosecuted at all. Time will tell.

It is clear Comey's enablers would, by rank, have been, viz. the Clinton matter: Obama and Lynch.

In the Flynn matter: Trump and Yates.

Simple logic dictates that: if Main Justice was "not in the loop" then, for Clinton matter, this means Obama was enabling Comey to exonerate her; and also dictate that, for Flynn, that Trump was the one "on high" enabling Comey.

If there are others on high, they were not in the chain of command as I understand the current US Government structure.
-30-

Fred , 10 May 2020 at 09:19 AM
Jack,

"Never Trump".

Jim,

You seem to think Trump was informed of all the relevant information about the FBI's conduct during his first ten days in office. Because Barr, being appointed AG two years after these events, has yet to indict anyone in the case, Trump was actually enabling Yates in destroying Flynn? Neither appear to be logical conclusions to me.

Bobo , 10 May 2020 at 09:50 AM
So on a December 29, 2016 The Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia that evolved to Flynn, at the instruction of the incoming Trump administration, contacting the Russian ambassador requesting that they not retaliate or heighten the situation.

On January 5th Ms. Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn intervention.

Rather than contact Trump directly Obama went along with the Comey Logan Act thoughts.

The decision to enact sanctions obviously involved State, CIA, DNI and FBI but why not Justice or did it. But why was the incoming Trump administration not consulted.

There was only one Machiavellian thinker in that group and it wasn't the idiot who got his panties all twisted up.

[May 10, 2020] Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have followed...

The genius of Russiagate is that it managed to gaslight the whole nation
May 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
jinn , May 10 2020 15:20 utc | 5
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have followed...
__________________________________________________

That is not at all obvious.
Russiagate was obviously designed to look like a coup attempt, but you have to be extremely gullible to believe any of it is real.

The recent Flynn bruhaha is a perfect example of the phoniness surrounding Russiagate.

The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn believed he had not been deceptive and any fool who was paying attention at the time believed he was not guilty because 2 weeks before that FBI interview the news media had reported that the phone call with Kislyak had been recorded by the FBI and that there was nothing improper or illegal that would motivate Flynn to lie about his talk with Kislyak. The story that Flynn lied to the FBI is unbelievable on its face.

Don't blame the FBI for creating this fake story. Trump is the one and only one that created the fake Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story, Before Trump created the phony story that Flynn had lied to the FBI nobody else had at that time believed Flynn lied to the FBI.
But once Trump had created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI then all the gullible morons started to believe the phony story. And even Flynn himself goes along with Trump's phony story because he is a good soldier that follows command.

Trump says he fired Flynn for lying to the FBI

Before Comey's testimony to Congress that suggested that Trump was twisting Comey's arm to let Flynn go for lying to the FBI no one had ever said that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story was created by Trump and reported by Comey.
And then Mueller and Flynn and Comey all helped Trump foist that phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI onto the public.

The implication of Comey's testimony to Congress was that in order to get Flynn off a charge of Lying to the FBI Trump first tried to cajole Comey to go easy on Flynn and when that did not work Trump fired Comey.
The problem with that whole BS story is that the crux of it (that Flynn lied to the FBI) never happened. It was entirely invented by Trump to make it look like Trump was engaged in mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all staged and fake (i.e. Kayfabe)


jinn , May 10 2020 15:42 utc | 7

Russigate falls apart:

_______________________________________________
Well duh....

Russiagate was designed to fall apart.

It was obvious all along that all the stories that came out in the Mueller Report were badly written sit-com material - the script for a comic soap opera. And they were all scripted to fall apart when examined closely.

What I could never figure out was what this guy Mueller was going to say when he was dragged in front of Congress and required to answer tough questions about all the garbage he had produced. I thought for sure that for Mueller the jig would be up there was no way the farce would not be revealed for all to see.

And then it happened. Mueller testified and it turned out Mueller could not remember any of it.

Senator: Did you say XYZ?
Mueller: Is that in the report??
Senator: yes it is.
Mueller: Then it is true.

Making Mueller Senile and unable to remember anything was brilliant - pure genius. The rest of the Russiagate script was mediocre at best.

Jackrabbit , May 10 2020 17:01 utc | 16
bevin @ May 10 16:41

It was a transparently false narrative designed, by the most incompetent election campaign team in history ...

Occam's razor says Hillary threw the election. No seasoned politician would make the mistakes that she made - especially when they yearn to make history (as the first woman president) and the entire establishment (left and right) is counting on them to win.

Believing what is evidently incredible has long been a test of loyalty ...

And you prove your loyalty with the belief that Hillary lost because of an "incompetent election campaign".

!!

[May 08, 2020] Thiefs stole from a Russian fifth column critter: NY Times Accused Of Ripping Off Pulitzer Prize-Winning Stories From Russian Journalists For 2nd Time

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its reporting from Russian journalists . ..."
"... On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website Proekt , known as The Project in English. ..."
"... This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months later, in November , titled " How Russia Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting . ..."
"... Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the Putin regime's 'predations.'" ..."
"... Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year." ..."
"... Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism. Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries targeted by Washington for regime change. ..."
"... The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting. ..."
May 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

NY Times Accused Of Ripping Off Pulitzer Prize-Winning Stories From Russian Journalists For 2nd Time by Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2020 - 20:05 Authored by Ben Norton via TheGrayZone.com,

The New York Times has been accused for a second time of stealing major scoops from Russian journalists . One of those stories won the Times a Pulitzer Prize this May.

The journalists who have accused the Times of taking their work without credit also happen to be the same liberal media crusaders against Vladimir Putin that Western correspondents at the Times and other mainstream outlets have cast as persecuted heroes. The Pulitzer Prize Board is comprised of a who's who of media aristocrats and Ivy League bigwigs. Given the elite backgrounds of the judges, it is hardly a surprise that they rewarded reporting reinforcing the narrative of the new US Cold War against official enemies like Russia and China .

Stephen Kinzer, a former New York Times correspondent who has since become a critic of US foreign policy, noted that the three finalists in the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting "were one story about how evil Russia is and two about how evil China is. These choices encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's foreign-policy narrative."

The finalists nominated in this category were Reuters and the New York Times for two separate sets of stories.

The US newspaper of record ended up winning the 2020 award in international reporting , for what the Pulitzer jury described as "a set of enthralling stories, reported at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime."

The 3 finalists in the #PulitzerPrize2020 "international reporting" category were one story about how evil #Russia is and two about how evil #China is. These choices encourage reporters to write stories that reinforce rather than question Washington's foreign-policy narative.

-- Stephen Kinzer (@stephenkinzer) May 5, 2020

The Times was nominated again as a finalist for what the jury called its "gripping accounts that disclosed China's top-secret efforts to repress millions of Muslims through a system of labor camps, brutality and surveillance."

The staff of Reuters was selected as the third finalist for its reporting in support of anti-China protesters in Hong Kong . (The photography staff of Reuters ended up winning the Pulitzer Prize in breaking news photography for the same coverage.)

Among the five members of the Pulitzer jury who selected these finalists was Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the neoliberal magazine The Atlantic and a former volunteer in the Israeli army who worked as a guard at a prison camp where Palestinians who rose up in the First Intifada were interned.

Joining Goldberg on the jury was Susan Chira, a former New York Times editor.

While this elite Pulitzer jury praised the New York Times for "at great risk, exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime," it is not exactly clear what that "risk" is supposed to entail – because the major US newspaper appears to have stolen at least part of its reporting from Russian journalists .

I'm proud and humbled to share a Pulitzer Prize with @ddknyt , @dionnesearcey , as well as @malachybrowne and his visual investigation wizards for our reporting on Russia's shadow wars. https://t.co/yczpVAw1QW

-- Michael Schwirtz (@mschwirtz) May 4, 2020

On May 4, journalist Roman Badanin published a Facebook post accusing the Times of ripping off a story he had released months before without credit. Badanin is the founder and editor-in-chief of the liberal anti-Putin news website Proekt , known as The Project in English.

"I have no illusions about the real role of Russian journalism in the world, but I have to note: the two The New York Times's investigations, for which this honored newspaper won the Pulitzer prize yesterday, repeat the findings of The Project's articles published a few months before," Badanin wrote on Facebook.

"I would also like to note that the winners did not put a single link to the English version of our article, even when, for example, 8 months after The Project, they told about the activities of Eugene Prigozhin's emissaries in Madagascar," he added.

Badanin linked to an article he published, both in Russian and English, back in March 2019 titled " Master and Chef : How Evgeny Prigozhin led the Russian offensive in Africa." The story details how the businessman Evgenу Prigozhin, who is sanctioned by the US government, has been promoting business opportunities in Africa. The piece focuses specifically on Madagascar, where Russia also has a military agreement.

This report is eerily similar to a report published by the New York Times eight months later, in November , titled " How Russia Meddles Abroad for Profit : Cash, Trolls and a Cult Leader." This story, which was filed in Madagascar, does not once link to or credit Proekt's original reporting .

Another anti-Putin Russian news website, Meduza, published an article on May 7 drawing attention to these allegations, titled " 'Fuck the Pulitzer -- I just want a hyperlink' : Russian journalists say 'The New York Times' should have acknowledged their investigative work in the newspaper's award-winning reports about the Putin regime's 'predations.'"

Meduza interviewed Badanin, who said the New York Times "report about Madagascar from November 2019 repeats all the main and even secondary conclusions from our reporting about Madagascar and Africa generally between March and April last year."

While Badanin did not outright accuse the Times of plagiarism, he was frustrated that "nowhere in the story did they acknowledge that we'd already reported on this topic," and said it was either a "professional issue" or an "ethical problem."

A New York Times spokesperson denied that Proekt's reporting was used in any way. And the Times reporter who authored this report from Madagascar, Michael Schwirtz , responded dismissively to the accusations in a Twitter thread full of sarcastic quips.

Another anti-Putin Russian activist accuses the New York Times of lifting his reporting

Michael Schwirtz authored another New York Times article in December that was cited by the Pulitzer jury for the 2020 prize. This piece, "How a Poisoning in Bulgaria Exposed Russian Assassins in Europe," is also suspiciously similar to reporting published before by yet another anti-Putin website, called The Insider .

The Insider is edited by the Western-backed, diehard anti-Putin activist Roman Dobrokhotov. In response to Schwirtz's Twitter thread, Dobrohotov angrily asked why The Insider's reports were not credited as well. Schwirtz denied having used information from the previous stories.

Schwirtz's Twitter thread tagged four Russian accounts: Proekt, The Insider, Dobrokhotov, and Yasha Levine, the last of whom is an occasional contributor to The Grayzone and the author of " Surveillance Valley ."

Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents -- doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway? https://t.co/V1YtZ7K6OB

-- Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) May 7, 2020

Levine reflected on the scandal writing,

"Time to learn the hard truth: The New York Times -- like the Empire it represents -- doesn't give a fuck about you. It'll take whatever it wants, give nothing in return, and suffer no consequences. And who'll believe you Russians anyway?"

"The reverence with which liberal Russian journalists have treated the New York Times has always been baffling to me," Levine continued. "But that's what you get when you're a colonial subject like Russia. You fetishize the master. That reverence is starting to wear off, but it's still there."

New York Times was also accused of stealing Russian journalists' reporting back in 2017

This is not even the first time that the US newspaper of record has been accused of stealing reporting from Russian journalists.

Back in 2017, the New York Times won the Pulitzer Prize in international reporting for its reports on "Vladimir Putin's efforts to project Russia's power abroad."

At the time, journalists from the anti-Putin website Meduza accused the Times of ripping off their reporting. The website Global Voices highlighted the controversy, in an article titled "Russian Journalists Say One of NYT's Pulitzer-Winning Stories Was Stolen ."

Meduza reported Daniil Turovsky accused New York Times Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer of lifting his reporting. Kramer actually took the time to respond in a Facebook comment, acknowledging that his report was based on the Russian journalist's.

"Daniil, I spoke with you while preparing this article and explained that I intended to follow in the footsteps of your fine work, that I would credit Meduza, as I did, and thanked you for your help," Kramer said.

This did not satisfy Meduza, which also reminded readers in its latest 2020 article that the Times had ripped off its 2017 reporting.

The NYT times has been honored with a Pulitzer Prize for "exposing the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime" in 2019, but several top investigative journalists in Russia say the U.S. newspaper ignored their groundbreaking work in this area -- again. https://t.co/R4WZdqHDp4

-- Meduza in English (@meduza_en) May 7, 2020

The Grayzone has also experienced this kind of shameless journalistic theft. In March 2019, the New York Times released a report acknowledging that the so-called "humanitarian aid" convoy that the US government tried to ram across the Venezuelan border in a February coup attempt had been set on fire not by government forces, but rather Washington-backed right-wing opposition hooligans.

At the time of this February 23 putsch attempt, the Times had initially joined US politicians like Senator Marco Rubio and the majority of the corporate media in blaming Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. But The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, who was reporting in Venezuela, published a report showing that all of the available evidence pointed to the opposition being responsible.

When the Times finally admitted this fact weeks later, it made no mention whatsoever of Blumenthal's reporting. Glenn Greenwald was the only high-profile journalist to credit Blumenthal and The Grayzone.

New York Times had ironically heroized these Russian journalists before stealing their reporting

Further compounding this staggering hypocrisy is the fact that the New York Times has in fact published numerous articles lionizing these anti-Putin Russian journalists, while simultaneously ripping off their work.

Proekt founder and editor Roman Badanin is not some kind of crypto pro-Kremlin activist – far from it. He has spent years working within mainstream outlets, and was previously the editor-in-chief of the decidedly anti-Putin Russian edition of Forbes magazine.

Badanin does friendly interviews with US-based neoconservative think tanks like the Free Russia Foundation , a right-wing anti-Putin lobbying group that appointed regime-changer Michael Weiss as its director for special investigations.

In an interview conducted by Valeria Jegisman , a neoconservative anti-Russian activist who worked as a spokesperson for the government of Estonia and now works at the US government's propaganda arm Voice of America, group accused the Kremlin of spreading false information, claiming "Russia will continue its disinformation tactics."

Badanin also called for "the West" to "support independent media projects with non-profit funding," stating clearly: "I think that what the West can do is to continue to support independent media in the most transparent and clear way, and to stop being afraid of the million tricks that the Russian authorities come up with to force the West to abandon these investments."

The Russian journalist's pro-Western perspective has been rewarded. Badanin was honored by the European Press Prize , a program backed by Western governments and the top corporate media outlets in Europe, particularly The Guardian and Reuters.

Badanin was also given a Stanford John S. Knight international fellowship in journalism. Stanford University has established itself as an outpost for Russian pro-Western liberals, and its journalist fellowship program provides institutional support for dissidents in countries targeted by Washington for regime change.

Badanin's extensive links to Western regime-change institutions should not come as a surprise to the New York Times; it has in fact honored him in numerous articles.

In 2017, the Times published an entire article framed around Badanin. Reporter Jim Rutenberg explained, "I wanted to better understand President Trump's America So I went to Russia ."

In Moscow, Rutenberg met with Badanin at the headquarters of the anti-Putin station TV Rain, which he described as a "warehouse complex here, populated by young people with beards, tattoos, piercings and colored hair. (Brooklyn hipster imperialism knows no bounds.)"

While praising Badanin and TV Rain, the Times also noted that the channel published a poll suggesting that the Soviet Union "should have abandoned Leningrad to the Nazis to save lives."

The Times even featured Badanin prominently in the header image of the story -- just two years before the same newspaper would go on to rip off his reporting.

The New York Times also reported on Roman Badanin in 2016 and 2011 . It is abundantly clear the newspaper knew who he was.

The Gray Lady's willingness to snatch Badanin's reporting shows how little respect newspapers like the New York Times actually have for the anti-Putin journalists they claim to lionize . For the jet-setting correspondents of Western corporate media outlets, liberal Russian reporters are just tools to advance their own ambitions.

[May 07, 2020] Media Malpractice Is Criminalizing Better Relations With Russia by Stephen F. Cohen

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russiagate without Russia. ..."
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. ..."
"... Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office. ..."
"... Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. ..."
"... Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. ..."
Dec 13, 2017 | thenation.com

Cohen offers the following general observations, which form the basis of the discussion:

  • The foundational accusation of Russiagate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of DNC e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy." As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russiagate without Russia. (An apt formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.) Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn. Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have spread to "contacts with Russia"-political, financial, social, etc.-on the part of a growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or potentially so.

    This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. More to the point, advisers to US policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. Cohen himself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered his wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president he advised. To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave US policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post, in an editorial. This is one reason Cohen, in a previous Batchelor broadcast and commentary, argued that Russiagate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security.

  • Russiagate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "Dossier" and the still murky role of top US intel officials in the creation of that document.) That said, Cohen continues, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russiagate as the real political crisis it has become, arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history. The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions. (For inventories of recent examples, see Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortium News. Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist Robert Parry.) Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and "proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism. As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russiagate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russiagate without Russia.

  • Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office.

    Those sanctions were highly unusual-last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.

    Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is commonly thought, but Russiagate-that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a personal rebuff, was eager to believe.) But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador-as well as other Trump representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow–were anything but a crime. As Cohen pointed out in another previous commentary, there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the relationship. When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President Pence and finding himself trapped-or possibly entrapped-between loyalty to his president and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russiagate prior to the election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory. In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to US national security, not a crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way, it was with Israel, not Russia, having been asked by that government to dissuade countries from voting for an impending anti-Israel UN resolution.

  • Finally, and similarly, Cohen points out, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable appointee by Trump-widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and practical-minded man. Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department, as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries, and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall, Cohen asks, a major diplomatic triumph by the State Department or a secretary of state in recent years? The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten, meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested-in the spirit of DOD-Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging of a president by his own State Department. In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russiagate compels him to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if left unencumbered, he might achieve.) Evidently, he has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current crisis.

    Tillerson's fate, Cohen concludes, will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russiagate continue to gravely endanger American national security?

    Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book, War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in their seventh year, are available at www.thenation.com.

  • [May 05, 2020] Is there a "6th column" trying to subvert Russia, by The Saker

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff. ..."
    "... The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the "liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right. ..."
    "... Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates. ..."
    "... First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. ..."
    "... The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow. ..."
    "... if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin. ..."
    "... If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition". ..."
    "... I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often "insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin. ..."
    "... This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". ..."
    "... "Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such". ..."
    "... Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime in power" might appear to be. ..."
    "... These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one. ..."
    "... There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever since Putin came to power. ..."
    "... This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western "alphabet soup". ..."
    "... Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists. ..."
    "... The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution). ..."
    "... That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II, or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their intelligence level ..."
    May 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

    For those of us who followed the Russian Internet there is a highly visible phenomenon taking place which is quite startling: there are a lot of anti-Putin videos posted on YouTube or its Russian equivalents. Not only that, but a flurry of channels has recently appeared which seem to have made bashing Putin or Mishustin their full-time job. Of course, there have always been anti-Putin and anti-Medvedev videos in the past, but what makes this new wave so different from the old one is that they attack Putin and Mishustin not from pro-Western positions, but from putatively Russian patriotic positions. Even the supposed (not true) "personal advisor" to Putin and national-Bolshevik (true), Alexander Dugin has joined that movement (see here if you understand Russian).

    This is a new, interesting and complex phenomenon, and I will try to unpack it here.

    First, we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western opposition which, while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV, represents something in the 3-5% of the people at most. You might ask why they are so frequent on TV, and the reason is simple: the more they talk, the more they are hated.

    So far from silencing the opposition, the Kremlin not only gives it air time, it even pays opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows. See here and here for more details

    Truly, the reputation of the pro-Western "liberal" (in the Russian sense) opposition is now roadkill in Russia. Yes, there is a core of Russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion (they refer to it as "Rashka") and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they are universally despised all over the country (the one big exception being Moscow where there is a much stronger "liberal" opposition which gets the support of all those who had a great time pillaging Russia in the 1990s and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their malfeasance).

    As for the Duma opposition, it is an opposition only in name. They make noises, they bitch here and there, they condemn this or that, but at the end of the day, they will not represent a credible opposition at all.

    Why?

    Well, look at this screenshot I took from a Russian polling site :

    The chart is in Russian, but it is also extremely simple to understand. On the Y axis, you see the percentage of people who "totally trust" and "mostly trust" the six politicians, in order: Putin, Mishustin, Zhirinovskii, Ziuganov, Mironov and Medvedev. The the X axis you see the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020.

    The only thing which really matters is this: in spite all the objective and subjective problems of Russia, in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform, in spite of all the western sanctions and in spite of the pandemic, Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position: he has the overwhelming support of the Russian people. This single cause pretty much explains everything else I will be talking about today.

    As most of you probably remember, there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in the past, but they all failed for very simple reasons:

    Most Russians remember the horrors of the 1990s when the pro-Western "liberals" were in power. Second, the Russian people could observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev. The liberals expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Ukronazi regime. Few Russians doubt that if the pro-western "liberals" got to power, they would turn Russia into something very similar to today's Ukraine. Next, the Russians could follow, day after day, how the Ukraine imploded, went through a bloody civil war, underwent a almost total de-industrialization and ended up with a real buffoon as President (Zelenskii just appointed, I kid you not, Saakashvili as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine, that is all you need to know to get the full measure of what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is!). Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what happened to this poor country, they openly support Zelenskii. Most (all?) of the pro-western "NGO" (I put that in quotation marks, because these putatively non-governmental organization were entirely financed by western governments, mostly US and UK) were legally forced to reveal their sources of financing and most of them got listed as "foreign agents". Others were simply kicked out of Russia. Thus, it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared to be "mass protests" under these condition. There is a solid "anti-Maidan" movement in Russia (including in Moscow!) which is ready to "pounce" (politically) in case of any Maidan-like movement in Russia. I strongly suspect that the FSB has a warm if unofficial collaboration with them. The Russian internal security services (FSB, FSO, National Guard, etc.) saw a major revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past, but also much better organized to deal with subversion. As for the armed forces are solidly behind Putin and Shoigu. While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless, Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations. Last, but not least, the Russian liberals are so obviously from the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as " obrazovanshchina ", a word hard to translate but which roughly means "pretend [to be] educated": these folks have always considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply cannot hide their contempt for the "common man" (very similar to Hillary's "deporables"). The common man fully realizes that and, quite logically, profoundly distrusts and even hates "liberals".

    There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column realized that calling Putin names in the western press, or publicly accusing him of being a "bloody despot" and a "KGB killer" might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience, but it got absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia.

    And then, somebody, somewhere (I don't know who, or where) came up with an truly brilliant idea: accusing Putin of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the AngloZionist Empire. This was nothing short of brilliant, I have to admit that.

    First, they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to "sell out" (or "trade") Novorussia. One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia. Another one was that the US and Russia would make a secret deal and "give" Syria to Putin, if he "gave" Novorussia to the Empire. Alternatively, there was the version that Russia would "give" Syria to Trump and he would "give" Novorussia to Putin. The actual narrative does not matter. What matters, A LOT, is that Putin was not presented as the "new Hitler" who would invade Poland and the Baltics, who would poison the Skripals, who would hack DNC servers and "put Trump into power". These plain stupid fairy tales had not credibility in Russia. But Putin "selling out" Novorussia was much more credible, especially after it was clear that Russia did not allow the DNR/LNR forces to seize Mariupol.

    I remain convinced that this was the correct decision. Why? Because had the DNR/LNR forces entered Mariupol their critical supply lines would have been cut off by an envelopment maneuver by the Ukrainian forces. Yes, the DNR/LNR forces did have the power needed to take Mariupol, but then they would end up surrounded by Ukronazi forces in a "cauldron/siege" kind of situation which would then have forced Russia to openly intervene to either support these forces. That was a no brainer in military terms, but in political terms this would have been a disaster for Russia and a dream come true to the AngloZionists who could (finally!) "prove" that Russia was involved all along. The folks in the Russian General Staff are clearly much smarter than the couch-generals which were accusing Russia of treason for now letting Mariupol be liberated.

    Eventually, both the "sellout Syria" and the "sellout Novorussia" narratives lost their traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one: Putin became the obedient servant of Israel and, personally, Netanyahu. The arguments were very similar: Putin did not allow Syrians (or Russians) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or Lebanon, Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes, and Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris. And nevermind here the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to " stabilize the legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise " (see here for details). The simple truth is that Putin never said that he would liberate each square meter of Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel!

    Still, for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step and that Putin was Israel's chum.

    Eventually, this canard also lost a lot of credibility. After all, most folks are smart enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel, all he had to do is well exactly *nothing*: the Takfiris would take Damascus and it would be "game over" for a civilized Syria and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene.

    As I have already mentioned in a past article , these were the original Israeli goals for Syria:

    Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security services. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone", but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project. Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition of forces. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.

    It is quite easy nowadays to prove the two following theses: 1) Israel dismally failed to achieve ANY of the above set goals and 2) the Russian intervention is the one single most important factor which prevented Israel from achieving these goals (the 2nd most important one was the heroic support given by Iran and Hezbollah who, quite literally, "saved the day", especially during the early phases of the Russian intervention. Only an ignorant or dishonest person could seriously claim that Russia and Israel are working together when Russia, in reality, completely defeated Israel in Syria.

    Still, while the first PSYOP (Putin the new Hitler) failed, and while the second PSYOP (Putin the sellout) also failed, the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation.

    But first, they did something truly brilliant: they realized that their best allies in Russia would not be the (frankly, clueless) "liberals" but that they would find a much more powerful "ally" in those nostalgic of the Soviet Union. This I have to explain in some detail.

    First, there is one thing human psychology which I have observed all my life: we tend to remember the good and forget the bad. Today, most of what I remember from boot-camp (and even "survival week") sounds like fun times. The truth is that while in boot camp I hated almost every day. In a similar way, a lot of Russian have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet era. I can understand that. After all, during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous rebirth, then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs. Finally, even in the hated 80s the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things (in science, technology, etc.). This is all true. What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff.

    Furthermore, a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all. And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials, these folks have "smelled blood" and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will be overthrown. He won't, if only for the following very basic reasons:

    The kind of state apparatus which protects Putin today can easily deal with this new, pseudo (I will explain below why I say "pseudo") patriotic opposition. In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader (remember the chart above!) This opposition mostly complains, but offers no real solutions.

    The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the "liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right.

    The (in my opinion) sad reality is that, for all his immense qualities, Putin is indeed a liberal, at least an economic sense. This manifests itself in two very different ways:

    Putin has still not removed all of the 5th columnists (aka "Atlantic Integrationists" aka "Washington consensus" types) from power. Yes, he did ditch Medvedev, but others (Nabiulina, Siluanov, etc.) are still there. Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all they key actors were 5th columnists. Not just a few (in)famous individuals, but an entire CLASS (in a Marxist sense of the term) of people who hate anything "social" and who support "liberal" ideas just so they can fill their pockets.

    Here is the paradox: the USSR died in 1991-1993, Putin is an anti-Communist, but there STILL is a (Soviet-style) Nomenklatura in Russia, except for now they are often referred to as "oligarchs" (which is incorrect because, say, the Ukrainian oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole, but they have a major influence in the financial sector, which is what they care mostly about).

    So we have something of a, maybe not quite "perfect", but still very dangerous storm looming over Russia. How? Consider this:

    Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates.

    One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only care about their profits. What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal would not be millions and billions for the few, but making it possible for the creativity of the Russian people to truly blossom. Today, we see the exact opposite in Russia.

    So what is my beef with this social ( if not quite "Socialist") opposition?

    They are so focused on their narrow complaints that they completely miss the big picture. Let me explain.

    First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one side, the other is fully defeated. Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is an existential one: one party will win and survive, the other one will disappear and will be replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society. The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow.

    Well, of course they know that. But they pretend not to. And this is why I think of them as the 6th column (as opposed to the 5th, openly "liberal" and pro-Western one).

    Second, while this opposition is, in my opinion, absolutely correct in deploring Putin's apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call "IMF types" is safer than following recommendations of what could be loosely called "opposition economists" (here I think of Glaziev, whose views I personally fully support), they fail to realize the risks involved in crushing the "IMF types". The sad truth is that Russian banks are very powerful and that in many ways, the state cannot afford totally alienating them. Right now the banks support Putin only because he supports them. But if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin.

    If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition".

    So let me repeat it here: I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to Russia, unless they decide to use nuclear weapons, at which point both Russia and the West would suffer terribly. But even in this scenario, Russia would prevail (Russia has a 10-15 year advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies and the Russian society is far more survivable one -- if this topic is of interest to you, just read Dmitry Orlov's books who explains it all better than I ever could). I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often "insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin.

    This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". Having listened to many tens of their videos, I can tell you with total security that far from fearing a bloody revolution, these folks in reality dream of such a revolution.

    "Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such".

    Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime in power" might appear to be.

    Putin is acutely aware of that (see image).

    These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one.

    Now let me be clear: I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution (Neo-Communist or other) is possible in Russia. More accurately, while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution could happen, I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail. Why? The graphic above.

    Even if by some (horrible) miracle, it was possible to defeat/neutralize the combined power of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces (which I find impossible), this "success" would be limited to Moscow or, at most, the Moscow Oblast. Beyond that it is all "Putin territory". In terms of firepower, the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units, but it does not even come close to what the "rest of Russia" could engage (just the 58th Army in the south would be unstoppable). But even that is not truly crucial. The truly crucial thing following any coup/revolution would be the 70%+ of Russian people who, for the first time in centuries, truly believe that Putin stands for their interest and that he is "their man". These people will never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power. That is the key reason why no successful revolution is currently possible in Russia.

    But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail, it could very much result in a bloodbath way bigger than what happened in 1993 (where the military was mostly not engaged in the events).

    Now lets add it all up.

    There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever since Putin came to power.

    This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western "alphabet soup".

    Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists.

    So what is the solution?

    Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest. Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin was the correct move, but it was also too little too late. Frankly, I believe that it is high time for Putin to finally openly break with the "Washington consensus types" and listen to Glaziev who, at least, is no Communist.

    Russia has always been a collectivistic society, and she needs to stop apologizing (even just mentally) for this. Instead, she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic culture and traditions and show the "Washington consensus" types to the door.

    Yes, the Moscow elites will be furious, but it is also high time to tell these folks that they don't own Russia, and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the Empire, most Russian don't want to do that.

    The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution).

    Does that sound complicated or even convoluted? If it does, it is because it is. But for all the nuances we can discern a bottom line: it is not worth prevailing (or even failing) if that weakens/threatens Russia. Right now, the Neo-Communist opposition is, objectively, a threat to the stability and prosperity of Russia. That does NOT, however, mean that these folks are always wrong. They often are spot on, 100% correct.

    Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and do the right thing.

    Difficult? Yes. Doable? Yes. Therefore he has to do it.


    anno nimus , says: Show Comment April 30, 2020 at 9:44 pm GMT

    Russia needs to be strong for the sake of global civilization, human decency, religious freedom, etc, not only for her own good. going back to communism and Godlessness should be unthinkable. nor should we sell our souls for 30 kopeks of silver to become the dumping ground for western filth and surplus.
    Russia has the unique position, the space and resources, an intelligent population, Orthodox tradition to show mankind that a decent, safe, compassionate, sound existence is possible.
    although great leaders are a gift from Above, the state also should make every effort to identify and prepare Putin's successor while strengthening the institutions so that the people will perceive them as their own and will not be tempted to support revolutionary radicals again.
    Derer , says: Show Comment April 30, 2020 at 10:49 pm GMT
    First of all, Russian electorate have much better sources and the grasp of the international political scene than the American media's self-centered pseudo-trues.

    Putin's obvious pros:

    -Reclaimed Russian crucial energy industry from the pillaging by Yeltsin oligarchs. Now babysat by the UK and Israel. -Russian voters' motto: "We vote for a leader that is most criticized and slandered by our enemies and adversaries. Vote almost never for their selected puppet a la Kasparov." -Putin's brilliant move to reclaimed Crimea -- administratively attached to Ukraine in 1954 by a communist dictate after being centuries part of Russia -- by a democratic mean. -Western sanctions are viewed by the Russian electorate as a declaration of the "enemy status". Furthermore, they are also viewed as a sinister attempt to slow down the Russian economic progress. -NATO backstabbing expansion to Russian border. Continuation of Western military encircling Russia -- US military in Poland. -Opposing Western clumsy interference in Ukraine or in Georgia. Liberating S. Ossetia from the Georgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister.
    Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 1:17 am GMT
    I have always seen Putin as a late, reluctant, and often only partially effective reacter to a crisis, never someone who proactively acts to defuse one before it gets bad. I will repeat what I've said many, many times: in 2014 Putin could have sent two battalions of Spetsnaz into Kiev, routed the Ukranazi coup regime, reinstated Yanukovych, and withdrawn with the warning that if there was ever again any attempt to stage another Maidan Russian troops would be back and this time to stay. Instead he got Russia blamed for an invasion he should have but did not carry out, and consequently sanctions that are still in effect to this day, not to speak of a NATO proxy thrust against the Russian heartland. (That Russia needed the sanctions and that they were good for Russia is another thing entirely; it isn't as though Putin planned them to turn out like that.)

    In Syria in 2015 Putin waited until the government was in desperate straits -- similar to the final stages of the Libyan government forces' collapse in 2011 as Obama's terrorists advanced on Tripoli -- before sending in small commando detachments and the air force. And even then the failure to defend Syria, an ally of Russia, which has given Russia bases, against zionazi bombing is inexcusable. For one thing it cost Russia a valuable reconnaissance plane with priceless trained crew, after which Putin first rushed to absolve Nazinyahu of blame before even calling the crew's families. For another the refusal to use the S 400 merely gives the Amerikastanis an excuse to portray the S 400s as hyped, ineffective weapons Russia does not dare to actually use. How is showing Putin's obvious affinity to the zionazi pseudostate "anti Russian" in any way? It's the absolute and obvious truth, from Putin's own record.

    This is also why Putin will do nothing about the capitalist leeches still sucking Russia dry (many of whom are zionazi citizens); he will have to be forced into it and then will try to get away with cosmetic measures, leaving as much undone as he possibly can. That he has not already eliminated the oligarchy is proof enough of that. No amount of Saker excuses is enough to hide the fact; what could the banks do to harm Putin, given the popularity the Saker keeps touting? You'll see that the Saker is very careful not to say anything about what they could, he just says that they could. You'd almost think he just made it up.

    I agree about the Moscow "liberals"; I met a few of them and they're always smartly dressed, fluent in English -- with an inevitable American accent -- and they hate Russia more than anything. I recall meeting a couple in this town in late 2014 or early 2015. I remember saying that I support Russia's help to the Donbass freedom fighters. The woman's eyes went round. "But why? This is a great burden for Russia, none of our business, we should never have got involved " There is an excellent argument for shifting the capital from Moscow back to St Petersburg, or, if that's too strategically vulnerable, to Volgograd or some other city in the Russian interior.

    By the way, as one of the "neo communists", as the Saker dismissively calls us -- in an obvious effort to conflate us with the neo-nazis -- let me ask a question: let's suppose everything the Saker says is correct. Well, then, is Putin immortal? No? So what happens when he dies or retires? Who will take over? Will the "pro-Putin population" switch its loyalty to a replacement from Putin's party, given that most of them are so despised that United Russia keeps losing local elections from Moscow to Vladivostok? If not, what happens but either a total change of course or .a bloody revolution?

    What happens then?

    Passer by , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 3:21 am GMT
    I can certainly say that there are people in United Russia who quite openly work for the West and push for western liberal projects in Russia, as well as attack patriotic forces.

    What kind of joke is that to have people like this in the so called ruling party and in various Duma comitees? Why is this even allowed? Why are they still there?

    Art , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 6:02 am GMT
    Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system. Only the local depositors would own the bank. The bank's functioning management would be controlled by the owners/depositors. One depositor -- one vote.

    These banks would make loans only to local businesses and homeowners. They would have nothing to do with Moscow. They would build honesty and stability.

    MarylinM , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 6:28 am GMT
    That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II, or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their intelligence level . The jerk already swallowed the virus-thing, hook and sinker. He's gonna be reeled-in in no time.
    Art , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 6:51 am GMT
    As a citizen of one of the top ten nations on our Earth (US) -- I believe that Putin is the savviest, most stable conscientious foreign policy leader of the lot.

    He handled both the Ukraine and Syria without getting into all out wars. Both a considerable achievement, considering Jews played major antagonistic roles in both confrontations.

    Derer , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 6:53 am GMT
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist He should have annexed East Ukraine with 12 mil Russians and its historical Russian cities. When McCain and Biden's puppets were installed in Kiev they banned the Russian language -- that was the right time to act and killings would have been avoided.
    Astuteobservor II , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 9:43 am GMT
    1000% there is.

    I am sure they are salivating at the idea of another Yeltsin or Gorbachev coming into power after Putin.

    Putin's number 1 priority right now should be grooming a competent successor, or Russia could get rape again after he is gone.

    John Thurloe , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 10:25 am GMT
    Russia and China deeply underestimate the extent and determination of the US and toadies to have in place well funded campaigns to blacken those countries names, reputations and standing. It's awful listening to Chinese or Russian officials making ritual formal protests. And then doing nothing. Letting their country be undermined and infiltrated, allowing the minds of the public elsewhere be poisoned. This is how the Colour Revolutions get their traction.

    It's the continual, weak, feeble and inept lack of action by Russia and China against the western engines of smear. And this state of affairs seriously disheartens their allies and supporters. Please stop being too reasonable, find your backbone and righteousness and FIGHT! For Pete's sake.

    animalogic , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 10:54 am GMT
    @Passer by Sad to say that Putin should have done more internally.
    Saker 's point about a national bank is telling. Russia's Central Bank should have it's neoliberals attrited. Russia's Anglo-zionists should have also been quietly & invisibly defanged & sent into "outer-space". More actions against NGO's need to also be taken.
    A nation in Russia's precarious position re: the West, can afford only so much internal treachery .
    This is not to suggest any of this would be easy. However, Putin has had & still has considerable popular support -- political Capital capable of being used to take risky but "right" reforms.
    ComradePuff , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 11:13 am GMT
    I'm an American living in Moscow for the last 5 years. I've also had the special privilege to earn a masters degree in politics and economics at the Ministry of Foreign Affair's university, MGIMO. I can say, as someone who has viewed this situation here from virtually every angle possible as a foreigner; "Putin" has done nothing good for Russia domestically that has not been an unplanned side effect of sanctions. And don't get me wrong, the sanctions were the best thing that could have happened here. But all the official pro-Russia grandstanding on the international stage aside, there are endless news stories of Russia lobbying for readmission to the club, pleading with the US to cooperate and a return to the status-quo. The people who make the policy here and run the institutions are all holdovers from the 90's. Their overarching concern is that Russia -- ie the elites themselves -- are "treated with respect" by the Western plutocracy.

    But what has changed here since 2014? An explosion in traffic cameras and fines, more restrictions (prescriptions and bans) on medicines, inflation, reforms (attacks) in pensions and healthcare, skyrocketing housing costs and an simmering education crisis from preschool to university where money increasingly buys limited space over need or merit. Now like a rotten cherry on top, there is this quarantine which seems arbitrary except when you realize the whole police force has been turned against the citizens to check QR code passes. Who is deemed essential is also arbitrary and favors the government while bankrupting everyone else. Gasterbyters, the backbone of the economy, are literally destitute. Russians also dislike seeing the government luxuriously spend resources in the form of political-point scoring coronavirus aid to the US and Italy, and then abruptly flip-flopping on the severity of the pandemic at home. On tv its is Corona Vision 24/7 here, while families with small children are forced out of work and cramped into tiny apartments in ugly neighborhoods, forbidden to walk more than 10 meters from their door, their money and sanity running out. Russians who are able, flout the quarantine at every opportunity, more concerned about being harassed by police than getting sick.

    There is a lot more I could say, but I will leave it at on this note; This new wave of disillusionment is not coming from the West. The West has virtually no direct influence here anymore. This is all homegrown.

    obabajko , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 12:27 pm GMT
    Although I have admired President Putin for many years now, I have never agreed with his economic policies. It was sad to read that he fired S. Glazyev as an adviser. When will President Putin see that following western style economic policies is a tragedy waiting to happen for Russia. As is happening now to most of the western countries, especially the US and EU.
    Old and Grumpy , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 12:27 pm GMT
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist Its a great mystery to me why Putin released Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Maybe there was a good reason. No clue, it just seems odd especially when you realize this freed oligarch was the power behind Browder's Magnitzky Act.
    Jake , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMT
    'Remembering only the good and forgetting the bad' is what every bad ruler, every bad culture, demands of those it misleads.

    The Anglo-Zionist Empire has been the master of that con game for its entire existence, back to the start of English Reformation. Bolsheviks were clumsy brutes compared to Anglo-Zionists even in their early days when they lacked sophistication and finesse.

    Agent76 , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 4:32 pm GMT
    Apr 19, 2020 US corporate takeover -- Biden 2020 Today, the U.S is living through a power grab by lobbyists and moneyed interests in government -- the way Russia did after the Soviet collapse of the 1990s.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/gnfnApc6XIA?feature=oembed

    Apr 2, 2020 Putin reveals KEY to political success: the poor man

    Which is the bigger political influence on President Putin? Multinational corporations, filthy rich oligarchs or financial institutions? He asserts -- it is the sentiment of 'the common man' that is responsible for his popularity and long-standing political career.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/BaZCTz2id-c?feature=oembed

    Mar 12, 2020 Putin: The US Made A Colony Out Of Ukraine But They Want It Sustained By Russian Money!

    The 20 Questions with Vladimir Putin project is an interview with the President of Russia on the most topical subjects of social and political life in Russia and the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/civa7sI9TGM?feature=oembed

    Cyrano , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 4:34 pm GMT
    @ComradePuff If it's so bad in Russia, why don't you f ** k off back to your home country were everything works perfectly?
    Cyrano , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 5:29 pm GMT
    I am afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you Saker on this issue. I just can't see how a communist can be a traitor to their country. Some of the biggest patriots ever produced in history have been communists. Not just in Russia, but in other countries like North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, China. They are willing to do anything for their country. Same thing with modern communists, I don't see them betraying their country for personal gain.

    My theory is like this: Patriotism is different in Capitalist countries (or as they like to call themselves democracies) than in Communist countries. First of all, Capitalism has 2 types of elites -- real ones and political elites -- who are nothing more than domestic servants, in other words nobodies. Communism usually has only one type of elites -- political. They are the only game in town.

    I know that they ascribed terms such as cult of personalities to Communist leaders, but the real megalomaniacs and narcissists can really be found among the 2 types of capitalist elites. Those are the one that are really in love with themselves.

    So how does patriotism work in communism vs. capitalism? Well, for one thing, patriotism means love for one's country. As we all know, a country is a collection of dead rocks, (hopefully) some arable land, few mountains and so on. Basically a country usually needs a spokesperson. That's where the elites come in. They are the spokespersons for the needs of the country.

    I believe that communist elites are more honest spokespersons than capitalist ones. Why? Well for one thing all communist elites were usually 1st generation elites, meaning they were new on the job and they didn't have the span of few generations time to degenerate like the capitalist elites. Communist elites for the most could still remember the time when they were not elites but very ordinary people -- except maybe now the Kim dynasty in North Korea which is in its 3rd generation of dynastic cycle.

    But still, the flow of patriotism is very similar in both "communist" and capitalist countries. Patriotism flows from the poor dumbos to the rich and powerful elites -- whether they are political or economic elites. Patriotism whose intended recipient is the fatherland always gets intercepted by the elites and then processed.

    Basically, what that means is that when an ordinary person expresses love and affection for their country -- it's usually ends up being manifested as love and affection for their elites.

    Remember, a country is just a pile of rocks and some other geological features, -- doesn't know how to process affection from patriots. But the elites do, and they are the usual beneficiaries of patriotism.

    If love for your country is always a love for the elites, why do the stupid always fall for the same trick? Well, I guess there are not too many options left, one of them being a traitor. Still, I believe that communist elites were more honest brokers and managers of patriotic love, because the managed to pass more of the patriotism to its intended target -- the homeland, than it was ever case with capitalist elites.

    Sure, Stalin had few dachas and property that he would have been hard-pressed to explain how he earned, but it was nothing compared to the spoils from patriotism that elites in capitalism receive as a payout for being spokespersons for the needs of their countries.

    I just don't see a communist doing something with personal benefit in mind first, and putting the well-being of their country as a second consideration. It usually doesn't happen, and hopefully the new generation of communists in Russia will keep up with that tradition.

    The Grim Joker , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 7:02 pm GMT
    @Cyrano Because he is one of those chronic complainers. We dont want him here because he will change the words "Russia" and "Moscow" in his comment to "USA and Washington" and just reprint the comment again. That comrade is all puffed up, no pun intended, with his dialogue.
    Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
    @jbwilson24 I know what you mean, but you are splitting hairs -- a supremacist is a supremacist is a supremacist. German supremacist, Anglo-Saxon supremacist, Jewish supremacist -- it all leads to the same result.

    Ukraine is dominated by supremacists. That all of Jewish supremacy, Nationalist Socialist supremacy (the rank parts of the ideology mind you), ISIS, find themselves working and cooperating in a historically alien land, shows that supremacists really don't mind working with each other, before whatever the greater enemy they attack is destroyed.. Kinda like the prelude to Highlander!

    Agent76 , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 7:49 pm GMT
    25.12. 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

    Baker told Gorbachev: "Look, if you remove your [300,000] troops [from east Germany] and allow unification of Germany in NATO, NATO will not expand one inch to the east."

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russia-destruction-since-1949.html

    Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With US

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/L6hIlfHWaGU?feature=oembed

    Mustapha Mond , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 7:51 pm GMT
    Saker's blind love for all things Putin, a faith in the man against all facts and logic, has continually amazed me for years.

    Putin is using Syria for Russia's advantage: 1.) a Mediterranean port at Tartus and airfield at Kheimem; 2.) as a 'live fire' weapons testing and demonstration area, much as Israel uses Gaza for same. Sales of Russian armaments have soared since entering Syria.

    As I recall, Putin has allowed at least two Dunkirk moments, when he had ISIS on the ropes and then agreed to a cease fire when his generals were furious at not being permitted to finish the Takfiris off, once and for all. I, too, was furious at the time, predicting they would simply re-trench, re-arm and continue to terrorize the hapless Syrians, which they did for years, and may even make a comeback from Iraq (with America and Israel's help, of course).

    Same idiocy was applied, and is still being applied regarding Turkey's open and obvious arming and supporting the terrorist scum of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Idlib, as innocent Syrians continue to suffer therefrom, and we daily read of the brave Syrian fighters' being killed and maimed by these Al-Qaeda butchers .

    He has let Syria's eastern oil fields fall into the hands of the US, and allowed the Turds, excuse me, the Kurds far too much leeway in the north.

    He even allows Israel to bomb Syrian territory with absolute impunity, killing countless Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian soldiers in the process, when a few freely operated S-300 batteries would allow the Syrians to smoke the Israeli's missiles with ease, and protect their homeland from hundreds of brazen attacks by the Jews. Yet he denies the Syrians such freedom, allowing the Israelis to continue their onslaught unabated.

    Why? Why does he ignore the advice of his top generals to wipe out ISIS when the opportunities arose years ago, and allow Israel to continually attack with high-precision missiles Syrian/Hezbollah/Iranian fighters, just short of allowing the Jews to directly bomb Assad and Damascus into the stone age, again, with complete impunity? Certainly, the existing partition of Syria could have been easily avoided long ago, if he simply followed his general's advice.

    And why did he come out and endorse Netanyahu for PM last year, despite continually saying Russia does not stick its nose into other countries' political affairs?

    I suggest that an incident from 2006 may hold a clue, and that we may simply be seeing another "Epstein" job that Mossad and friends are so good at arranging. Read this article about the incident with Putin and that young male child, Nikita Konkin, and decide for yourself: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nikita-konkin-boy-who-vladimir-putin-kissed-on-the-stomach-speaks-about-the-spontaneous-gesture-a6829786.html

    But to my mind, any world 'leader' who simply cannot control himself publicly and feels compelled to forcibly lift a small child's t-shirt and slather the tot's bare stomach with kisses, right in front of countless on-lookers and the international press, in Russia's most famous public square, and then declare to the BBC thereafter that, "I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten ", possibly reveals a great deal about why Putin seems to so frequently kiss another offensive body part publicly, that being Israel's obnoxious, murderous butt ..

    vot tak , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 9:07 pm GMT
    Well despite all the "well wishers" here and against saker's expert advice about what she should be doing, Russia is still somehow alive and kicking and generally getting to be a better place to live. Imagine that. While the countries the "well wishers" hail from are not becoming better places to live and rather than alive and kicking are much better described as zombiefied and twitching.
    Johan , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 9:16 pm GMT
    "Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations."

    Correction, democratic Russia is still a tough nut to crack. But Putin cannot rule forever, and so long as Russia is a democracy, and when there is no longer a strong and charismatic leader, it is in considerable danger of subversion by the 'AngloZionists'. You bet that they are waiting for this, the current situation being a preparation, to keep the fire burning, but when and if Putin is gone, the Western trojan horses already inside will unleash their puppets of disruption, and the AngloZionists and their Western puppets outside will attack it vehemently, like a pack of wolves.

    AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment May 1, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
    As one Russian joke puts it, lets' have cutlets separately and flies separately.

    One thing is Youtube, FB, Wiki, and the rest of globohomo-controlled media. They would host anything anti-Putin, because Putin is continuously stepping on the most sensitive part of their anatomy: the wallet. If globohomo hates you, you must have done at least something good.

    The other thing is the feelings of Russians who actually live in the country. They rightfully feel that oligarchs and the state that often acts as their cover are robbing them. They clearly see that education is going down from Soviet levels (although it still has a long way to go to become as dismal as the US education). They see that the best part of healthcare is the holdover from Soviet times, whereas "progressive" paid medicine is fraud and extortion. But that's exactly what "healthcare" is in the US, as current epidemic demonstrated in no uncertain terms. They also see that recent pension "reform" was designed to rob them yet again. What's more, they are at least 90% right.

    So, maybe it's not the "6th column", after all? Maybe Russia is actually acquiring an opposition worth the name? Patriotic opposition, in contrast to "liberal opposition" consisting exclusively of traitors? If so, it's good, not bad, for the country. Nobody is infallible, Putin included.

    Robjil , says: Show Comment May 2, 2020 at 12:07 am GMT
    @Quartermaster The US invaded Ukraine with Nuland's thugs during the Sochi Olympics

    Crimea went back home. It did not want be part of Nulandistan.

    Donbass does not want to be a US/Israel colony. This is the reason it revolted.

    Notice the recent Ukrainegate nonsense. Why would USIsrael care so much about Ukraine if Ukraine was really an independent nation? It is not, it is a USIsrael colony -- Nulandistan.

    FB , says: Website Show Comment May 2, 2020 at 2:11 am GMT
    @ComradePuff First I see you just parachuted into this website with this, your very first post

    We usually have a welcoming ceremony for new trolls

    We look at the cartoonish drivel they post and quickly point out glaring giveaways

    Like 'Gasterbyters' which is not actually a word in any language

    Your instructions from your troll room supervisor may have referred to the German word 'gastarbeiter' which means 'guest worker'

    This expression is not a proper noun and does not get capitalized

    And you're trying to tell us you have earned a master's degree from one of Moscow's most prestigious universities..?

    Yeah no, I don't think so cheeseball

    Guest workers are 'crucial' to Russia..?

    Again total bunk the only countries where guest workers might be 'essential' is in the Gulf oil monarchies, where they often outnumber the natives

    The US is not going to collapse if the Mexican workers take a beating neither will Germany nor any industrial country with foreign workers why should Russia..?

    And then your main whopper NOBODY in the Putin administration is 'begging' the west for anything much less to be accepted back in some 'club'

    Russia has moved on a long time ago they never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to begin with international relations isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of international relations to know

    All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on equal footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded Washington hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s

    In case you haven't noticed Russia has much bigger fish to fry than to obsess over a tottering empire

    The partnership with China for instance the country with the most money, plus the country with the most advanced military technology

    I'd say it's not actually looking good for Exceptionalistan

    Alfred , says: Show Comment May 2, 2020 at 6:00 am GMT
    @Derer Georgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister

    I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.

    Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish -- courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western))) banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.

    Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.

    BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable to want to start a war with Russia.

    The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian "Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate country.

    [May 05, 2020] UK government experince with the White Helmets and the Skripal affair definitly halps in anti-china propaganda.

    Highly recommended!
    May 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    begob , May 5 2020 2:08 utc | 114

    In the UK, looks like Tom Tugendhat, chair of the foreign affairs committee, is spreading the China-did-it propaganda, after his comments on the BBC last week. He can file it alongside his promotion of the White Helmets and the Skripal affair.

    [May 05, 2020] Russia Slams NYT for 'Russophobia' Following Pulitzer Prize Win - The Moscow Times

    May 05, 2020 | www.themoscowtimes.com

    Russian diplomats have slammed The New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning series articles about Russia's covert activities abroad as examples of "Russophobia."

    The New York Times won the Pulitzer for international reporting Monday for six investigative articles and two videos that "expos[ed] the predations of Vladimir Putin's regime" across Africa, the Middle East and Europe. news The Global Footprints of 'Putin's Chef' Read more Russia's Embassy in the United States accused the Pulitzer Prize Board of "highlighting anti-Russian materials with statements that have been repeatedly refuted not only by Russian officials, but also by life itself."

    "We consider this series of New York Times articles about Russia a wonderful collection of undiluted Russophobic fabrications that can be studied as a guide to creating false facts," the embassy said in a Facebook post.

    Meanwhile, in a separate accusation, the editor of independent Russian investigative outlet Proekt said at least two of The New York Times' Pulitzer-winning investigations repeated its own previous reporting without citing it.

    Congrats to @nytimes on the @PulitzerPrizes for article series that echoes our „Master and Chef" series, which was written months before NYT. It's a pity that there's no even a link to The Project's piece in the awarded publication. https://t.co/MsgwqaMOn0

    -- Проект (@wwwproektmedia) May 5, 2020
    "[T]he winners did not put a single link to the English version of our article," Roman Badanin wrote on Facebook, singling out its March 14, 2019, deep dive into Putin-linked businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin's activities in Madagascar. The New York Times' investigation on the subject was published six months later in November.

    "I still don't know what is my attitude to this situation... It's probably nice, but a bit weird," Badanin wrote in an English-language post. Sign up for our free weekly newsletters covering News and Business.

    The best of The Moscow Times, delivered to your inbox.

    [May 05, 2020] One thing I was horrified with, during a "quick look at" the FT Story about Putin, was the level of "Putin did it" hate in the comments section. I had thought that the "Putin did it" tripe was a thing of the past. I could not have been more wrong.

    The level of brainwashing is really staggering. Probably comparable to the USSR and Nazy Germany levels.
    May 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Stonebird , May 4 2020 20:51 utc | 31
    This anti-Chinese effort may be destined for internal US (anti-civil war) needs. To make the US population look in one direction. Obviously the why part is another question - oil, dollar collapse, lack of food etc? But I want to point out that there has been an uptick in aggression in other sensitive areas as well.

    Todays examples are; An attack east of Aleppo on a Syrian military research centre by Israeli aircraft. Overflying Jordan and then Iraq.
    A second band of mercenary bounty hunters were captured trying to infiltrate venezuela to kill Maduro (A revolt made by 8 at a time hunters could take several years at that rate.
    The presence of four Nato Aegis ships in the Baltic which coincides with the arrival of the Russian pipelaying ship in Kalingrad.

    One thing I was horrified with, during a "quick look at" the FT Story about Putin, was the level of "Putin did it" hate in the comments section. I had thought that the "Putin did it" tripe was a thing of the past. I could not have been more wrong.

    It is interesting that the rubbish Pompeo says is getting some resistance from the "intelligence" agencies themselves. It appears that not everyone wants to be forced into supporting his accusations.

    [May 05, 2020] Five eyes, the anglosphere intel and propaganda warriors are the best in the world

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. ..."
    May 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    karlof1 , May 4 2020 20:57 utc | 35

    In many Ways, Trump reminds me of a Hitler/Stalin admirer. He demands certain results; if you don't supply them, at least Trump will just fire you instead of having you shot or sent to the Gulag -- Evidence of the many IG firings as this article notes .

    The daily lies and bald-faced propaganda is at the point where many are aware but still all too many remain oblivious or are Brown Shirts in all but outward appearance. Pompeo would be a perfect example of a clone if Hitler had a PR spokesperson spewing lies daily for the press & public to digest without any thinking. Imagine Hitler with Twitter.

    None of the above is meant to denigrate; rather, it's to put them into proper perspective. I invite barflies to click here and just look at the headlines of the posted news items--that site's biggest failing was to omit similar criticism of Obama, Clinton, and D-Party pukes in general, although that doesn't render today's headlines false.

    Will the coming Great Depression 2.0 be global or confined to NATO nations? As with the first Great Depression, it will be restricted to being Trans-Atlantic for that's where the dollar zone and Neoliberalism overlap. The emerging dollar-free Eurasian trade zone


    Peter AU1 , May 4 2020 21:32 utc | 42

    karlof1

    Many of Goering's quotes are very accurate as to human nature. US took in Nazi and Japanese scientists. It wouldn't have left the propaganda behind. Goering's quote about taking people to war - nazi's were obviously very good at it as the Germans fought until the very end. US peasants will likely do the same.

    Peter AU1 , May 4 2020 21:51 utc | 47
    The anti China crap filling the MSM is anglosphere in origin. Five eyes, the anglosphere intel and propaganda warriors will be in it up to their eyeballs.
    Clueless Joe , May 4 2020 21:52 utc | 48
    When the people who made fake claims about Iraq's WMD, about Russiagate, about Iran's danger, are claiming that the thing isn't manmade, then either it's not manmade or it's US-made and the claim is a lie (what we expect from US intelligence agencies) and a cover-up. That said, odds are on the former, as far as I'm concerned. The absolutely sure thing is that it's not the Chinese who crafted it.
    H.Schmatz , May 4 2020 22:05 utc | 49
    @Posted by: Clueless Joe | May 4 2020 21:52 utc | 48

    Indeed, this is the pattern, as happened with Skripals and Litvinenko, must be an anglo thing.

    "The best defesne is a good attack"

    [May 05, 2020] For Russian elites, it is the fact that the game is rigged against them which is the problem, not the game itself.

    May 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

    ComradePuff , says: Show Comment May 3, 2020 at 10:27 am GMT

    @FB Soooo your proof that I am a troll is that I didn't spell a German to Russian to English borrow word correctly and capitalized it on a website comment board? And your follow-up slam dunk is that I am new to the site. To really take it to the next level of critical thinking, you throw in some ad hominim attacks and deny my education? Move over Sherlock Holmes, we got a real sleuth here.

    My diploma number is 107732 0012900, awarded on June 5th, 2019 and signed by Шестопал Е. Б. and Байков А. А.. My thesis was titled: "Russia in sub-Saharan Africa: Approaches, Interests and a New Frontier for Cooperation with China" so yeah actually I know quite a bit about Russia's relationship with China. You're welcome to read it. You'd find my recommendations in the conclusion would not go over well at the CIA. That I took intelligence analysis courses from the likes of Andrey Bezrukov would not make me a shoo-in either. Anyway, I assumed this crowd didn't require a lengthy numbering of America's crimes as a preface to holding an opinion about Russia.

    hey never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to begin with international relations isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of international relations to know

    That is funny that you say that because that is *exactly* the impression that I got from my diplomacy classes. It was like 24/7 LARP set to The Emperor's New Clothes. I am not talking about the attitude toward the Putin or the Russian government – that was surprisingly neutral and refreshingly open to discussion – just about how politics are conducted in general. It was astonishingly – by my admittedly cynical standards – juvenile. I cannot even imagine how asinine diplomacy and political wheeling and dealing in the West must be, as they take it all deadly serious in Russia.

    All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on equal footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded Washington hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s

    That is true. I don't think Russia is still the 90's. I wasn't here in the 90's anyway, so I cannot even make that comparison. What I said is that, from my observation and experience, the people who are still in charge are the same who forged their careers in the 90's and that their thinking has evolved only in response to betrayals by the US, not due to any fundamental problem with how the US operates. Russia is fine to play by the rules set out be Washington, but they are eternally bewildered that those rules only apply to them because otherwise they would be forced to swallow the truths of Lenin and Marx. For professors arriving in late model black Mercedes driven by chauffeurs, that would be awkward. For Russian elites, it is the fact that the game is rigged against them which is the problem, not the game itself.

    [May 05, 2020] Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system.

    May 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Mefobills , says: Show Comment May 2, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT

    @Art

    Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system.

    These types of banks are called "gyro or giro" banking. When you take out a loan, you are borrowing existing money. The bank does not hypothecate new money into existence.

    The movie "It's a wonderful life" is a battle between two types of banking, the Gyro Bank, vs Hypothecation Bank.

    Gyro banking has been subsumed by the more dishonest Hypothecation methods that usurers prefer. Gyro banks like U.S. Savings and Loans, and their equivalents around the world, have slowly disappeared. In U.S. it was the (((usual suspects))) that were responsible for S&L's disappearing.

    Gryo banking has another nemesis, and that is money origination. If a national-state creates new money debt free, then laboring savers will eventually have a "pile o money" to loan out. Without debt free from Treasury, then laboring savers will be storing money that at-source originated as a hypothecation event elsewhere in the banking system.

    In other words, it is not enough to have a Gyro saving bank, the "credit" origination problem elsewhere hasn't been dealt with.

    One of Saker's points is that Putin did not listen to Stolypin Group's Sergei Glaziev and instead is listening to economic liberals like Elvira Sakhipzadovna Nabiullina . The Stolypin group is on-point, and yet they have been marginalized. Why?

    Liberalism's swan song is seductive, and one of its tenets is that you need to borrow "credit" on international markets to then buy "international goods." Another tenet is that you can get rich and become an Oligarch too, and live a life of blowing snow up your nose, and having hooker's galore living the life on another's labor is usury magic that works.

    A national state does not need to borrow credit, when it can make its own. The only time a national state needs to borrow another countries money type, or international banker money like Federal Reserve Notes, is to acquire something your nation doesn't have . say petroleum.

    In Russia's case, its economy can be almost completely autarkial, and hence liberalism's swan song is BS, and Putin hasn't gotten the memo. Putin doesn't understand economy, or has purposefully ignored Glazyev for some reason.

    Saker is correct, Russia would be doing much better if Putin had listened to Glazyev Much better means an economy probably two or three times what it is now, and the six'th column would be nowhere to be found.

    The money power is never trivial, and it informs just about everything else in a civilization. I feel the same as Saker, I like Putin but Putin has failed spectacularly by not understanding how money works, and falling for economic Liberalism's swan song.

    Hitler had somebody like Glazyev. His name was Reinhardt, and because Reinhardt was nationalist and illiberal, Germany's economy was able to take off and had a large measure of autarky.

    Germany spent debt free "labor certificates" into the economy per Reinhardt (and later Schact's) method.

    [May 03, 2020] The script that Trump is following with China is the one that, his mentor in politics and much else, Roy Cohn developed for the unlamented Senator McCarthy

    This is essentially variant of Russiagate with Trump and Pompeo playing the role of Muller
    Notable quotes:
    "... Any fool in the C19th could have told Trump and his fellow members of the political class what to do: make concessions!underwrite all wages! introduce immediately, free healthcare (abandon the powerful but in the scheme of things tiny Health Insurance industry)! ..."
    "... Instead, as everything around them crumbles, they are trying to rally the people (divided into ethnic, social, racial, linguistic and pigmentary factions) into forgetting everything and blaming China. ..."
    May 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    bevin , May 2 2020 16:01 utc | 151

    The script that Trump is following-confident that the Democrats can be counted upon to copy it- is the one that, his mentor in politics and much else, Roy Cohn developed for the unlamented Senator McCarthy.

    But, and this will be news in Washington, it is not 1950 anymore. The conditions that made it possible to push the red scare underlying the first Cold War, including rising living standards and full employment for most of the working class, the rise of the suburbs, the GI Bill allowing unprecedented social mobility and unchallenged (in reality if not in the fevered brains on the right) hegemony of the United States, economically, financially, militarily and culturally- all that has crumbled away.

    Trump is trying the 'blame China, fear the reds' strategy because it is all that he can think of and nobody else within miles of the White House has a clue what to do. Why should they? None of them has the least interest in public policy, let alone the common welfare, the political culture in the US is so corrupted by careerism, bribery, revolving doors, oligarchical diktats and, above all, greed, greed and greed that nobody with any brains spares a moment's thought on thinking matters through.

    The US ruling class is in the position that the French Aristocracy had reached by 1789- it has no conception that it will not rule forever, only a tiny minority thinks ahead in terms of dealing with fundamental changes. And there is no understanding of the fragility of their positions.

    Any fool in the C19th could have told Trump and his fellow members of the political class what to do: make concessions!underwrite all wages! introduce immediately, free healthcare (abandon the powerful but in the scheme of things tiny Health Insurance industry)!

    Instead, as everything around them crumbles, they are trying to rally the people (divided into ethnic, social, racial, linguistic and pigmentary factions) into forgetting everything and blaming China.

    The first time it was a tragedy, leading to the deaths of millions, most of them in south east Asia, this time it promises to be something much more amusing.

    Yesterday was a rent day and a pay day- fear, frustration, anger and a justified sense of being tricked again are mounting everywhere. Unless the US government takes a U turn it will be a very long hot summer.

    Hoyeru , May 2 2020 16:31 utc | 152

    this was the main goal from the very beginning. I said that was the aim of USA the minute its fake corporate owned media began to scream about the virus. I said that in The Faker's site(The Saker). This virus was a God sent, exactly when USA needed to get the world to hate China, because that was THE ONLY WAY to stop China's rise against the West. Make the world hate China. This very fact alone proves to me the virus isnt natural but is a bio engineered bio weapon. The mere coincidence is a proof.

    [May 02, 2020] Those dastardly Russians!

    May 02, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Cortes April 27, 2020 at 10:24 pm

    I suppose that once in a while vital documentation (Apollo Moon missions, anyone?) goes astray, slipping down the back of the couch or misfiled on the wrong shelf in the library annexe. And occasionally the dog really did eat the homework.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/christopher-steele-dossier-emails-documents-wiped

    Those dastardly Russians!

    Mark Chapman April 28, 2020 at 8:12 am
    Cretins like Steele openly flout the law, and are let away with it. There must be a law that directs government personnel – and he was government – to take such steps as are reasonable to preserve records they know or should know would constitute evidence, whether condemnatory or exculpatory. Steele had to be well aware there was intense interest in this material, and it is not difficult to imagine what the western reaction would be if some pivotal Russian figure deleted all his records and then did the smiling palms-up thing in court, so sorry, all gone.

    It is likewise easy to imagine the information in the records was damning, because nobody willfully wipes evidence they know will put them in the clear. And he will be allowed to get away with it without any punishment because the people who would have to punish him are likely the same people who told him to get rid of it.

    Just like Hillary, and her self-appointed deletion of tens of thousands of emails she deemed 'personal', although they were government property. No ordinary mook would be allowed to get away with that. And they wonder – or pretend to – why the people are sick to death of western corruption.

    [May 02, 2020] The RD-180, sanctions and the relations between Russia and the USA

    May 02, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Uncle Volodya says, "Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?"

    "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

    ― Issac Asimov

    There's a prejudice against making fun of the mad that spans all cultures, all ethnicities; mock the mentally ill at your peril, for some fair-minded citizen will surely intervene. Possibly many, enough to make you take to your heels, because those who were born without the ability to reason, or had it and lost it, are perhaps God's most innocent children. There are few compensations for being born half-a-bubble off plumb, but one of them is anti-mockery armor. Having a laugh at the expense of the lunatic is bad form; something only dicks do, because it's cheap and easy.

    That's what must be preventing Dmitry Rogozin from roaring with laughter; from falling helplessly to his knees and collapsing, wheezing, onto his side. If someone smart says something stupid, they are fair game. But laughing when someone whose openly-stated beliefs suggest they are suffering from dementia is inappropriate. His dilemma is both obvious, and acute – what to do?

    First, some background; who is Dmitry Rogozin? A former Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the Russian Federation's defense industries, he also served as his country's Ambassador to NATO. He has degrees in philosophy and technology, and currently serves as the Russian Federation's Special Representative on Missile Defense. He is also the Director of Roscosmos, the Russian state's Space Industry. Some have talked him up as a possible replacement for Vladimir Putin, as President of the Russian Federation, but it is in his latter capacity, head of Roscosmos, that we are most interested today. He knows more about rockets than that they are pointy at one end and have fire at the other, if you get my drift.

    A bit more background, and then I promise we can begin to tie things together; I think I can also promise you are going to laugh. Not because you're a dick. But I think you will find you do have to kind of snicker. Just be careful who hears you, okay? It's not as much of an insult if people don't know.

    Most who have any understanding of space or rockets or satellites have heard of the RD-180 . But in case there are some readers who have never heard of it, it is the Russian Federation's workhorse rocket engine. Its first flight was 20 years ago, but it was built on the shoulders of the RD-170 , which has been in service since 1985, making it a Soviet project. The RD-180 is essentially a two-combustion-chamber RD-170, which has four and remains the most powerful rocket engine in the world. The RD-180 is used by the United States in its Atlas space vehicles.

    For some time, that was a fairly comfortable arrangement. The USA made fun of Russia whenever it wanted to feel superior, just as it's always done, and made the occasional ideological stab at 'establishing freedom and democracy' by changing out its leader, but the Russian people were not particularly cooperative, and there were some problems getting a credible 'liberal opposition' started; even now, the best candidate still seems to be Alexey Navalny, who is kind of the granite canoe of opposition figures – not particularly well-known, nasty rather than compelling, spiteful as a balked four-year-old.

    But then American ideologues in the US Department of State decided the time was ripe for a coup in Ukraine, and almost overnight, the United States and Russia were overt enemies. The United States, under Barack Obama, imposed sanctions designed to wreck the Russian economy , in the hope that despairing Russians would throw Putin out of office. America's European allies went along for the ride, and trade between Russia and its former trade partners and associates in Europe and the USA mostly dried up.

    Not rocket engines, though. America made an exception for those, and continued to buy and stockpile RD-180's. The very suggestion that RD-180 engines might go on the sanctions list – US Federal Claims Court Judge Susan Braden postulated that funds used to purchase rocket engines might end up in Rogozin's pocket (he being head of the Space Program, and all), and he was under US sanctions – moved the Commander of the United States Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center to note that without RD-180 engines, the Atlas program would have to be grounded .

    All this is by way of highlighting a certain vulnerability. Of course, observers remarked, the United States is a major technological power – it could easily produce such engines itself. So, why didn't it, inquiring minds wanted to know.

    Enter United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Tony Bruno, with what reporters described as a 'novel explanation'. Thanks much for the link, Patient Observer. The United States buys United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno.Russian rocket engines to subsidize the Russian space industry , so that fired rocket scientists will not pack up the wife and kiddies and their few pitiful belongings, and depart for Iran or North Korea. You know; countries that really hate the United States. I swear I am not making that up. Look:

    "The United States is buying Russian rocket engines not because of any problems with its domestic engine engineering programmes, but to subsidize Russian rocket scientists and to prevent them from seeking employment in Iran or North Korea, United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno has intimated.

    "The [US government] asked us to buy [Russian engines] at the end of the Cold War in order to keep the Russian Rocket Scientists from ending up in North Korea and Iran," Bruno tweeted, responding to a question about what motivates ULA to continue buying the Russian-made RD-180s."

    Sadly, I had no Rogozin-like qualms about being thought a dick. I snorted what I was drinking (chocolate milk, I think) all over my hand, and gurgled with mirth for a good 20 seconds. Holy Moley – what a retarded explanation! How long did he grope for that, spluttering like Joe Biden trying to remember what office he is currently running for? Jeebus Cripes, the United States has no control at all over what rocket scientists are paid in the Russian Federation – what do they imagine prevents Putin The Diktator from just pocketing all the money himself, or spending it on sticky buns to feed to Rogozin, and throwing a few fish heads to the rocket scientists? Do they really believe some sort of symbiotic relationship exists between Russia's rocket scientists and the US Treasury Department? Really ? Have things actually gotten that far down the road to Simple? I tell you, I kind of felt a little sorry for Tony 'Lightning Rod' Bruno. But more sorry for his family, who has to go out and find him when he's wandering in the park with no pants on again, you know. Humanitarian concerns.

    So I started doing a little digging. And right away, I made a couple of discoveries that made my synapses frizzle. One, the United States has a license to manufacture the RD-180 engine domestically . And apparently can't.

    "Under RD AMROSS, Pratt & Whitney is licensed to produce the RD-180 in the United States. Originally, production of the RD-180 in the US was scheduled to begin in 2008, but this did not happen. According to a 2005 GAO Assessment of Selected Major Weapon Programs, Pratt & Whitney planned to start building the engine in the United States with a first military launch by 2012. This, too, did not happen. In 2014, the Defense Department estimated that it would require approximately $1 billion and five years to begin US domestic manufacture of the RD-180 engine."

    It's only Wiki, but the references bear it out, such as the GAO's " Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of Selected Major Weapons Programs "; you want page 65.

    Well, no wonder! It's a lot cheaper to slip some bucks to starving Russian rocket scientists than spend a Billion simoleons on a Pratt & Whitney program that will take five years (!!!) minimum to set up before it even starts producing an engine the Russians have been making for 20 years, and gave Pratt & Whitney the plans for. Seen in that light, it makes a weird kind of sense, dunnit? Minus the altruism and violins, of course.

    Right about then, I made a second discovery that shook the fuzz off my fundament. Tony Bruno did not make that shit up . No, indeedy. It would have been simpler, and I have to say a bit more comforting, to assume Tony Bruno is the locus of American retardation. But he isn't; the poor bastard was just repeating an American doctrinal political talking-point. Behold !

    "When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, the US government worried about the possible consequences of lots of Russian rocket designers getting fired. What if they ended up working for regimes like Iran or North Korea?"

    Pretty much word-for-word what poor Tony Bruno said. And that was posted 5 years ago.

    But who cares, right? Just some wiggy space-nerd site.

    Oh, but wait. Look at his reference . It's from NASA. And it does indeed include the paragraph he quoted.

    "Moreover, several on the Space Council, as well as others in the Bush Administration, saw another reason to engage the post-Soviets in a cooperative space venture: as a way to help hold the Russian nation together at a time when the Russian economy was faltering and its society was reeling. In the words of Brian Dailey, Albrecht's sucessor, "If we did not do something in this time of social chaos in Russia, then there would be potentially a hemorrhaging of technology 'away from Russia' to countries who may not have a more peaceful intention behind the use of those technologies."

    I'm not sure how reliable that is – the Americans still insist, in it, that they landed on the moon, and it points out that Dan Quayle was head of the National Space Council, dear Lord, have mercy. But it's NASA! There was apparently a school of thought, prevalent in American politics, that America had to support the Russian economy , for fear of its technological proteges high-siding it for Dangerville. Neither North Korea or Iran are mentioned by name, but they would certainly be easy to infer from the description.

    So we could draw one of two conclusions; either (1) Obama was a witless tool who did not read that historical imperative (probably had his nose in a healthy-greens cookbook, some shit like that) and blundered ahead with a plan to wreck the Russian economy, loosing a torrent of Russian rocket scientists into a cynical Murka-hatin' world, or (2) Obama was a genius who applied sanctions with a surgeon's delicacy, avoiding sanctions on the Russian space program. Although he did apply sanctions directly on its..umm director. Okay, let's go with (1).

    Anyway, it's kind of odd, I guess you'd say, to hear that same Brian Dailey, he who blubbered sympathetically (or so history records) "We have to do something in this time of social chaos in Russia" say this:

    "The meeting was actually more or less a signing ceremony, a large event, so to speak, but it was one that was obviously going to be reaching into some very hard winds that would prevent us from really moving forward. That's a rather obtuse way of saying that we were having serious problems with the Russians. They wanted a lot of money for doing these things. They wanted to charge us a lot of money to hook up, and we didn't believe that since this was a government-to-government activity, that money should be appropriately involved, and it was the intention of the two Presidents to put something together that would be funded by their respective governments rather than us trying to fund something for Russia."

    Say what? You had to do something for the Russian economy without money? Tell me more.

    " At that point, Dan had got very upset with the Russians and proceeded to tell them that we were not going to do business with Semenov directly, but our opposite number was Yuri Koptev, and that he ought to start learning how to work with U.S. industry, and that we were not going to pay for this particular activity and we were not going to be blackmailed into paying them, so to speak, and insisted that this be taken off the table and we proceed to find ways of making this happen, not ways to slow it down or charge us for any kind of cooperative activities like this. "

    This all had to do with cooperation on some sort of docking system for the Mir Space Station, nothing to do with the RD-180, but I think you can see why I would be a bit skeptical regarding Project Payola for the Russian rocket scientists.

    You might be getting a tingly feeling – call it a suspicion – that the USA is kind of pulling our leg on the idea that it can make a superior multi-chamber rocket engine any time it feels like it, and is just buying the RD-180 on long-ago government orders to cut the Russians a break. You might suspect the RD-180 is actually a pretty good engine, but the United States can't make it for that kind of money, and perhaps can't make it at all. I know! Let's ask United Launch Alliance , that company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of.

    "The Atlas launch vehicle's main booster engine, the RD-180, has demonstrated consistent performance with predictable environments over the past decade. The RD-180 has substantially contributed to the established a record of high reliability on Atlas launch vehicles since its debut on the Atlas III in May of 2000."

    You don't say. Tell me more.

    "In the early 1990s the closed cycle, LOx rich, staged combustion technology rumored to exist in Russia was originally sought out by General Dynamics because engines of this kind would be able to provide a dramatic performance increase over available U.S. rocket technology. Unlike its rocket building counterparts in the United States, Europe, China, and Japan, Russia was able to master a unique LOx rich closed cycle combustion technology which delivered a 25% performance increase."

    But but I read the George H.W. Bush administration urged America to buy Russian rocket engines because they heard a rumor there was a suitcase sale on at the Energomash company store. And that, you know, the scientists might be planning a little trip.

    "NPO Energomash, the leading designer of engines in Russia, had gone through hundreds of designs, each an improvement on the last, to harness the power of LOx rich combustion. This required a very careful approach to how the fuel is burned in the preburner so that the temperature field is uniform. It also required improvements in materials and production techniques. They found a way to take the chamber pressures to new limits while protecting the internal components from fire risks. This required a new class of high temperature resistant stainless steel invented to cope with the risks of the LOx rich environment."

    Oh, seriously, c'mon – is it as good as all that?

    "The demonstrated performance established during this process was beyond anything achieved in the United States. The RD-180 reaches chamber pressures up to 3,722psia which was more than double the chamber pressures achieved by comparable U.S. engines. Exposure to Russian design philosophy and the success of a high performance engine made U.S. engine designers question their own methods. This dual sided cross-cultural engineering approach which has persisted through the life of the RD-180 program adds depth to the understanding of engine capability and operational characteristics."

    Okay, thanks, company that Tony Bruno is the CEO of. Good to know it wasn't just charity.

    [May 02, 2020] EU should consider 'flexible' Russia sanctions

    May 02, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    et Al April 28, 2020 at 10:18 am

    I'm posting this for entertainment purposes:

    Euractiv: EU should consider 'flexible' Russia sanctions over Ukraine: report
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/eu-should-consider-flexible-russia-sanctions-over-ukraine-report/

    The EU should reconsider its 'all or nothing' approach on sanctions imposed on Russia for its role in the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, as well as its annexation of Crimea, a new report from the International Crisis Group suggests. The Brussels-based think tank calls for the easing of certain sanctions in exchange for Russian progress towards peace in Ukraine.

    "Inflexible sanctions are less likely to change behaviour," said Olga Oliker, Europe and Central Asia programme director. "Because of that, we urge considering an approach that would allow for the lifting of some sanctions in exchange for some progress, with a clear intent to reverse that rollback of sanctions if the progress itself is reversed."

    .A major roadblock in the implementation of the Minsk deal has been the sequence of events supposed to bring an end to the conflict that has so far claimed more than 13,000 lives.

    Kyiv wants to first regain control over its border with Russia before local elections in the war-torn region can be held, while Moscow believes that elections must come first
    ####

    Door. Horse. Barn. Bolted.

    The Intentional Critics Grope is yet again a $/€ short in the reality department.

    You would think the Editor Gotev (the last two paras by him) would mention that the Minsk agreement clearly states elections come first and that Kiev has singularly refuse the other conditions of the agreement, but that really would be asking too much. From a professional journalist.

    It's the same shit we got with the US-North Korea 4 point nuclear agreement where de-nuclearization of the region is the final stage yet it didn't take Washington and ball-licking corporate media to parrot 'denuclearization' as the first point as suddently decided by the Ovum Orifice.*

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

    Mark Chapman April 28, 2020 at 1:24 pm
    They try it on again about every six months, just to see if the Russian negotiators have changed and if the new ones are dimwitted. I'm sure it is crystal clear to the Kremlin that if it gave Ukraine back exclusive control of the border, it would (a) call up troops and set up a cordon to make it impossible for eastern Ukraine to be reinforced, and (b) launch an all-out military push to re-take the breakaway regions. The west would then shout "Safe!!!", and the game would be over – Ukraine is (almost) whole again, praise Jeebus. There would be a propaganda storm that Russia was 'trying to meddle in the peace process' while Kuh-yiv rooted out and either imprisoned or executed all the 'rebel' leaders, and the west – probably the USA – would provide 'peacekeepers' to give Ukraine time to restore its complete control over the DNR and LPR. Then, presto! no elections required, we are all happy Ukrainians!

    They knew 'inflexible sanctions were less likely to change behaviors' when they first agreed to impose them – but they were showing their belly to Washington, and don't know how to stop now. Serves them right if they are losing revenue and market share.

    Mark Chapman April 29, 2020 at 8:42 am
    I don't think Russia is very interested, beyond polite diplomatic raising of the eyebrows, in relaxing of sanctions under conditions the EU is careful to highlight could be reapplied in a trice, as soon as anyone was upset with Russia's performance. Because that moment would be literally only a moment away. The UK can be counted on to register blistering outrage at the drop of a hat, and while its influence on the EU will soon be limited, dogs-in-the-manger like Poland can always be relied upon to throw themselves about in an ecstasy of victimhood. It would be impossible to set up any sort of dependable supply chain, as the interval between orders would never be known with any degree of certainty. Fuck the EU. Russia is better off to press on as it has been doing. The EU has to buy oil and gas from Russia because the logistics and price of American supplies make them economically non-competitive, and best to just leave it there. The EU will bitch, but it will continue to buy, whereas any other commerce would be subject to theatrical hissy fits.

    [May 02, 2020] Narrative control is the name of the game in the Skripal case.

    May 02, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Cortes April 26, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    Narrative control is the name of the game in the Skripal case.

    A couple of articles about a phenomenon which was thought to exist only in pre-Revolutionary France – the lettre de cachet – but seems to have been given a new lease of life:

    http://johnhelmer.net/sergei-and-yulia-skripal-in-prison-together-or-in-solitary/

    http://johnhelmer.net/how-many-witnesses-are-there-of-sergei-and-yulia-skripal-at-the-salisbury-hospital-in-march-2018-when-they-were-under-the-supervision-of-these-medical-staff/

    Mark Chapman April 26, 2020 at 5:43 pm
    I would love to see the British government and Porton Down nailed to the barn door for this. There's no telling if that will ever happen, but just on general principles their collective evasiveness speaks volumes. When the truth is on your side and you know it, you shout it from the rooftops. You don't obfuscate and hide behind national security, and pretend like amazing technical and spycraft secrets might be compromised if you reveal your evidence.

    If anyone can make it happen, it's Helmer. I've never seen such a talent for detail and cause-and-effect. Remarkable.

    Like Like

    Moscow Exile April 26, 2020 at 12:22 pm
    I wonder if the NHS staff that took care of the Skripals and who have been keeping stumm about that hapless duo's alleged poisoning by the Orcs with the most deadly nerve agent known to man have performed a dance routine yet on Tik-Tok?

    Heroes all!

    [May 02, 2020] Skripal false flag: Czech variant

    This is yet another demonstration that Western intelligence services became influential political players. As Chich Republic is a NATO country its intellignce services are partially controlled by outsiders. They also might have their own home grown neocon in the high ranks.
    May 02, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    et Al April 28, 2020 at 10:40 am

    al-Beeb s'Allah: Police protecting Prague mayor after 'Russian murder plot'
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52455223

    Czech newspaper Respekt alleges a Russian agent carrying the poison ricin arrived in the country three weeks ago.

    Mayor Zdenek Hrib refused to say why he was under protection but said he had told police he was being followed .
    ####

    Plenty more bs at the link.

    When does the national intelligence services leak to anything but national media? When it needs suckers! Vis the Christopher Steel Dossier of Steaming Bullshit to the Steaming Pile of Bullshit masquerading as journalism known as Buttfeed.

    We must remember that the Czech Republic is the United States' intelligence hub for Central and Eastern Europe. Even then, a large portion of Czech citizens don't buy the 'Russia threat' propaganda, coz they voted for Babis as PM who has been under investigation since elected because his is not anti-Russian.

    These investigations have turned up nothing apart from a possible conflict of ethics according to Brussels, which is ironic considering the latters refusal to publish minutes of its Trilogues (closed door meetings between heads of the European Parliament, Commission & Council) to agree EU policy before it is voted on in the Parliament – i.e. pre-baked in secret, it's failure to have a de facto register of lobbyists etc. etc. What is happening in Czechia is an ongoing soft coup which will not stop until Babis and others that don't sign on are out of power. It's the wrong kind of democracy , innit?

    [May 01, 2020] Another day, another Russiagate turn: this time very surprising: NYT clams the Russia is behind 5G skepticism

    May 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

    utu , says: Show Comment April 30, 2020 at 4:20 am GMT

    Anti-vaxxers and Russia behind viral 5G COVID conspiracy theory
    https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/anti-vaxxers-and-russia-behind-viral-5g-covid-conspiracy-theory/

    5G coronavirus conspiracy theory driven by coordinated effort
    https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-driven-coordinated-effort-200410182740380.html

    Nobel Literature Laureate Alexievich Backs 5G Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory (she also likes Felix Dzerzhinsky)
    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/17/alexievichnobel-literature-laureate-alexievich-backs-5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-a70030

    Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

    [May 01, 2020] Welcome to the era of the Great Disillusionment by Jonathan Cook

    May 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Now rogue academics, rogue journalists, rogue former officials – anyone, in fact – can go online and discover a myriad of things that until recently no one outside a small establishment circle was ever supposed to understand. If you know where to look, you can even find some of this stuff on Wikipedia (see, for example, Operation Timber Sycamore ).

    The effect of this information overload has been to disorientate the great majority of us who lack the time, the knowledge and the analytical skills to sift through it all and make sense of the world around us. It is hard to discriminate when there is so much information – good and bad alike – to digest.

    Nonetheless, we have got a sense from these online debates, reinforced by events in the non-virtual world, that our politicians do not always tell the truth, that money – rather than the public interest – sometimes wins out in decision-making processes, and that our elites may be little better equipped than us – aside from their expensive educations – to run our societies.

    Two decades of lies

    There has been a handful of staging posts over the past two decades to our current era of the Great Disillusionment. They include:

    lack of transparency in the US government's investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 (obscured by a parallel online controversy about what took place that day); the documented lies told about the reasons for launching a disastrous and illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 that unleashed regional chaos, waves of destabilising migration into Europe and new, exceptionally brutal forms of political Islam; the astronomical bailouts after the 2008 crash of bankers whose criminal activities nearly bankrupted the global economy (but who were never held to account) and instituted more than a decade of austerity measures that had to be paid for by the public; the refusal by western governments and global institutions to take any leadership on tackling climate change , as not only the science but the weather itself has made the urgency of that emergency clear, because it would mean taking on their corporate sponsors; and now the criminal failures of our governments to prepare for, and respond properly to, the Covid-19 pandemic, despite many years of warnings.

    Anyone who still takes what our governments say at face value well, I have several bridges to sell you.

    Experts failed us

    But it is not just governments to blame. The failings of experts, administrators and the professional class have been all too visible to the public as well. Those officials who have enjoyed easy access to prominent platforms in the state-corporate media have obediently repeated what state and corporate interests wanted us to hear, often only for that information to be exposed later as incomplete, misleading or downright fabricated.

    In the run-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq, too many political scientists, journalists and weapons experts kept their heads down, keen to preserve their careers and status, rather than speak up in support of those rare experts like Scott Ritter and the late David Kelly who dared to sound the alarm that we were not being told the whole truth.

    In 2008, only a handful of economists was prepared to break with corporate orthodoxy and question whether throwing money at bankers exposed as financial criminals was wise, or to demand that these bankers be prosecuted. The economists did not argue the case that there must be a price for the banks to pay, such as a public stake in the banks that were bailed out, in return for forcing taxpayers to massively invest in these discredited businesses. And the economists did not propose overhauling our financial systems to make sure there was no repetition of the economic crash. Instead, they kept their heads down as well, in the hope that their large salaries continued and that they would not lose their esteemed positions in think-tanks and universities.

    ... ... ...

    And recently we have learnt, for example, that a series of Conservative governments in the UK recklessly ran down the supplies of hospital protective gear , even though they had more than a decade of warnings of a coming pandemic. The question is why did no scientific advisers or health officials blow the whistle earlier. Now it is too late to save the lives of many thousands, including dozens of medical staff, who have fallen victim so far to the virus in the UK.

    Lesser of two evils

    Worse still, in the Anglosphere of the US and the UK, we have ended up with political systems that offer a choice between one party that supports a brutal, unrestrained version of neoliberalism and another party that supports a marginally less brutal, slightly mitigated version of neoliberalism. (And we have recently discovered in the UK that, after the grassroots membership of one of those twinned parties managed to choose a leader in Jeremy Corbyn who rejected this orthodoxy, his own party machine conspired to throw the election rather than let him near power.) As we are warned at each election, in case we decide that elections are in fact futile, we enjoy a choice – between the lesser of two evils.

    Those who ignore or instinctively defend these glaring failings of the modern corporate system are really in no position to sit smugly in judgment on those who wish to question the safety of 5G, or vaccines, or the truth of 9/11, or the reality of a climate catastrophe, or even of the presence of lizard overlords.

    Because through their reflexive dismissal of doubt, of all critical thinking on anything that has not been pre-approved by our governments and by the state-corporate media, they have helped to disfigure the only yardsticks we have for measuring truth or falsehood. They have forced on us a terrible choice: to blindly follow those who have repeatedly demonstrated they are not worthy of being followed, or to trust nothing at all, to doubt everything. Neither position is one a healthy, balanced individual would want to adopt. But that is where we are today.

    Big Brother regimes

    It is therefore hardly surprising that those who have been so discredited by the current explosion of information – the politicians, the corporations and the professional class – are wondering how to fix things in the way most likely to maintain their power and authority.

    They face two, possibly complementary options.

    ORDER IT NOW

    One is to allow the information overload to continue, or even escalate. There is an argument to be made that the more possible truths we are presented with, the more powerless we feel and the more willing we are to defer to those most vocal in claiming authority. Confused and hopeless, we will look to father figures, to the strongmen of old, to those who have cultivated an aura of decisiveness and fearlessness, to those who look like down-to-earth mavericks and rebels.

    This approach will throw up more Donald Trumps, Boris Johnsons and Jair Bolsonaros. And these men, while charming us with their supposed lack of orthodoxy, will still, of course, be exceptionally accommodating to the most powerful corporate interests – the military-industrial complex – that really run the show.

    The other option, which has already been road-tested under the rubric of "fake news", will be to treat us, the public, like irresponsible children, who need a firm, guiding hand. The technocrats and professionals will try to re-establish their authority as though the last two decades never occurred, as though we never saw through their hypocrisy and lies.

    They will cite "conspiracy theories" – even the true ones – as proof that it is time to impose new curbs on internet freedoms, on the right to speak and to think. They will argue that the social media experiment has run its course and proved itself a menace – because we, the public, are a menace. They are already flying trial balloons for this new Big Brother world, under cover of tackling the health threats posed by the Covid-19 epidemic.

    Surveillance a price worth paying to beat coronavirus, says Blair thinktank https://t.co/AAb1nnv4pG 

    -- Guardian news (@guardiannews) April 24, 2020

    We should not be surprised that the "thought-leaders" for shutting down the cacophony of the internet are those whose failures have been most exposed by our new freedoms to explore the dark recesses of the recent past. They have included Tony Blair, the British prime minister who lied western publics into the disastrous and illegal war on Iraq in 2003, and Jack Goldsmith, rewarded as a Harvard law professor for his role – since whitewashed – in helping the Bush administration legalise torture and step up warrantless surveillance programmes.

    Fmr. Bush admin lawyer/current Harvard Law prof Jack Goldsmith goes full-Thomas Friedman, credits China's enlightened authoritarian approach to information as "largely right" and laments the US' provincial fealty to the First Amendment as "largely wrong." https://t.co/1WyQtgE8bK pic.twitter.com/1M03ybxh0I 

    -- Anthony L. Fisher (@anthonyLfisher) April 26, 2020

    Need for a new media

    The only alternative to a future in which we are ruled by Big Brother technocrats like Tony Blair, or by chummy authoritarians who brook no dissent, or a mix of the two, will require a complete overhaul of our societies' approach to information. We will need fewer curbs on free speech, not more.

    The real test of our societies – and the only hope of surviving the coming emergencies, economic and environmental – will be finding a way to hold our leaders truly to account. Not based on whether they are secretly lizards, but on what they are doing to save our planet from our all-too-human, self-destructive instinct for acquisition and our craving for guarantees of security in an uncertain world.

    That, in turn, will require a transformation of our relationship to information and debate. We will need a new model of independent, pluralistic, responsive, questioning media that is accountable to the public, not to billionaires and corporations. Precisely the kind of media we do not have now. We will need media we can trust to represent the full range of credible, intelligent, informed debate, not the narrow Overton window through which we get a highly partisan, distorted view of the world that serves the 1 per cent – an elite so richly rewarded by the current system that they are prepared to ignore the fact that they and we are hurtling towards the abyss.

    With that kind of media in place – one that truly holds politicians to account and celebrates scientists for their contributions to collective knowledge, not their usefulness to corporate enrichment – we would not need to worry about the safety of our communications systems or medicines, we would not need to doubt the truth of events in the news or wonder whether we have lizards for rulers, because in that kind of world no one would rule over us. They would serve the public for the common good.

    Sounds like a fantastical, improbable system of government? It has a name: democracy. Maybe it is time for us finally to give it a go.

    Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .

    [Apr 29, 2020] Historians increasingly see the term totalitarian as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful analyses of them

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... The Origins of Totalitarianism ..."
    "... Origins of Totalitarianism ..."
    "... Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy ..."
    "... These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold War. ..."
    Apr 29, 2020 | bostonreview.net

    Last Thursday, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman issued a warning in the New York Times . "The pandemic will eventually end," he wrote, "but democracy, once lost, may never come back. And we're much closer to losing our democracy than many people realize." Citing the Wisconsin election debacle -- the Supreme Court ruled that voters would have to vote in person, risking their health -- Krugman argued that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are using the crisis for their own, authoritarian ends.

    This is the perennial critique of Trump: that he is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, 'would want to establish total control over society.'

    Krugman is not alone. As early as last month, when cases of COVID-19 first began to surge in the United States, Masha Gessen wrote in the New Yorker that the virus was fueling "Trump's autocratic instincts." They argued, "We have long known that Trump has totalitarian instincts . . . the coronavirus has brought us a step closer." This is indeed the once and future critique of the Trump presidency: that Trump is a totalitarian at heart and, if given the chance, "would want to establish total control over a mobilized society." A few days ago, Salon published an article arguing that the president is using the virus to prepare "the ground for a totalitarian dictatorship." Even Meghan McCain, as unlikely a person as any to agree with Gessen, indicated recently that Trump has "always been a sort of totalitarian president" and that he might use the virus to "play on the American public's fears in a draconian way and possibly do something akin to the Patriot Act."

    These critiques make ample use of the term totalitarianism -- "that most horrible of inventions of the twentieth century," in Gessen's summation . They and other commentators also use it to describe Fidel Castro's Cuba to Vladimir Putin's Russia, which Gessen left in 2013. As right-wing populism has surged around the world in recent years, the term has had something of a renaissance. Hannah Arendt's 1951 classic The Origins of Totalitarianism became a best seller again after Donald Trump's election in November 2016.

    This uptick in the term's use runs counter to the trend among historians, for whom the idea of totalitarianism carries increasingly little weight. Many of us see the term primarily as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful analyses of them. Scholars often prefer the much broader term authoritarianism, which denotes any form of government that concentrates political power in the hands of an unaccountable elite. But the fact that historians who study such governments eschew the term totalitarianism, even as it enjoys wide public currency, points not only to a disconnect between the academy and the general public, but also to a problem that Americans have in thinking about dictatorship. And it underscores our collective uncertainty about the proper role of government in crises such as these.

    section separator

    Historians increasingly see the term totalitarian as polemical, used more to discredit governments than to offer meaningful analyses of them.

    The terms totalitarian and totalitarianism have a winding history. In 1922 King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy appointed Benito Mussolini, leader of the Italian fascist party, as prime minister. In subsequent years, Mussolini established an authoritarian government that provided a roadmap for other twentieth century dictators, including Adolf Hitler, and made the term fascist an enduring descriptor of right-wing authoritarianism. A year after Mussolini's appointment, Giovanni Amendola, a journalist and politician opposed to fascism, used the term totalitario , or totalitarian, to describe how the fascists presented two largely identical party lists at a local election, thereby preserving the form of competitive democracy (i.e., offering voters a choice), while, in reality, gutting it. Other writers soon took up the idea and it became a more generic descriptor of the fascist state's dictatorial powers. Mussolini himself eventually adopted the term to characterize his government, writing that it described a regime of "all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state." In the next two decades, the terms began to circulate internationally. Amendola used them in 1925 to compare Mussolini's government and the young Soviet regime in Moscow. Academics in the English-speaking world began to employ them in the 1920s and '30s in similar comparative contexts.

    In a sign of how much the meaning of the words drifted, however, those who later adopted them into political philosophy did not necessarily consider fascist Italy to have been totalitarian. Hannah Arendt, for instance, dismissed Mussolini's movement: "The true goal of Fascism was only to seize power and establish the Fascist 'elite' as uncontested ruler over the country." Even now, scholars point to the survival of pre-fascist government and bureaucratic structures, as well as lower levels of terror and violence directed against the populace, as evidence that Mussolini's Italy was not genuinely totalitarian.

    Instead, Arendt considered totalitarianism to be a way of understanding fundamental similarities between Stalinism and Hitlerism, despite their diametrical opposition on the political spectrum. This archetypal comparison remains the bedrock of studies of totalitarian dictatorship. In Origins of Totalitarianism , Arendt laid out what she saw as its internal dynamic:

    Totalitarianism is never content to rule by external means, namely, through the state and a machinery of violence; thanks to its peculiar ideology and the role assigned to it in this apparatus of coercion, totalitarianism has discovered a means of dominating and terrorizing human beings from within.

    This state of affairs, which Arendt diagnosed as the result of an increasingly atomized society, bears a striking resemblance to the state described in George Orwell's 1984 (another bestseller in the Trump era). Airstrip One, as Orwell renamed Great Britain, is dominated by an omniscient Big Brother who sees, hears, and knows all. Through a reform of language, Airstrip One even tries to make it impossible to think illegal thoughts. Newspeak, it is hoped, "shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it." Orwell and Arendt considered the obliteration of the private and internal life of individuals to be the ne plus ultra of totalitarian rule.

    Of course, what Arendt and Orwell described are systems of government that have never actually existed. Neither Nazism nor Stalinism succeeded in controlling or dominating its citizens from within. Moreover, while later scholarship has partially borne out Arendt's analysis of National Socialism, her understanding of Stalinist rule has proved less insightful.

    The other classic account of totalitarianism is Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy , published in 1956 by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In it, the political scientists developed a six-point list of criteria by which to recognize totalitarianism: it has an "elaborate ideology," relies on a mass party, uses terror, claims a monopoly on communication as well as on violence, and controls the economy. Like Arendt, Friedrich and Brzezinski believed totalitarianism to be a new phenomenon -- to take Gessen's words, an invention of the twentieth century. Their goal was to understand structural similarities between different modern dictatorships.

    Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their comparison as totalitarian really yields interesting insights.

    While scholars critiqued Friedrich and Brzezinski's model -- for example, its one-size-fits-all list fails to appreciate these regimes' dynamism -- the debate over the usefulness of the term totalitarianism continued. In the decades since, historians and political scientists have gone back and forth, defining the concept in new ways and showing how those definitions fail in one way or another.

    But, at base, these definitions have typically assumed, in the words of historian Ian Kershaw, a "total claim" made on the part of the totalitarian state over those it rules. That is, Arendt's basic characterization -- that totalitarian regimes aspire to total control over the public, private, and internal lives of their citizens -- continues to inform scholarly debate.

    Arendt's, I would venture, is also the term's folk definition: that is, in people's minds, totalitarianism distinguishes a subset of authoritarian regimes that seek to (and perhaps even sometimes succeed at) dominating the individual in every conceivable way. China's new social credit score, which curtails the rights of people who engage in so-called antisocial behaviors, is a current example of this sort of thing. It is also a clear illustration of the role technology plays in totalitarian fantasies. But China's government also has many other characteristics, such as a market economy, that traditional understandings of totalitarianism explicitly reject.

    This pared-down definition of totalitarianism is still only of dubious utility. Even Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union -- the two archetypal examples -- were so different that historians wonder if their comparison as "totalitarian" really yields interesting insights. Studies of everyday life in both countries have underscored the limits of the totalitarian model. These revisionist histories, in the words of Soviet historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, "introduced into Soviet history the notions of bureaucratic and professional interest groups and institutional and center-periphery conflict, and they were particularly successful at demonstrating inputs from middle levels of the administrative hierarchy and professional groups. They were alert to what would now be called questions of agency." Similarly nuanced approaches to Nazism have uncovered ways power worked within the regime that throw the totalitarian hypothesis into doubt.

    In my own area of research, Germany after World War II, totalitarianism plays a fraught role. During the Cold War and its immediate aftermath, politicians, journalists, and scholars all painted East Germany as a totalitarian government on par with the Nazi state. But that characterization is simply wrong. For instance, the East German and Nazi secret police forces, the Stasi and the Gestapo, functioned in fundamentally different ways. The Gestapo was a relatively small organization that relied on thousands of spontaneous denunciations. It practiced brutal torture and was embedded in a system of extralegal justice that was responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of German citizens (not to mention the millions more killed in the Holocaust). The Stasi was quite different. It employed a vast bureaucracy -- three times larger than the Gestapo in a population four times smaller -- and cultivated an even larger network of collaborators. Around 5 percent of East Germans are estimated to have worked for the Stasi at some point, blurring the lines between persecutors and persecuted. Against those unlucky enough to wind up in a Stasi prison, the secret police employed methods of psychological torture. But it never induced the same level of terror as did the Gestapo. Nor was it responsible for anywhere near the same number of deaths. For most East Germans, the Stasi's presence was more of a nuisance -- a "scratchy undershirt," historian Paul Betts argues.

    Of course, the Stasi's ubiquity and its vast surveillance apparatus have equally been taken as proof that the totalitarian hypothesis does indeed apply to East Germany. But there is ample evidence that East Germans enjoyed robust private lives, along with a sense of individual self. East Germans wrote millions of petitions to their government, for instance, complaining about everything from vacations to apartments. They showed up to quiz members of parliament about government policy. When the regime tried to outlaw public nudity in the 1950s, as historian Josie McLellan has described, East Germans disobeyed, protested, and eventually forced the government to relent. Kristen Ghodsee, among others, has contended that in many ways life was better for women in Eastern Bloc countries than in the West. And the dictatorship never tried to bring the Protestant Church, to which millions of East Germans belonged, under its full control. My own research reveals that gay liberation activists were able to pressure the dictatorship to make significant policy changes.

    In short, whatever criteria one uses to define totalitarianism, East Germany does not fit. It was a dictatorship, but certainly not a totalitarian one. In fact, the classification of East Germany has proved such a nettlesome problem, it has spawned a veritable cottage industry of neologisms. Scholars describe it, variously, as a welfare dictatorship, a participatory dictatorship, a thoroughly dominated society, a modern dictatorship, a tutelary state, and a late totalitarian patriarchal and surveillance state.

    If the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any contemporary society be described as other than totalitarian?

    This brings us back to current usage. The problem is that the term totalitarian fulfills two quite different purposes. The first, as just discussed, is taxonomic: for scholars, it has helped frame an effort to understand the nature of various twentieth-century regimes. And in this function, it finally seems to be reaching the end of its useful life.

    But the term's other purpose is ideological and pejorative, the outgrowth of a Cold War desire to classify fascist and communist dictatorships as essentially the same phenomenon. To catalog a state as totalitarian it to say it is radically other, sealed off from the liberal, capitalist, democratic order that we take to be normal. When we call a state totalitarian, we are saying that its goals are of a categorically different sort than those of our own government -- that it seeks, as Gessen suggests, to destroy human dignity.

    The ideological work that the term totalitarian performs is significant, providing a sleight-of-hand by which to both condemn foreign regimes and deflect criticism of the regime at home. By claiming that dictatorship and democracy are not simply opposed but categorically different, it disables us from recognizing the democratic parts of dictatorial rule and the authoritarian aspects of democratic rule, and thus renders us less capable of effectively diagnosing problems in our own society.

    We love to denounce foreign dictatorships. George W. Bush invented the " Axis of Evil ," for example, to provide a ready supply of villains. These "totalitarian" regimes -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea -- we were told, all threatened our freedoms. But the grouping was always nonsensical, as the regimes bore few similarities to one another. While Iran, in particular, is authoritarian, it also bears hallmarks of pluralistic democracy. Pointing out the latter does not diminish the former -- rather it helps us understand how and why the Islamic Republic has shown such tenacity and staying power. To simply call such regimes totalitarian not only misses the point, but also whitewashes American complicity in creating and propping up authoritarian regimes -- Iran not least of all. Indeed, the United States supported a number of the past century's most brutal right-wing dictatorships.

    Moreover, by thinking of totalitarianism as something that happens elsewhere, in illiberal, undemocratic places, we ignore the ways in which our government can and has behaved in authoritarian ways within our own country. Black Americans experienced conditions of dictatorial rule in the Jim Crow South and under slavery, to name but the most prominent examples.

    The language of totalitarianism thus obscures how dictatorship and democracy exist on the same spectrum. It is imperative that we come to a clearer understanding of the fact that hybrid forms of government exist which combine elements of both. These managed democracies, to take political theorist Sheldon Wolin's term -- from Putin's Russia, to Viktor Orbán's Hungary, to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey -- have hallmarks of democratic republics and use a combination of new and old methods to enforce something akin to one-party rule. These states are certainly not totalitarian, but neither are they democracies.

    Likewise, the Republican Party's efforts to manage U.S. democracy through gerrymandering and voter suppression is similar to Putin's, Orbán's, and Erdoğan's tactics of securing political power. Its strategies push the republic further toward the authoritarian end of the political spectrum. And, indeed, the sophisticated data-mining techniques of Cambridge Analytica , which assisted the 2016 Trump campaign to manipulate voter choices, would have made the Stasi, the Gestapo, or the NKVD green with envy.

    In fact, if the obliteration of the wall between public and private is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, can any contemporary society be described as anything other than totalitarian? What, after all, does agency mean in a world in which Facebook aspires to know what we want before we know it ourselves or in a country in which the NSA collects vast troves of data on our own citizens? To my mind, totalitarianism's usefulness as a distinctive category of government simply evaporates when we begin to look at all the ways in which technology has compromised individual privacy and agency in the twenty-first century.

    Fear of totalitarianism gives the right cover to denounce measures to control the virus: if freedom means freedom from government, then the worst government is one that makes a total claim on its citizens, even in the interest of saving them from a plague.

    Use of the term also prevents us from thinking productively about COVID-19 and how governments ought to respond to it. For a state of quarantine necessarily forces everyone to give up -- whether voluntarily or no -- their rights of movement, assembly, and, to some extent, expression. It requires the private choices individuals make -- whether to have friends over for dinner, go on a morning jog, or buy groceries -- to become public in painful and sometimes even embarrassing ways. Technology companies are starting to employ their products' tracking features to trace the virus's spread, an application that many worry poses an unacceptable breach of privacy.

    Yet, the destruction of the private sphere in the interest of the public good is precisely what theorists tell us lies at the heart of totalitarianism. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben made precisely this point, arguing recently that the extraordinary response to COVID-19 is totalitarian: "The disproportionate reaction . . . is quite blatant. It is almost as if with terrorism exhausted as a cause for exceptional measures, the invention of an epidemic offered the ideal pretext for scaling them up beyond any limitation." Of course, we now know the measures the Italian government introduced went neither far nor fast enough. Now there are over 160,000 confirmed cases in Italy and over 20,000 confirmed deaths from the virus.

    The confusion the idea of totalitarianism sows over responses in the United States has also been evident since last month. On March 22, right-wing commentator Andrew Napolitano asserted that measures to combat COVID-19 were motivated by "totalitarian impulses." Meanwhile, state officials have been busy postponing primary elections, a measure that under normal circumstances would undoubtedly be denounced as totalitarian in nature.

    If we are going to arrive at a more sophisticated answer to the question of how to govern democratically in the twenty-first century, we must begin by acknowledging that all modern governments attempt to control and influence the lives of their citizens, and all governments make use of exceptional powers to combat crises. The problem with the idea of totalitarianism is that it makes no accommodation for the reasons behind such exercise of coercive power.

    It is, of course, quite right to worry about Donald Trump's response to the virus. His dilly-dallying, his narcissism, and his inability to take responsibility for anything may cost one hundred thousand or more lives. Commentators like Krugman are correct, insofar as Trump and his cronies are indeed trying to use the crisis to cement their authority. But the ways they are going about it are not totalitarian in any sense of the word. In fact, the idea of totalitarianism, as commentators such as Napolitano reveal, gives the radical right cover to denounce measures to control the virus. It is the last stage in the late-twentieth-century neoliberal critique of government: if freedom is only ever freedom from government interference, then the worst form of government is that which makes a total claim on its citizens, even in the interest of saving them from a plague. Thinking in terms of totalitarianism -- instead of the broader and more flexible term authoritarianism -- leads one into such frustrating mental thickets, in which democratic policies can plausibly be denounced as totalitarian.

    These seeming paradoxes illustrate that the idea of totalitarianism is a useless tool in assessing the decency of governance in any twenty-first-century state. If we are to survive in this brave new world, in which technology makes it ever easier for governments to manipulate individual decisions, but in which we also demand that the state take an ever-larger role in ensuring our safety from ourselves, we must acknowledge that the Manichean worldview implied in the term totalitarianism is an outdated relic of the Cold War.

    [Apr 28, 2020] Chinagate Is The New Russiagate... And Is Far More Dangerous

    Apr 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Chinagate Is The New Russiagate... And Is Far More Dangerous by Tyler Durden Tue, 04/28/2020 - 20:05 Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    I've become convinced the next major event that'll be used to further centralize power and escalate domestic authoritarianism will center around U.S.-China tensions. We haven't witnessed this "event" yet, but there's a good chance it'll occur within the next year or two. Currently, the front runner appears to be a major aggressive move by China into Hong Kong, but it could be anything really. Taiwan, the South China Sea, currency, economic or cyber warfare; the flash points are numerous and growing by the day. Something is going to snap and when it does we better be prepared to not act like mindless imbeciles for the fourth time this century.

    When that day arrives, and it's likely not too far off, certain factions will try to sell you on the monstrous idea that we must become more like China to defeat China. We'll be told we need more centralization, more authoritarianism, and less freedom and civil liberties or China will win. Such talk is nonsense and the wise way to respond is to reject the worst aspects of the Chinese system and head the other way.

    – From my 2019 piece: Two Paths Forward with China – The Good and The Bad

    As the clownish farce that is Russiagate slinks back into the psyop dumpster from which it emerged, an even more destructive narrative has metastasized following the U.S. government's incompetent response to covid-19.

    It was clear to me from the start that Russiagate was a nonsensical narrative wildly embraced by a variety of powerful people in the wake of Trump's election merely to serve their own ends. For establishment Democrats, it was a way to pretend Hillary Clinton didn't actually lose because she was a wretched status quo candidate with a destructive track record, but she lost due to "foreign meddling." This allowed those involved in her campaign to deflect blame, but it also short-circuited any discussion of the merits of populism and widespread voter dissatisfaction (within both parties) percolating throughout the land. It was a fairytale invented by people intentionally putting their heads in the sand in order to avoid confrontation with political reality and to keep their cushy gravy-train of entrenched corruption going.

    Russiagate was likewise embraced by the national security state (imperial apparatus) for similar reasons. Like establishment Democrats, the national security state also wanted to prevent the narrative that the status quo was rejected in the 2016 election from spreading. It was incentivized to pretend Hillary's loss was the result of gullible Americans being duped by crafty Russians in order to manufacture the idea that U.S. society was healthy and normal if not for some external enemy.

    Another primary driver for the national security state was to punish Russia for acting like a sovereign state as opposed to a colony of U.S. empire in recent years. Russia has been an increasingly serious thorn in the side of unipolarism advocates over the past decade by performing acts such as buying gold, providing safe harbor for Edward Snowden, and thwarting the dreams of regime change in Syria. Such acts could not go unpunished.

    So Russiagate served its purpose. It wasted our time for much of Trump's first term and it helped prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. Now we get Chinagate.

    When the premier empire on the planet starts blaming external enemies for its internal problems, you know it's almost always an excuse to let your own elites off the hook and further erode civil liberties. While it appears the novel coronavirus covid-19 did in fact come from China, and China tried to discourage other countries from taking decisive action in the early days, our internal political actors blaming China for their own lack of preparation and timely reaction is patently ridiculous.

    The entire world saw China shutdown the entire city of Wuhan shuttering factories and the economy. Anyone with two eyes and half a brain could see they were ACTING as if this were very serious. I bought masks, hand sanitizer, lysol wipes at the end of January. Why didn't State? https://t.co/oECvvxbV0K

    -- Stacy Herbrrrt (@stacyherbert) April 23, 2020

    If Stacy and myself were able to see the situation clearly and respond early, why couldn't our government? This isn't rocket science. The Chinese were acting as if the world had ended in cities across the country and we're supposed to believe U.S. leaders simply listened to what the CCP was saying as opposed to what they were doing? How does that make any sense?

    It makes even less sense considering the Trump administration has been in an explicit cold war with China for almost two years. This concept that the American national security state just took China's word for what was going on in the early days is preposterous. So what's going on here? Similar to Russiagate, the increased focus on directing our ten minutes of hate at the Chinese provides cover for the elites, but Chinagate is far more dangerous because the narrative will prove far more convincing for many Americans.

    Although Russiagate was rapidly embraced by people with severe Trump Derangement Syndrome, most people just didn't buy into it or care. Only the most dimwitted amongst us actually believed the Russians were responsible for our major problems at home, but when it comes to China the argument can be far more persuasive because many aspects of the economic relationship between the U.S. and China are in fact problematic. Specifically, the U.S. transformed itself from a nation of producers and builders into a nation of debt-driven consumption slaves over the past five decades. While China played a key role in this process, it wasn't the driver.

    Did China force the U.S. to abandon gold convertibility in 1971, thus beginning the transition from an industrial empire into a financial one? Did China convince us to repeal Glass-Steagall, or lie about WMD in Iraq? Did China put a gun to our manufacturing executives' heads and force them to offshore manufacturing, or did the executives do that with greed filled eyes while earning billions upon billions from labor arbitrage? China may have directly benefited from five decades of avarice-driven policy crimes committed by American "elites," but they didn't cause them. They are entirely homegrown.

    Yep, the only people who benefit from the external enemy obsession are the people who actually wrecked this country.

    Our own "elites." https://t.co/bYZDH3cflW

    -- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) April 18, 2020

    Chinagate is far more dangerous than Russiagate because very serious fundamental problems within the U.S.-China economic relationship do exist. I don't deny this, and I'm in favor of actual policies that would incentivize the American people to become producers and builders as opposed to castrated debt zombies. The problem is many of the people ratcheting up the volume on the evils of China (I don't deny the abundance of evil) aren't interested in bringing liberty and production back to America. Rather, they're trying to take away more of your freedoms, economically and politically.

    Wall Street and the national security state (empire) ransacked and hollowed out this country. It wasn't your neighbor, it wasn't immigrants and it wasn't an external enemy.

    Know who did this and never forget it.

    -- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) April 22, 2020

    The same people who've been in charge of the country for the entire 21st century remain in charge. Presidential politics is pure theater in an empire. Think about it, the same people who brought you endless war, the surveillance panopticon and perpetual Wall Street crime and bailouts are supposed to take on China? The same China that made so many of them fabulously wealthy? Give me a fucking break.

    The elitist agenda isn't to use anger at China to bring freedom and production to our shores, but to use heightened emotional fear to tighten their domestic power grip. The idea is to use Chinese authoritarianism as a model for the U.S.

    The post covid-19 elitist wet dream here is pretty transparent. Convince everyone to be a compliant farm animal on an imperial plantation.

    To defeat China and all.

    -- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) April 27, 2020

    Unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are already coming out of their snake holes to advocate for exactly that. We saw this a few days ago when Harvard Law Professor and former George W. Bush administration lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, explicitly called for Chinese-like censorship of speech on the internet.

    In the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong. Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society's norms and values.

    By all means advocate for a reshuffling of the relationship between the U.S. and China that will lead to more freedom, resilience and economic vitality at home and I'll support it, but don't tell me we need to become China in order to defeat China. If we're dumb enough to fall for that, we'll get exactly what we deserve. Good and hard.

    * * *

    Liberty Blitzkrieg is an ad-free website. If you enjoyed this post and my work in general, visit the Support Page where you can donate and contribute to my efforts.

    [Apr 26, 2020] I believe that much of the anti-Russian propaganda has its echoes if not origins in German Nazi propaganda

    Apr 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Erelis , Apr 24 2020 19:31 utc | 36

    Based on my reading of popular news outlets and essays, speeches, the current term "liberal international order" was born out of anti-Russian propaganda. The Russians were not only out to get a few enemy countries (and Hillary personally), but was a civilizational threat. The term basically means the US and its European lackey allies. It is self promoting PR against the anti-Western imperialist Slavic and now Asiatic East.

    I believe that much of the anti-Russian propaganda has its echoes if not origins in German Nazi propaganda. The Nazis (and indeed their current brethren spread across Europe and North America) believed that the Jews were not only trying to destroy Germany (America), but also trying destroy the entirety of European civilization (EU). Which in current terms is the liberal international order. This term helps justify the hysterical anti-Russian rants in the mass media of North America and the EU. This is an old anti-Semitic narrative updated.

    [Apr 25, 2020] McCarthysm floring in WaPo. As As WaPo and NYT are two stooges of intelligence agiance what can you expect?

    This is a pre-emptive style against Durham investigation which might implicated John Brennan
    Apr 22, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

    THE SENATE Intelligence Committee has released a bipartisan report with a stark bottom line: What President Trump calls the " Russia hoax " isn't a hoax at all.

    The fourth and latest installment in lawmakers' review of Moscow's meddling examines a January 2017 assessment by the nation's spy agencies that Mr. Trump has repeatedly attempted to discredit -- and confirms it, unanimously. Russia sought to subvert Americans' belief in our democracy, bring down Hillary Clinton and bolster her rival. That these legislators from both sides of the aisle are willing to say as much after three years of thorough investigation is an encouraging sign of some independent thinking still left in government. It's also a reminder of the peril this independence is in today. The Russia hoax was never a hoax. An encouraging bipartisan report confirms it. - The Washington Post

    The committee members conclude that the intelligence community produced a "coherent and well-constructed . . . basis for the case of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" despite a tight time frame. The report also examines two matters of particular contention: first, whether the salacious dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele played an inappropriate role in the finding of interference; the senators say it did not. And second, whether former CIA director John O. Brennan pressured colleagues into arriving at a stronger conclusion than the evidence warranted.

    This latter concern is also at the center of the broad probe Attorney General William P. Barr has ordered into the origins of the Russia investigation. "There are a lot of things that are unexplained," Mr. Barr has said . "And we'll be able to sort out exactly what happened." Yet the senators have pursued the same avenues of inquiry and come up with a clear answer: The differing levels of confidence among agencies were "justified and properly represented," and the ultimate wording was reached "openly and with sufficient exchanges of views."

    [Apr 22, 2020] Especially as the insane neoliberal economy we live in, we are ruled by a group of kleptocrats and vicious stooges. Which make allegations against Biden deserving a closer look but that does not make them automatically credible

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Progressive ..."
    Apr 22, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. -- California Evidence Code sec 140


    JTMcPhee , April 21, 2020 at 6:19 pm

    ... ... ...

    Even the NYT acknowledged (before it erased the text in its story on Reade that noted there were no other sexual misconduct charges pending against him other than that long history of assaults and sniffing and hands-on, text removed by the Times at the instance of the Biden campaign staff?

    Here's the original text: " The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." Waiting for the apologists to tell us why the edit to remove the last clause starting "beyond " is just "Good journalism."

    He and Trump are bad examples of the male part of the species. Nothing to choose that I can see, other than who among the people that revise those bribes to them will be the first in line at the MMT watering hole

    just_kate , April 21, 2020 at 8:54 pm

    i had a lengthy discussion about this with my brother and sil, it came down to her saying I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT re bidens history of being a ttl letch plus possible rapist and my brother questioning what is obvious discomfort in multiple video evidence.

    They said defeating trump was paramount to anything against biden. i simply give up at this point.

    cm , April 21, 2020 at 3:28 pm

    No mention of Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford in the article

    michael99 , April 21, 2020 at 6:30 pm

    The Heart-Wrenching Trauma of the Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh Hearings
    It's difficult. It hurts. It's unfair. But women will keep telling our stories.
    By Joan Walsh
    September 28, 2018

    lyman alpha blob , April 21, 2020 at 5:46 pm

    Lots of partisan hackery and TDS going around in the last few years in once respectable lefty publications. Mother Jones has gone completely to hell rather than raising any, as was once their mission statement. I haven't read the Nation as much in recent years – I let my subscription lapse a while ago as I found I just couldn't keep up with reading it. Coincidentally I think that was about the time I started reading NC. The Nation has a history of sheepdogging lefties to rally behind bad Dem candidates, which was another reason I didn't feel bad letting my subscription go.

    I do still have my subscription to Harper's but they were getting on my nerves quite a bit to the point I considered cancelling them too. Rebecca Solnit wrote some truly cringe-worthy editorials for them after Trump's election. They seem to have removed her from writing the main editorial so maybe I wasn't the only one who felt she left a little to be desired. I'm quite fond of the newer woman they have doing editorials, Lionel Shriver. She seems like she'd fit in quite well here!

    sierra7 , April 21, 2020 at 3:39 pm

    I left (pun intended) the Nation pub in the dust way back in the 1990's and buried it post 9/11. Used to be a real good alternative press pub 30-40 years ago. Somewhere along the line it lost it's way and joined the wishy-washy "gatekeeper' society of "approved news."
    RIP

    urblintz , April 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm

    Joan Walsh is a partisan fraud and The Nation's worst hire since . forever.

    Olga , April 21, 2020 at 8:09 pm

    The Nation was a sanity saviour back in late 70s and through 1980s; then something happened. Not clear when or what, but I know I let my subscription lapse. Tried again later, but it was never the same. It's mostly unbearable now, except for Stephen Cohen. Walsh has been in the unbearable category for many years now.

    Voltaire Jr. , April 21, 2020 at 10:08 pm

    Subscribed to The Nation and The Progressive in 1971. Read and learned for a decade or so, moved on. Also read every Henry George book I could.

    marku52 , April 21, 2020 at 3:59 pm

    Leonard Pitts just had an editorial in my local paper where he opined that even if Biden had sexually assaulted Reade, it didn't really matter because we had to vote against Trump.

    I wrote this in reply:
    So Leonard Pitts thinks that Biden's alleged sexual attack on Tara Reade isn't disqualifying, even if true. Strange, he didn't think that way about Brett Kavanagh. I didn't want to attack the columnist as a hypocrite without being sure, so I looked it up. Here is what he wrote:

    "It's a confluence of facts that speak painfully and pointedly to just how unseriously America takes men's predations against women. You might disagree, noting that the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked Ford to testify. But if history is any guide, that will prove to be a mere formality – a sop to appearances – before the committee recommends confirmation."

    Looks very much like "Well, It's excusable when our guys do it."

    Not to me.

    ( Here is the link to his first opinion piece)
    https://www.pressherald.com/2018/09/19/leonard-pitts-fairness-statute-has-not-run-out-on-allegations-against-kavanaugh/#

    jo6pac , April 21, 2020 at 4:32 pm

    The late Alexzander Cockburn would be most proud of this take down of joan walsh.

    I don't read the nation and I'm sorry that LP feels that way.

    Thanks Lambert and NC

    I'll be voting Green again without Bernie in the race.

    Reply

    Watt4Bob , April 21, 2020 at 4:34 pm

    So disappointing.

    It was the Nation that helped wake me politically back in the early 1970s with their reporting on the Chilean coup, and later, the murder of Orlando Letelier, and Ronnie Moffet .

    Arguably, the first state-sponsored international terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    It has has since morphed into cat box liner.

    Am I wrong to blame Katrina vanden Heuvel?

    kirk seidenbecker , April 21, 2020 at 5:43 pm

    Excuse me if this is a repeat –

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/04/evaluating-tara-reades-claims

    Reply

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , April 21, 2020 at 5:46 pm

    Always had a crush on K v d Heuvel. (How's that for an opening to a post about misogyny and sexual misconduct)?

    But can't we disqualify Joe! as the craven proponent of the worst neo-lib policies that got us exactly where we are today? Or, in polite company, ask politely whether he is even in a mental state to hand over the keys to the to the family car, let alone the nuclear football?

    Let's take the Id out of IdPol, I don't care if the candidate has green skin and three eyes if the policies they would enact come within smelling distance of benefiting the 99% (or more precisely in Joe's case within hair smelling distance).

    We can use his personal conduct as a component in our judgement but pleeease can we focus on the stuff that would actually affect our lives. In his case, for the absolute worse.

    (Note: I sincerely doubt whether Joe is currently allowed to drive a car, please oh please Mr.God-Yahweh-Mohammed-Buddha-Obama can we not let him drive a nation).

    [Apr 21, 2020] At a time when change is most needed, Creepy Joe is asking voters to turn back, give up, and accept our country's senility

    If Biden's running on fear, he picked a pretty damn good year to do it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Humor: One of God's small mercies. Play Hide ..."
    Apr 21, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Joe Biden's louche son Hunter -- known for his hearty indulgence in drugs and his sexual adventures with strippers -- is a perfect specimen of humanity under this system. If he gets more stimulation than others, everyone else should get enough. And if they don't, they mustn't complain, they should ask for a program.

    Kessler engineerscotty 11 hours ago

    He is though [candidate of fear]. The absolute driving impulse behind Joe Biden is fear of Trump. Who is electing Biden because of his ideas and policies? There are articles that literally say - "Joe, just have a pulse by the time of the election, that's enough for us." I think that one was in Atlantic.

    I mean what is Russiagate, that's pure scaremongering - those Red Russkies are back with vengeance. The idea of return to safe, secure "normalcy", the good old days of calm and peace, if only Trump can be removed.

    Dr. Rieux 5 hours ago
    Humor: One of God's small mercies. Play Hide

    [Apr 18, 2020] The New Fault Lines in a Post-Globalized World by by Marshall Auerback Jan Frel

    Apr 18, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

    The coronavirus pandemic has upended the global economic system, and just as importantly, cast out 40 years of neoliberal orthodoxy that dominated the industrialized world.

    Forget about the " new world order ." Offshoring and global supply chains are out; regional and local production is in. Market fundamentalism is passé; regulation is the norm. Public health is now more valuable than just-in-time supply systems. Stockpiling and industrial capacity suddenly make more sense, which may have future implications in the recently revived antitrust debate in the U.S.

    Biodata will drive the next phase of social management and surveillance, with near-term consequences for the way countries handle immigration and customs. Health care and education will become digitally integrated the way newspapers and television were 10 years ago. Health care itself will increasingly be seen as a necessary public good, rather than a private right, until now in the U.S. predicated on age, employment or income levels. Each of these will produce political tensions within their constituencies and in the society generally as they adapt to the new normal.

    This political sea change doesn't represent a sudden conversion to full-on socialism, but simply a case of minimizing our future risks of infection by providing full-on universal coverage. Beyond that, as Professor Michael Sandel has argued , one has to query the "moral logic" of providing "coronavirus treatment for the uninsured," while leaving "health coverage in ordinary times to the market" (especially when our concept of what constitutes "ordinary times" has been upended).

    Internationally, there will be many positive and substantial international shifts to address overdue global public health needs and accords on mitigating climate change. And it is finally dawning on Western-allied economic planners that the military price tag that made so-called cheap oil and cheap labor possible is vastly higher than investment in advanced research and next-generation manufacturing.

    This also means that the old North (developed world) versus South (emerging world) division that long preoccupied scholars and policymakers in the post–World War II period will become increasingly stark again, particularly for those emerging economies that have hitherto attracted investment largely on the grounds of being repositories of low-cost labor. They will now find themselves picking sides as they seek assistance in an increasingly divided and multipolar world.

    The fault lines of the next economic era have already begun to surface, creating friction with the previous international structure of banking and finance, trade and industry. There is a force beyond elites and critical industries driving this: The proletariat has literally become the "precariat."

    In the U.S. and Europe, the staggering number of service economy workers are going to be quickly politicized by the shortfalls: People have seen a collapse in income, and big failures in education, and health care. Union-busting, pension fleecing, and austerity budgets and new technologies that concentrate wealth away from labor have created a circumstance where ownership and profit models must be revisited to sustain stability. The needs are too acute to be distracted by the lies of Trump, or the inadequate responses in other parts of the industrialized world. The current crisis will likely prompt geopolitical and economic shifts and dislocations we haven't seen since World War II.

    Death of Chimerica, the Rise of New Production Blocs

    One of the biggest casualties of the current order is the breakdown of " Chimerica ," the decades-old nexus between the U.S. and Chinese economies, along with other leading countries' partnerships with Chinese manufacturing. While the geopolitics of blame for the origins of coronavirus continue to shake out, the process that saw a decrease in exports from China to the U.S. from $816 billion in 2018 to $757 billion in 2019 will accelerate and intensify over the next decade.

    While a decoupling is unlikely to lead to armed conflict, a Cold War style of competition could emerge as a new global fault line. Much as the Cold War did not preclude some degree of collaboration between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, so too today there may still be areas of cooperation between Washington and Beijing from climate to public health, advanced research to weapons proliferation.

    Nor does this shift necessarily spell the sudden collapse of Chinese power or influence -- it has a colossal and still-growing domestic market and is on the international leaderboard for a wide range of advanced indicators. But its status as the world's most desirable offshore manufacturing hub is a thing of the past, along with the economic stability that steady inflows of foreign capital brought with it. It does show a susceptibility to domestic stress, with the Hong Kong protests last year providing a hint of what is in store as the party leadership can't pivot to new realities that include slower economic growth and declining foreign investment.

    As investment flows turn inward back to industrialized countries, there will likely be corresponding diminution of the global labor arbitrage emanating from the emerging world. In general, that's a negative for the global South, but potentially a positive factor for workers elsewhere, whose wages and living standards have stagnated for decades as they lost jobs to competing overseas low-cost manufacturing centers (the increase in inequality is principally a product of 40 years of sustained attacks on unions). The jobs won't be the same, but to be sure, manufacturing incomes exceed those of the service industry.

    As each country adopts a " sauve-qui-peut " mentality, businesses and investors are drawing the necessary conclusions. Coronavirus has been a wake-up call, as countries trying to import medical goods from existing global supply chains face a shortage of air and ocean freight options to ship goods back to home markets. Already, the Japanese government has announced its plans "to spend over $2 billion to help its country's firms move production out of China," according to the Spectator Index . The EU leadership is publicly indicating a policy of subsidy and state investment in companies to prevent Chinese buyouts or undercutting prices.

    Two billion dollars is small potatoes compared to what is likely to be spent by the U.S. and other countries going forward. And it can't simply be done via research and development tax credits. The state can and must drive this redomiciling process in other ways: via local content requirements (LCRs) , tariffs, quotas and/or government procurement local sourcing requirements. And with a $750-billion-plus budget, the U.S. military will likely play a role here, as it ponders disruptions from overseas supply sources .

    Of course, if the U.S. does this, other parts of the world -- China, the EU, Japan -- will likely do the same, which will accelerate the regionalization trends in trade. This may mean that some U.S. firms will have to operate in foreign markets through local subsidiaries with local content preferences and local workforces (that is how it worked in the 1920s -- Ford UK was a mostly local British company, different from the U.S. Ford Motor Company, but with shared profits).

    An examination of U.S. planning for the post-1945 world reveals the emphasis was on free trade in raw materials mostly, not finished goods. (The U.S. only adopted one-way "free trade" with its Asian and European allies later as a Cold War measure to accelerate their development and keep them in the American orbit.)

    Domestically within the U.S., as Dalia Marin writes , the coming declines in interest rates will accelerate "robot adoption" by 75.7 percent, with concentration "in the sectors that are most exposed to global value chains. In Germany, that means autos and transport equipment, electronics, and textiles -- industries that import around 12 percent of their inputs from low-wage countries. Globally, the industries where the most reshoring activity is taking place are chemicals, metal products, and electrical products and electronics."

    As the coronavirus pandemic is illustrating, a viable industrial ecosystem cannot work effectively if it is dispersed to too many geographic extremities or there are insufficient redundancies built into the transportation of goods back into the home market (rail, highway, etc.). Proximity has become a significant competitive advantage for manufacturers, and a strategic advantage for governments. But the U.S. government must play an expanded role in the planning process. The U.S. is still a leader in many high-tech areas, but is suffering the consequences of a generation-long effort to undermine the government's natural role as an economic planner.

    In the form of the regionalized blocs that are being sketched, in the Americas, Mexico is likely to be one of the leading recipients of American foreign direct investment (FDI). It already has a $17 billion medical device industry and is sure to absorb much more capacity from China. This has already started to happen as a result of the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA, or new NAFTA) . Furthermore, the Washington Post reports that "[a]s demand soars for medical devices and personal protective equipment in the fight against the coronavirus, the United States has turned to the phalanx of factories south of the border that are now the outfitters of many U.S. hospitals." This is in addition to the thousands of assembly plants already in place in Mexico since the establishment of NAFTA. Indeed, if the jobs that had moved to China move to Mexico, Central America, and South America, this likely addresses many long-standing social tensions in regard to immigration management, currency imbalances and corresponding black market industries (ironically, it also likely means the end of Trump's wall, as the industrial ecosystem of the Americas becomes more cohesive and widespread).

    Big Business Is Good Business

    But this will also have significant impacts closer to home: Much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt ultimately prioritized domestic ramp-ups in wartime production over trust-busting , so too national champions are likely to feature more prominently today, as domestic scale and balance sheet strength are given precedence to accommodate the drive to revive employment quickly, and work collaboratively to halt the spread of the coronavirus . The scale of companies will not be regarded as a political problem if they can both deliver for consumers and show the capacity of following political direction for what the public's needs are. Tech companies like Apple and Google are stepping up to fill the void left by massive federal government dysfunction . The " break up Big Tech " voices are nowhere to be heard at the moment.

    We still need a more robust form of regulation for these corporate behemoths, but via a system of regulation that is "function-centric," rather than size-centric. As co-author Marshall Auerback has written before , this kind of regulation "restricts the range of corporate activities (e.g., structural separation so as to prevent companies like Amazon and Google from owning both the platform as well as participating as a seller on that platform), or the prices such companies can charge (as regulators often do for utilities or railways). These considerations would be 'size neutral': they would apply independently of corporate size per se."

    Capitalism has always had its plutocrats, but scaling back America's overly financialized model (by preventing stock buybacks, to cite one example) would represent a useful reform and prevent a lot of economic waste. Instead of going to enrich executives and shareholders beyond the dreams of Croesus , that measure might help to ensure that the profits of these companies will be directed to the workers' wages (which also means supporting increased unionization), or plowed back into investment (e.g., increased robotics).

    Biodata, Privacy, and an End to Pandemic Profiteering

    And there are fault lines in the business world. The pharmaceutical and medical research industries face immense pressure from other businesses to end the pandemic so they can get back to profitability. That means temporarily setting aside profits and pooling intellectual property to encourage collaborative efforts on the part of biotech and pharmaceutical companies to find proper treatments for COVID-19, and make them freely available, especially if governments were to waive antitrust scrutiny in exchange for all of the data Big Pharma companies collectively hold. As the Guardian reports , "[t]here is a precedent. Last June, 10 of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies -- including Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline -- announced they would pool data for an AI-based search for new antibiotics, which are urgently needed as antibiotic-resistant bacteria have proliferated across the world, threatening the growth of untreatable disease."

    Privacy advocates are already expressing concerns about a growing and overweening medical surveillance state. These surveillance concerns lack historical context: From the 19th century on, serious health problems were met by hardline government policies to reduce them. Policies ranging from quarantine to vaccine were not always mandatory, but there was an understanding that personal concessions had to be made to manage a huge population and an advanced society; the Constitution was not a suicide pact. We can further alleviate those concerns today by ensuring that the information uncovered does not become a precondition or additional cost of receiving insurance coverage. In light of coronavirus, cost savings of incorporating biodata into immigration and customs are a no-brainer for governments, and are certain to cause friction with individuals who may not want to give blood or saliva to get a visa or work permit, and agribusiness leaders who know that safety measures cut into profitability. But the scales have tipped in the other direction.

    North Versus South

    What about the other countries in the developing world that don't have close geographic proximity to a home market, or abundant supplies of key commodities required for 21st-century manufacturing needs, or even a well-developed manufacturing base (in other words, the countries that have hitherto been large recipients of investment solely on the grounds of cheap labor)? Many of them have faced immediate pressure with the collapse in global trade, unprecedented capital flight that is sure to grow as the coronavirus spreads, all the while coping with COVID-19 with highly inadequate health systems.

    In the meantime, the multi-trillion-dollar market for emerging market debt , both sovereign bonds and commercial paper, has collapsed. Many of these countries, via their state pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, have become the ultimate endpoint for many of the newer asset-backed securities that finally revived years after the 2008 financial crisis. This has become the potential new stress point in the $52 trillion " shadow banking " market. The U.S. Federal Reserve has sought to ease the funding stresses of much of the developing economies by offering central bank swap lines. It has also broadened prime dealer collateral acceptance rules, and set up commercial paper swap facilities, all of which have eased short-term funding pressures in these economies that have incurred substantial dollar liabilities.

    As the emerging world central banks then start to lend on those lines to their own banks, it should start to alleviate the shortage of dollars in the offshore dollar funding markets. We are starting to see some easing of stresses, notably in Indonesia -- because it's an exporter of resources more than a cheap labor price economy.

    But whereas in previous emerging markets crises, China was able to buttress these economies via initiatives such as the " Belt and Road Initiative ," Beijing itself is likely to be buffeted by the twin shocks of declining global trade and a reversal of foreign direct investment, which declined 8.6 percent in the first two months of this year .

    Longer-term, many other countries face comparable challenges to China: Capital controls, collapsing domestic currencies, and widespread debt defaults are likely to become the norm. That's already happened to serial defaulter Argentina again . South Africa has been downgraded to junk status . Turkey remains vulnerable. The so-called "BRICS" economies -- Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa -- are all sinking like bricks. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that coronavirus and likely future pandemics will create additional stresses on developing economies that depend on their labor price advantage in the international marketplace to survive.

    By contrast, countries like South Korea and Taiwan have had a "good crisis." Both have vibrant manufacturing sectors and created successful multiparty democracies. Foreign investment in South Korea continued to grow in the first quarter of this year, as it rapidly moved to contain the spread of COVID-19 through an extensive testing regime (while keeping its economy open). Similarly in Taiwan, by activating a national emergency response system launched in 2004 (following the SARS virus), that country has mounted a thoroughly competent coronavirus intervention of unprecedented effectiveness . The results speak for themselves: as of April 15, in South Korea, a mere 225 deaths , while in Taiwan, an astonishingly low total of six deaths in a country of 24 million people -- this despite far more exposure to infected Chinese visitors than Italy, Spain or the U.S.

    Of course, the very success of Taiwan's response revives another potential fault line, namely the tension underlying the "One China" policy. Before COVID-19, it is noteworthy that the WHO "even refused to publicly report Taiwan's cases of SARS until public pressure prompted numbers to be published under the label of 'Taiwan, province of China,'" according to Dr. Anish Koka . At the very least, Taiwan's divergent approach and success at fighting the pandemic will bolster its pro-independence factions.

    The question of foreign nations upholding Taiwan's sovereignty with regard to China is increasingly thorny, given Beijing's growing military capacities. This will present an ongoing diplomatic challenge to Western parties who seek to increase engagement with Taipei without heightening tensions in the region.

    A Recalculation of 'Economic Value'

    We have outlined many fault lines likely to be exposed or exacerbated as a consequence of COVID-19. Happily, there is one fault line likely to be slammed shut: namely, the false dichotomy that has long existed between economic growth and environmentalism. The Global Assessment from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services reports that "land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23 percent of the global land surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and 100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of coastal habitats and protection." Likewise, the study cites the fact that as of 2015, 33 percent of marine fish stocks "were being harvested at unsustainable levels," and notes the rise of plastic pollution (which "has increased tenfold since 1980 "), both of which play a key role in degrading ecosystems in a manner that ultimately destroys economic growth.

    Finally, repeated pandemics over the past few decades have shown these are not blips, but recurrent features of today's world. Hence, there is an increasing public appetite for regulation to deal with this ongoing problem. Some industries, such as agribusinesses, won't like this, but the concerns are well-founded. According to expert Josh Balk , 75 percent of new diseases start in domestic and wild-caught animals, and 2.2 million people die each year from illnesses transferred from animals. The majority of these are transferred from poorly regulated factory farm chickens, cows and pigs; still, the " wet markets" of Asia and Africa, and the trade in potential " transfer species ," such as pangolins, a major driver of the $19 billion-a-year global trade in illegal wildlife, must also be addressed. Beijing has suggested it will ban trade in illegal wildlife and seek tighter regulation of the wet markets . The latter in particular may be easier said than done, according to Dr. Zhenzhong Si , a research associate at Canada's University of Waterloo who specializes in Chinese food security, sustainability, and rural development. Dr. Si argued that "[b]anning wet markets is not only going to be impossible, but will also be destructive for urban food security in China as they play such a pivotal role in ensuring urban residents' access to affordable and healthy food."

    To be fair, this isn't the first time that the sacred tenets of the global economic framework have dealt with a crisis that seemed to usher in a new era. The same thing happened in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008. But that was largely seen as a financial crisis, a product of faulty global financial plumbing that nobody truly understood, as opposed to a widespread social collapse closely approximating the conditions of the Great Depression as we have today.

    Not only has the current lockdown put the entire global economy into deep freeze, but it also came amidst a backdrop of widespread political and social upheaval, and a faux recovery whose fruits were largely restricted to the top tier. A collateralized debt obligation is not intuitively easy to grasp. By contrast, being forced to stay at home, deprived of vital income and isolated from loved ones, while health care workers perish from overwork and lack of protective gear, is a different order of magnitude.

    Even as we re-integrate, it is hard to envisage a return to the "old normal." Trade patterns will change. Self-sufficiency and geographic proximity will be prioritized over global integration. There will be new winners and losers, but it is worth noting that the model of capitalism we are describing -- one that does not feature obscenely overcompensated CEO pay co-existing with serf labor and the widespread offshoring of manufacturing -- has existed in different forms in the U.S. from 1945 into the 1980s, and still exists in parts of Europe (Germany) and East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) to this day.

    Our everyday lives will be impacted as selective quarantines and some forms of social distancing become the new normal (much as they were when we dealt with tuberculosis epidemics). All of this has implications for a multitude of industries: restaurants, leisure, travel, tourism, sporting events, entertainment, and media, as well as our evolving definition of "essential" industries. Even our concept of personal privacy will likely have to be amended, especially in regard to medical matters. Concerns about medical surveillance -- stigma (STDs, alcoholism, mental illness) and denial of insurance -- can be alleviated if everyone is guaranteed treatment regardless of ability to pay, which will mean greater government intrusion into the lives of citizens and activities of businesses as the public sector seeks to socialize costs.

    Taken in aggregate, we are about to experience the most profound social, economic and political changes since World War II.

    This article was produced by Economy for All , a project of the Independent Media Institute.

    [Apr 18, 2020] Endless NYT Propaganda War on Russia by Stephen Lendman

    Apr 18, 2020 | stephenlendman.org

    Endless NYT Propaganda War on Russia

    by Stephen Lendman ( stephenlendman.orgHome – Stephen Lendman )

    The Times long ago abandoned journalism the way it's supposed to be. All the news it claims fit to print isn't fit to read.

    Its daily editions feature state-approved managed news misinformation and disinformation -- notably against sovereign independent nations on the US target list for regime change.

    Russia notably has been a prime target since its 1917 revolution, ending its czarist dictatorship.

    Except during WW II and Boris Yeltsin's 1990s rule, Times anti-Russia propaganda was and remains relentless, notably throughout the Vladimir Putin era, the nation's most distinguished ever political leader.

    When Yeltsin died in April 2007, the Times shamefully called him "a Soviet-era reformer the country's democratic father and later a towering figure of his time as the first freely elected leader of Russia, presiding over the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Communist Party (sic)."

    He presided over Russia's lost decade. Under him, over half the population became impoverished.

    His adoption of US shock therapy produced economic genocide. GDP plunged 50%. Life expectancy fell sharply.

    Democratic freedoms died. An oligarch class accumulated enormous wealth.

    Western interests profited at the expense of millions of exploited Russians.

    Yeltsin let corruption and criminality flourish. One scandal followed others. Grand theft became sport. So did money laundering.

    Billions in stolen wealth were secreted in Western banks and offshore tax havens.

    A critic reviled him, saying throughout much of his tenure, he "slept, drank, was ill, relaxed, didn't show his face before the people and simply did nothing," adding:

    "Despised by the majority of (Russians, he'll) go down in history as the first president of Russia, having corrupted (the country) to the breaking point, not by his virtues and or by his defects, but rather by his dullness, primitiveness, and unbridled power lust of a hooligan."

    He was a Western/establishment media favorite, notably by the Times, mindless of the human misery and economic wreckage he caused.

    Putin is a preeminent world leader, towering over his inferior Western counterparts, especially in the US, why the Times reviles him.

    On Monday, its propaganda machine falsely accused him of waging a long war on US science, claiming he's promoting disinformation to "encourage the spread of deadly illnesses (sic)."

    Not a shred of evidence was presented because none exists. The Times' disinformation report was slammed in a preceding article.

    On Wednesday, the self-styled newspaper of record was at it again -- reactivating the Big Lie that won't die, saying with no corroborating evidence that "Russia may have sown disinformation in a dossier used to investigate a former Trump campaign aide (sic)," adding:

    "Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide with numerous links to Russia was probably a Russian agent (sic)."

    Disinformation the Times cited came from former UK intelligence agent Christopher Steele's dodgy dossier, financed by the DNC and Hillary campaign.

    Its spurious accusations were exposed as fake news, notably phony accusations of Russian US election interference that didn't happened.

    Probes by Robert Mueller, House and Senate committees found no credible evidence of an illegal or improper Trump campaign connection to Russia or election interference by the Kremlin -- because there was none of either.

    According to the Times, Steele's dodgy dossier "was potentially influenced by a 'Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate US foreign relations,' " citing FBI Big Lies as its source.

    Another article on Russia this week claimed "many people who don't work for the government or in deep-pocketed state enterprises face economic devastation," adding:

    Domestic violence increased because of social distancing and sheltering in place.

    Not mentioned in the article is that mass unemployment and other COVID-19 fallout affect Western and other countries adversely.

    Putin was slammed for sending COVID-19 aid to the US, calling it "a propaganda coup for the Kremlin -- tempered by an intensifying epidemic at home."

    Outbreaks in Russia are a small fraction of US numbers, around 21,000 through Wednesday -- compared to nearly 650,000 in the US and over 28,000 deaths.

    Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Britain have five-to-eightfold more outbreaks than Russia.

    NYC has over 110,000 cases. In the NY, NJ, CT tristate area, around 300,000 cases were reported, almost as many COVID-19 deaths as outbreaks in Russia -- through Wednesday.

    Putin is dealing with what's going on responsibly, stressing "we certainly must not relax, as long as outbreaks occur.

    A paid holiday is in effect through end of April for Russian workers, likely to be extended if needed.

    Essential workers continue on the job -- at home if able, otherwise operating as before.

    National efforts continue to control outbreaks, aid ordinary Russians at a time of duress, and work to restore more normal conditions.

    While dealing with outbreaks at home, Russia supplied Italy, Serbia, and the US with aid to combat the virus.

    Yet Pompeo falsely accused Russia, China, and Iran with spreading disinformation about COVID-19.

    Gratitude and good will aren't US attributes, just the opposite.

    [Apr 18, 2020] Putin's foreign minister bristles at suggestion Russia is using coronavirus pandemic to boost its global influence - MarketWatc

    Apr 18, 2020 | www.marketwatch.com

    During a conference call with reporters, Lavrov dismissed Western claims that the Kremlin provided the assistance hoping it would help persuade the European Union to lift sanctions against Russia.

    The U.S. and EU sanctions, imposed in response to Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea and support for a separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine, have limited Russia's access to global financial markets and blocked transfers of Western technologies. Russia responded by banning imports of most Western agricultural products.

    Asked if Moscow would push the EU to lift the restrictions, Lavrov said that Russia wouldn't ask for it. "If the EU realizes that this method has exhausted itself and renounces the decisions that were made in 2014, we will be ready to respond in kind," he added.

    Lavrov also criticized those in the West who suggested that China should pay compensation for allegedly failing to provide early enough warnings about the country's virus cases, which were reported in December.

    "The claims that China must pay everyone for the outbreak and the alleged failure to give timely information about it cross all limits and go beyond any norms of decency," Lavrov said, emphasizing that China has offered assistance to many nations. "My hair stands on end when I hear that."

    Without mentioning the United States by name, Russia's top diplomat also countered Washington's criticism of the World Health Organization.

    Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump accused the U.N. health agency of being "China-centric" and alleged that WHO officials had "criticized" his ban of travel from China as the new virus spread from the central Chinese city of Wuhan.

    [Apr 17, 2020] Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to sabotage Trump.

    Highly recommended!
    Apr 17, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    AMERICA-HYSTERICA. US Attorney General Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to sabotage Trump . All true of course. May we take this as a sign that at last (at last!) Durham is ready to go with indictments? Or will it prove to be another false alarm? There's certainly a lot to reveal: A recent investigation showed that every FISA application (warrant to spy on US citizens) examined had egregious deficiencies. It's not just Trump.

    MEANINGLESSNESS. Remember the Steele dossier? Now it's being spun as Russian disinformation . So we're now supposed to believe that Putin smeared Trump because he really wanted Clinton to win? Gosh, that Putin guy is so clever that it's impossible to figure out what he's doing!

    COVID BLAME I. Back in the day I read a certain amount of Soviet propaganda about the wicked West. And, while it was quite often over the top, pretty monotonous and probably – judging from what ex-Soviets have told me – not all that effective in the long run, it usually had, buried deep inside, a tiny kernel of reality. Western anti-Russia propaganda, on the other hand, is nothing but free-association nonsense. Take the NYT's latest: the headline alone tells you it's crap: " Putin's Long War Against American Science: A decade of health disinformation promoted by President Vladimir Putin of Russia has sown wide confusion, hurt major institutions and encouraged the spread of deadly illnesses ." Another difference was that Soviet propaganda at least ran on the assumption that the Soviet system was preferable: this, on the other hand, is a pitiful attempt to blame the US COVID failure on somebody else. Nonetheless, this is not rock-bottom for the NYT's anti-Russian fantasies: that target was hit a couple of years ago with " Trump and Putin: A Love Story ". (But, the goalposts keep moving: if you accuse a Dem of Trumpish grabbing, you're probably a Putinbot .) I guess it will only get more: " The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters ."

    COVID BLAME II. Maybe it's not Putin or Xi who's to blame: maybe it's your own propaganda outlet: " VOA too often speaks for America's adversaries -- not its citizens... VOA has instead amplified Beijing's propaganda. "

    [Apr 17, 2020] The recovery will NOT be, but Trump will distract all Americans by screaming against China and how China is responsible for everything. Expect Americans to fall in line and the anti Russia hysteria to now turn into super anti China hysteria.

    Apr 17, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Hoyeru , Apr 16 2020 20:13 utc | 21

    The recovery will NOT be, but Trump will distract all Americans by screaming against China and how China is responsible for everything. Expect Americans to fall in line and the anti Russia hysteria to now turn into super anti China hysteria. Expect attacks against Asians in USA
    And all because the Chinese were greedy bastards eager to make money and they quickly forgot history and how the Ango Saxon treated them just merely 150 years ago.
    As somebody who grew up in Communist Eastern Europe it the 70s, I vividly remember how we were warned how the Americans will try to hurt us by spreading bio weapons. This was grilled into us over and over. The Communists knew. China better gt prepared, the West will try to rip them a brand new assholes. And they got nobody to blame but themselves!

    [Apr 17, 2020] Was (Russiagate) insulting to the USA electorate intelligence?

    Apr 17, 2020 | www.youtube.com

    NickelCityPixels , 2 days ago

    "(Russiagate) was insulting to people's intelligence..." uh, no. You underestimate the stupidity of the American public.

    [Apr 17, 2020] I have read transcripts from lavrov and putin on many occasions, I seem to recall listening to putin speak a few times in english; these guys are always level headed, competent, rational; and first and foremost, taking care of their people.

    Apr 17, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    karlof1 , Apr 15 2020 20:16 utc | 38

    David F @25--

    Here's the missing link . Note the vastly different approach to the crisis:

    "Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the pandemic has created very serious problems, the most important of which is saving people's lives, ensuring their security, biomedical safety and the preservation of the human environment, which should be comfortable and pose no threats to life and health."


    David F , Apr 15 2020 20:36 utc | 46

    karlof@38

    Thanks for the link. Russia has the best leadership in the world right now. I have read transcripts from lavrov and putin on many occasions, I seem to recall listening to putin speak a few times in english; these guys are always level headed, competent, rational; and first and foremost, taking care of their people.

    As an american, I am jealous. Just compare them to any of our leaders in my lifetime (50yrs), and for that matter, I haven't even read about too many of our leaders being real statesmen, absolutely no comparison.

    karlof1 , Apr 15 2020 21:58 utc | 65
    38 Cont'd--

    Lavrov is an artist cloaked in diplomatic disguise. I find him very pleasurable to read. Yes, he said a great many things in answer to a wide variety of questions. Aside from the quote cited @38, for me there were two important points. The first was the Outlaw US Empire's offer to resume discussions on arms control and outer space, although I suspect the upcoming election is tied to the offer. Second relates to my thesis that nations can be seen as Nurturing or Parasitic based on their behavior during this crisis. One of the attributes of Nurturing nations is the collective aspect of their socio-cultural composition:

    Question: "However, there is a lack of global unity and joint efforts to fight the pandemic. In addition, the existing alliances have proven ineffective in these conditions. In your opinion, how will all this affect the future world order? What will it look like after the pandemic?

    "Sergey Lavrov: In my response to one of the first questions I said that apart from fighting the pandemic and resolving economic problems at the national and global levels the third greatest challenge is to understand what lies ahead for multilateral institutions, what role they will play in the future and whether they will remain relevant. The outcome of the fight against the coronavirus will show which countries and multilateral structures have withstood the test of this horrible threat, this crisis. I understand your concern that the egoistic aspirations we are currently witnessing in the behaviour of some countries could prevail, leading to future attempts to self-insulate from the outside world . We are already witnessing anxious debates about Schengen Area countries on their shared future and neighbourly relations. In the end, I think that a collective approach will prevail. It may take some time though. It will require meetings and persuasion. However, this is the only possible way forward ." [My Emphasis]

    The unilateral, Rugged Individual, Herd Immunity, Neoliberal approach has failed bigtime despite frantic efforts to keep them afloat--note that such approaches were opposed by the publics of those nations whose "leaders" trod that path. I recall the aim of The Man in the Wilderness was to return to his collective--his family--and the fear that gripped the collective that abandoned him. (There's a very big lesson there if people think upon it while watching the film.) The attempt to glorify the Rugged Individual is unique, began in the 1820s with the popular writings of James Fenimore Cooper, and solely belongs to the Outlaw US Empire and its attempt to cultivate the myth of Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism.

    It appears the only collectivism to be allowed within the Outlaw US Empire is that of the Money Power; all others are to be atomized, restricted in their ability to act together except when laboring to feed the Money Power. Something like Orwell's description of the Proles in 1984 --joyfully ignorant and powerless. The only way to thwart the Money Power's plan for ongoing dominance and pauperization of the Outlaw US Empire's masses is for those masses to discover how to act collectively. Yes, it's been done before but the effort was abandoned prior to the final goal being attained in 1900. There was another attempt to establish a mass collective during the early 1930s, but that too was thwarted and its memory washed away by War and the pseudo war that followed--do note the concerted attack on collective effort made from 1946-1964. The one major collective organization that remained in 1972--the draft-based civilian military--was then disbanded, and nothing has arisen to replace it. Even the mass politicking that had grown during the 1960s withered to where only a ghost remains.

    An ongoing discourse here at MoA deals with the question of how to get people to again come together as a collective to create the change that's so badly needed to preserve our own wellbeing, which is in the collective interest of 330+ million people, as well as that of the planet's populous. IMO, the answer lies in seizing advantage of the obvious failure of the unilateral go-it-alone, damn the torpedoes, approach to COVID-19 that deliberately omitted the needs of 330+ million people and directly threatened their wellbeing.

    If there was ever a teachable moment to educate an entire nation, that time is upon us. Fortunately, part of the message is already there and just needs to be spread further along with its associated rationale: Not Me, US! The formula for success isn't Top->Down it's Bottom->Up since it's decentralized and very hard to defuse.

    [Apr 15, 2020] Putin says Russia has 'a lot of problems' and 'certainly can't relax' when it comes to coronavirus

    If you want to lose hope in the relevant segment of the USA population commenting on Yahoo sanity, then read the comments to this Yahoo post.
    Apr 15, 2020 | news.yahoo.com

    Yahoo Reader, 15 hours ago

    Ezekiel 25:17.

    "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness.

    For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

    And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

    And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

    [Apr 13, 2020] The Salisbury Poisonings Two Years On A Riddle, Wrapped in a Cover Up, Inside a Hoax

    Apr 13, 2020 | www.theblogmire.com

    I've said some stupid things in my time, but up there with the best of them was a comment I uttered to my wife on the morning of Tuesday 6 th March 2018. The previous night the news had broken that an ex-spy by the name of Sergei Skripal had apparently been one of two people hospitalised on the Sunday afternoon on a bench in The Maltings in Salisbury. At that time the opioid, Fentanyl, was thought to be connected to it. Was this about to be a huge international story? Or was it going to soon be forgotten about? I was decidedly of the latter opinion. "Don't worry," I told her. "Probably just a drug overdose. It'll soon blow over."​

    ​Two years later ​

    ​Actually, two years on and most people have pretty much forgotten about it. Yes, they remember that it happened; yes, they remember that it was a mighty odd occurrence with a number of peculiarities about it; and for the people of Salisbury, I'm quite sure they will recall the police, the cordons, the helicopters, the place swarming with international media, and of course let's not forget the baby wipes. But by and large, it happened, it's done with, and the case was solved a long while ago.​

    ​Except that it wasn't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that two of the many Russians who were in Salisbury on 3 rd and 4 th March, and who were charged with the incident -- Petrov and Boshirov -- have never been charged with the subsequent incident in Amesbury. This is very important. If the British authorities' case against the two men in Salisbury is to be believed, there must be a clear link between them and the second case in Amesbury. And yet it is impossible to reasonably connect the two cases based on the British authorities' explanation of the Salisbury event. Unless, that is, you believe that the two suspects were carrying a cellophane-wrapping machine with them with which to wrap the bottle of lethal nerve agent they had apparently just used before dumping it in a bin. But nobody could be daft enough to believe that, could they? Which leads to the question: if the cases cannot be linked using the British authorities' explanation of the first incident -- which they can't (hence the reason the two men have not been charged for the second) -- then how can we accept their explanation for the first? The answer is that we cannot, and for a whole host of reasons, as I hope to show in a moment.

    For those who have accepted The Met's and Government's account of the case, I am struck by a couple of things. Firstly, their claims that those who haven't accepted it are conspiracy theorists is really quite funny when you begin to count the number of absurd, implausible and sometimes downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept that official account (of which more below). But secondly, I am struck by their remarkable apathy and complacency, given what they claim to believe. Let me put it this way: if I truly believed that agents of a foreign power had come to my country and had entered my home city carrying, using and discarding enough deadly nerve agent to kill thousands of people in my neighbourhood, I would not only be livid at that foreign Government; I would be absolutely furious with the British authorities for their pathetic, feeble response. Two dozen diplomats expelled in response to the use of the (apparently) deadliest nerve agent known to man, which could have wiped out half the population of Salisbury? It's the equivalent of sentencing an attempted murderer to a £100 fine. Of course, while I accept that a declaration of war in response to such a reckless act would have been a step too far, given that Russia is a nuclear-armed country with a hugely powerful military, I would certainly want a response that was far closer to that than the paltry expelling of a few diplomats. However, the fact that those who bark the loudest about the alleged use of a nerve agent that could have killed 10,000 people are prepared to accept the expulsion of a few diplomats as an adequate response, suggests that many of them are not nearly as convinced as they make out that a lethal nerve agent was indeed used. ​Either that or they're just a bit wet!

    ​I am, however, livid at the British authorities for an entirely different reason. And it is this: I really don't like being lied to. I really don't like handing over hard-earned money in taxation, only to see it squandered away by people who devise the most elaborate deceptions to divert attention away from what really happened. Nothing personal, you understand. I don't like the fact that anyone has their hard-earned cash frittered away in this way.

    That's a big claim I just made. Elaborate deceptions are not accusations I bandy about lightly. But as I hope to show below, I can see no other explanation for the many absurdities, implausibilities and downright impossibilities in the case put forward by the Government and Metropolitan Police (The Met) for what took place in Salisbury.

    Let's begin with the case against the two Russians who have been charged over the Salisbury incident. Whenever I have been involved in a discussion on this case with folks on Twitter, invariably someone pops up to say that the case is closed, and the guilt of this pair has been shown to be true. Incontrovertibly. Yet when examined carefully, the evidence of the apparent guilt of this pair turns out to be incredibly threadbare. There are three basic parts to it:

    That they were in the vicinity of Mr Skripal's house on 4 th March, as seen on footage taken outside a Shell garage on Salisbury's Wilton Road That "Novichok" was found in the hotel room they stayed in the night before That they were/are agents of the GU (Russian military police)

    On that first point, the fact is that the Shell garage is approximately 500 yards from 47 Christie Miller Road. Whilst this may be "in the vicinity" in a very general sense, it is nothing like "the vicinity" that would be needed to convince a juror that they actually went there, much less that they daubed the door handle with a substance, and needless to say, one cannot simply daub a door handle from 500 yards away.

    Furthermore, in the footage shown of them, they were seen walking on the opposite side of the road to the two routes (a path or a road) which they would have to have taken to reach the house. If I had been going to Christie Miller Road along that route, I would either have crossed the road before then, or I would have crossed at the small traffic island opposite the garage, which can just be seen on the footage. Yet they did not appear to cross or to be about to cross.

    However, there is more. Although The Met showed these few seconds from this camera, what they failed to inform the public is that there is a second camera just after the first, one which does cover both routes to chez Skripal. And so if the men had taken either of these routes that they would have needed to take to get to Christie Miller Road, this second camera would have shown it. Why was it not shown then? That's probably more a question for The Met than for me, but if I was a juror in the case, I should most definitely want to see the footage from that second camera in order to confirm or deny whether they did indeed cross the road to use those routes. In short: the footage from the first camera is certainly not proof that they actually went to Mr Skripal's house; the refusal to use footage from the second camera casts serious doubts that they did.

    And of course given who Mr Skripal was, his house and front door would have been covered by CCTV. In which case, if the men actually did go there, The Met could show it. But they never have.

    The second point is even flimsier. It was claimed that the tiniest trace of "Novichok" was found in the hotel room they were staying in. However, a second swab apparently turned up nothing. In other words, you need to trust The Met and Porton Down on this. Right? Er no. Firstly, we are talking about the same people that allegedly found the "Novichok" at the beginning of May 2018, yet failed to inform the hotel owner until September of that year of their finding in his hotel (I'm not into suing, but he should have sued). Not only this, but they also failed to trace those who had stayed at the hotel from 4th March to May. Not exactly convincing, is it?

    But in any case, the idea is self-evidently ludicrous. Why would there have been a tiny trace of the stuff in the hotel room? If there was a leak, why wasn't the hotel closed, and the trains the men travelled on decontaminated? Or are we supposed to believe that the guys took it out to have a sniff the night before, and spilled just enough for one, but not two swabs? Yep, that's what we're asked to believe. Fine, believe it, if it gives you pleasure. But to those with more discerning minds, it does sound suspiciously like a detail made up by people who make stuff up, doesn't it?

    The third point -- that the two suspects were agents of the GU (Russian military intelligence) -- is by far the most serious. I accept that they probably were, although I do so with the caveat that one of the most strikingly odd things about this case is that this has never been officially confirmed. Sure, an organisation that rhymes with Smellingrat has stated this, and so too have numerous politicians, but it has not actually been stated on the official charges against them. To this day, the Crown Prosecution Service's charges against them still use their apparent pseudonyms -- Petrov and Boshirov -- and do not mention their apparent true identities. I find that very odd.

    Nonetheless, as I say I accept that they probably were agents of Russian Military Intelligence. It is this which is enough for many to confirm their guilt as attempted assassins. Well, if their actions comported with how military intelligence officers on assassination missions act, I would be inclined to agree. But they don't. Not even remotely. There is nothing about their actions, as shown by The Met, that in any way convince that they were on a state-sanctioned assassination mission. They travelled together. They operated in broad daylight. They made no attempt to evade detection by CCTV. They cavorted with a prostitute the night before. They smoked dope and attracted attention in their hotel room the night before. After allegedly finishing their top-secret mission, they strolled into town. They took pictures. They went window shopping. Nerve agent assassins? I think not!

    "Oh," comes the scoffing reply, "so you believe their story about being tourists come to see the cathedral and Old Sarum? Idiot."

    "No," comes my equally scoffing reply. "Why should I? But why would I limit myself to two possibilities -- tourists or deadly assassins -- neither of which actually fit their actions? Have we not imagination enough to think of more than two options? Goodness, what do they teach them in these schools!?"

    How about this: Yes, they were in Salisbury on a mission from the Russian state, but no it was not an assassination attempt -- not unless Vladimir Putin has taken to employing muppets to carry out highly sensitive and dangerous missions of the Russian state. But seriously, does he strike you as someone who would tend to give the most highly sensitive missions to a couple of pot-smoking, prostitute-cavorting, picture-snapping, CCTV-friendly, window-shopping dudes? Hardly!

    Yet they were almost certainly doing something there other than tourism, as they claimed, and my guess is that it was connected to where they went on the Saturday 3 rd March, which The Met laughably tried to tell us was a reconnaissance mission to check out Mr Skripal's house. A reconnaissance mission? Ha ha! Reminder: this is Salisbury, not Afghanistan or Idlib. You can walk about unhindered, unmolested, and you can even locate 47 Christie Miller Road using Google Maps. So why would they have needed to do reconnaissance on a house that they allegedly walked up to in broad daylight the following day?

    But even more than this, if they went to check out the house on the Saturday, why did they not daub the door handle then? The Skripals were out at the time. It would have been the ideal time to do it, if that was what they were intending. But no, The Met wants you to believe that they came to Salisbury, secretly made their way to Mr Skripal's house, saw it, noted that no one was at home, decided not to "Novichok" the door handle there and then, but instead go back to London (where they had apparently left their "Novichok" all day long in their hotel room), and come back the following day to do it when -- according to The Met -- the Skripals were at home and their car in the drive!

    It really is such an utterly stupid and preposterous proposition, that I have no doubt this is why The Met decided to give no timeline of where and when they went in Salisbury on the Saturday; to present no footage; and to show no pictures, save for one at the train station. For had they shown such footage, I am quite sure that far from it showing them going out of the town towards Mr Skripal's house for reconnaissance, it would show them going into town for reconnaissance, probably near The Mill pub and the Maltings, where the following day they just happened to be in the vicinity of the Skripals at about 1:45 -- far closer than the Shell garage footage shows them in the vicinity of the house.

    None of the above evidence would pass muster in a courtroom. It is flimsy, it's pathetic and it's full of holes.

    But talking of holes, let's now set this all in the context of the entire story presented by The Met and the Government. I mentioned above the number of absurd, implausible and sometimes downright impossible things that one has to believe to accept their account. Below, I've recounted 40 of the most glaring, although I'm sure regular readers here can think of many, many more. In case of doubt, I have annexed a comment next to each point, depending on whether it fits into the absurd, implausible or impossible category, although I understand that some readers may well think it remiss of me not to have given some of them more than one of those descriptions:

    That two men put themselves and everyone on their flight in jeopardy, by boarding a plane with at least one, possibly two, bottles of the World's Deadliest Nerve Agent (WDNA) in their luggage. ​(ABSURD) That the two suspects dropped an unused package of the WDNA in a bin somewhere, whilst taking the used bottle of nerve agent back to Moscow with them. ​(ABSURD) Or alternatively, that they only had one package of WDNA with them, but brought a cellophane wrapping machine to Salisbury to wrap the used box up in, before discarding it. ​(ABSURD) That the two men sprayed WDNA in an open space, without wearing any protective clothing. ​(ABSURD) That after they had done this, rather than legging it, they decided to spend an hour in the city centre window-shopping and taking pictures. ​(ABSURD) That Mr Skripal and his daughter both somehow managed to touch the door handle of his front door on their way out (try it with someone next time you exit your house).​ (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite being contaminated with WDNA, they showed no effects for hours afterwards​. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That when they did show effects hours later, it was at precisely the same time, despite their very different heights, weights and metabolisms. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite being contaminated with WDNA, they went into town, fed ducks, went for a meal, then went to a pub for a drink.​ (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite having hands contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal handed a piece of bread to a local boy who ate it without becoming contaminated. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed to contaminate the table in Zizzis, but not the door or door handle on the way in. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That despite having hands that were contaminated with WDNA, Mr Skripal somehow managed not to contaminate the manager of Zizzis when he shook hands with him (confirmed to me by a local source). (IMPLAUSIBLE) That after becoming extremely aggressive in Zizzis, which some assume was the effects of poisoning with WDNA​, Mr Skripal wolfed down a plate of seafood risotto before sauntering over to the pub for a drink. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That no CCTV of Mr Skripal or his daughter on 4 th March could be shown to the public to jog their memories, because of something called "National Security". (ABSURD) That no CCTV could be shown of The Maltings, on the grounds of National Security, even though according to the official story no crime took place there. (ABSURD) That the Russian couple who were filmed on CCTV camera at 15:47 in Market Walk (confirmed by a reliable source in the comment section on this blog), were not in any way connected with the case. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the only CCTV the public were allowed to see of this pair was an absurd, blurred, fuzzy image taken second hand on a mobile phone, when they could have shown crystal clear footage from the CCTV camera at the other end of Market Walk. (ABSURD) That the Skripals were somehow in Zizzis at the same time that they were actually in the Mill pub (The Met's timeline shows them to have been in Zizzis from 14:20 and 15:35, which is demonstrably untrue ). (IMPOSSIBLE) That the Metropolitan Police are unable to put out correct timelines. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That WDNA deteriorated so much after an hour on a door handle, that it was too weak to kill the Skripals. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That this same WDNA, which allegedly deteriorated in an hour, was then found three weeks later after exposure to the elements and after being touched by many human hands, to be in a state of "high purity, persistent and weather resistant". (IMPOSSIBLE) That WDNA, which was allegedly sprayed on a door handle, somehow managed to spread to the roof of the house, meaning that it had to be replaced. (IMPOSSIBLE) Yet that same WDNA, 2mg of which is apparently enough to kill a person (according to BBC Panorama), and which causes whole roofs to have to be replaced and cars to be destroyed, can be cleansed by members of the public using baby wipes. (ABSURD) That the police cars which attended the Maltings needed to be destroyed, yet the ones that attended Mr Skripal's house, where the poison was apparently most concentrated, did not. (ABSURD) That Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey managed to be a first responder at the bench when the two Russians were on it, at the same time as not being at the bench when the two Russians were on it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That Mr Bailey entered Mr Skripal's house via the back door, because he couldn't open the front door; but also managed to enter the house via the front door because he was able to open it. (IMPOSSIBLE) That he was wearing a forensic suit to enter the house of someone who had apparently overdosed in a park on Fentanyl. (ABSURD) That he managed to get contaminated by WDNA despite wearing a forensic suit. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That the numerous police officers not wearing forensic suits, who went in and out of the house on 4 th and 5 th March, did not become contaminated by WDNA, even though it was allegedly found to be most concentrated there three weeks later, and in a state of "high purity". (IMPOSSIBLE) That the police somehow managed to miss all four of Mr Skripal's pets (two cats and two guinea pigs), so leaving them to starve to death. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That an air ambulance was called for what looked like a drug overdose on a park bench, when a land ambulance can get to the hospital just as quickly, if not quicker given where the helicopter had to land. (ABSURD) That the chief nurse of the British Army just happened to be shopping near the bench when the two Russians were on it. (ABSURD) That there just happened to be two Porton Down trained doctors at Salisbury District Hospital. (ABSURD) That despite The Met, the Government and the media referring to the substance used as "Novichok", in their only official statement to a court of law, Porton Down were unable to confirm this, instead referring to it as "a nerve agent or related compound" and "a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." (ABSURD) That Porton Down were able to identify a substance within 36 hours that apparently no other country on earth makes, has made, or can make. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That "Novichok" can only be made in Russia, despite variants of it having been synthesised or stocked in numerous countries including Czechia, Sweden, Germany, Iran, the US, and Britain (Boris Johnson having unwittingly confirmed this when he blurted out that they had samples of it at Porton Down). (IMPOSSIBLE) That after she and her father were allegedly poisoned by the Russian state, Yulia Skripal said she wanted to return there. (ABSURD) That Mr Skripal and his daughter have never been seen together since -- not even in a single photo. (IMPLAUSIBLE) That nothing has ever been heard from Mr Skripal since (national security won't wash – his daughter was able to appear in a video). (ABSURD) That Salisbury had its first case of Fentanyl poisoning on the same day, at the same time, and in the same shopping centre apparently involving another couple. (IMPLAUSIBLE)

    Remember, this list of the absurd, the implausible, and the downright impossible is not a bunch of lunacy that I or anyone else looking into the case has concocted. No, they are things that the Government of Great Britain, and The Metropolitan Police have concocted. It's their story, not mine, and I'm just pointing it out and saying, "Hey, come look at this. No clothes and all that!" That being said, it is of course those who point out this absurd, implausible and impossible folly who are called conspiracy theorists by the keepers of the narrative and their devotees, which is rather like being called a scruffbag by Dominic Cummings. But no matter, better to be called a conspiracy theorist for pointing out patent absurdities and things which are impossible than to be a Believer in Patent Absurdities and Impossible Things.


    Speculation Corner

    Having cleared that Stuff and Nonsense out of the way, what did happen on 4 th March 2018 in Salisbury? I am bound to disappoint people looking for the answer, as I simply don't know. I don't know because the keepers of the keys of the Stuff and Nonsense have not only done their utmost to keep the truth away from the light (such as refusing to release even a jot of CCTV footage of the Skripals that day), but the sheer number of absurdities and conflicting stories they have put out make it impossible for those watching from afar to be sure about which things happened on that day, and which things were subsequently added to obscure the truth. All we can say, for sure, is what didn't happen (see above).

    Nevertheless, there are a couple of big clues that allow us to speculate as to something of the nature of the thing. These are The Mill Pub and Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey. They are not clues in the sense of us being able to know what role they played. But they are clues in the sense of the authorities never being able to come out with a straight answer about the location and the man, thereby giving rise to speculation that the bizarre and conflicting tales about them are extremely important.

    Take Mr Bailey, for instance. Where exactly was he on that evening and where exactly did he succumb to poisoning? As hinted at above, he has been placed in multiple places, depending on who has been telling the story and when they've been telling it. He has been:

    A first responder to the incident at the bench Not a first responder to the incident at the bench Not at the bench when the two Russians were there At the bench after the incident happened At the house at midnight entering by the front door At the house at midnight but unable to enter the front door Admitted to Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning Not admitted to Salisbury District hospital on the Monday morning, but on the Tuesday Morning Admitted to Salisbury District Hospital on the Monday morning, discharged but readmitted on the Tuesday

    How can it have been so difficult to establish where he was? His movements would have been easy to trace. Why were they not and why have so many different stories been mooted? As I wrote back here :

    "I would submit that the most reasonable view to take -- until evidence confirms otherwise -- is that Detective Sergeant Bailey was poisoned neither at the bench nor the house, but somewhere else altogether."

    Actually, I think that there is some evidence for this. Here is what a Freedom of Information request revealed about how The Met were to deal with questions posed by the media about Mr Bailey. Note that this was on 9 th March, two weeks before the door handle claim was first made:

    "IF ASKED: Why was a detective sergeant (Nick Bailey) a first responder?

    ANSWER: He attended the initial scene in the town centre.

    IF ASKED: It's been suggested DS Bailey was contaminated at Skripal's house. Did he go to the house? Can you confirm he definitely went to the Maltings?

    ANSWER: He was a first responder to the initial scene in the town centre. We are not discussing further [my italics]."

    So he was a first responder to the "initial scene" in the town centre. Okay, but according to Mr Bailey himself, on the BBC Panorama Programme, he was not a first responder at the bench when the Russian pair were there. He claimed to have wandered down there sometime after it had all finished, which means that he was not a first responder at that scene. Which means what? It means that there was another scene . That is implied in the phrase "initial scene". Clearly, if there was an initial scene, there must have also been a subsequent scene. And equally clearly, it cannot have been anything to do with the house or the door handle, because on 9 th March, when this instruction was given, there was officially only one scene -- that is, the bench. The door handle story had not yet emerged.

    Put all that together and what is the inescapable conclusion? Mr Bailey was indeed injured, but it was at an initial scene -- that is at a scene that occurred prior to whatever happened at the bench .

    Let's come back to that after looking at the other big clue, The Mill. In the aftermath of 4 th March, the back of the Mill was closed off and the chaps in HazMats were busy doing their thing there. But hang on a minute. Why was this? That area was never any part of the official story. There was never any suggestion whatsoever that Mr Skripal or his daughter had been there, and so why would it have needed cleaning up? From what?

    In addition, we know that the then Manager of the Mill, Greg Townsend was interviewed intensively by investigators from The Met, no less than eight times in the week after 4 th March. According to Mr Townsend, he felt like he was being treated as " a terror suspect ". Again, why? According to the official story, what did Mr Skripal and his daughter do there? They went in. They had a drink. They left. Big deal. Why on earth would the most intense questioning and focus be at that location then?

    But thirdly, and most crucially, is the incorrect timeline put out by The Met about the Skripals' visit to this pub. Here's what they said:

    13:40 – Sergei and Yulia arrive at the Sainsbury's upper level car park in The Maltings
    The pair go to The Mill pub in Salisbury
    Approximately 14.20 – The father and daughter eat at Zizzi restaurant on Castle Street
    15:35 – They leave the restaurant

    This is simply wrong. They did not go to The Mill pub before Zizzis. They went to Zizzis between about 2:00pm and 2:45pm, and then on to the Mill from around 3:00pm to 3:30pm. Every single one of the original witness statements in the early days of the case confirms this, and I have also had independent corroboration locally that this was the case ( see here for details ). So why did The Met put out a timeline saying that the Skripals were in Zizzis between 3:00pm and 3:30pm, when in fact they were in The Mill? Unfortunately, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that it was done deliberately, with the purpose of drawing attention away from that location as being the place the Skripals visited before the bench incident.

    Put that together with the oddities around the location of the poisoning of Detective Sergeant Nicholas Bailey, and it seems to me -- and I admit this is highly speculative -- that there was an incident prior to the bench incident, that it most probably occurred at the back of The Mill, and it was there -- not the bench or the house -- that Mr Bailey became contaminated. Let me stress that this is speculation, and it may well be incorrect, yet it seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for the extremely strange ambiguity surrounding Mr Bailey's movements, the claim that he was injured as a first responder to "the initial scene", and the bait and switch between Zizzis and The Mill given in The Met's timeline.

    I would add one further element that may hint at this, which is this extraordinary claim in an article on 6 th March 2018 in The Sun (also carried in The Mail ):

    "As emergency crews cleared the substance left near the bench, others were called to decontaminate the hospital. First reports suggested traces of the opiate fentanyl -- a synthetic toxin many times stronger than heroin -- had been detected at the scene. But that was later linked to unconnected incident involving another couple coincidentally in the shopping centre."

    That really is extraordinary. Another incident, this time a Fentanyl poisoning, the first of its kind in Salisbury, on the same day, around the same time, and in the same shopping centre as a nerve agent incident. That's about as likely as the British Army's Chief Nurse happening to be there at that exact same moment, isn't it? Did it really happen? I have no idea. But if it did, was this something to do with the " initial scene" -- the one that saw Mr Bailey and two of his colleagues taken to hospital ( here is a link to BBC article confirming that two police officers were contaminated, as well as a third member of the emergency services, who was clearly Mr Bailey)?

    Questions, questions, questions. To which there must be answers, answers, answers. Unfortunately, those controlling the narrative are not about to give them any time soon, and they will no doubt continue to perpetuate the absurd, the implausible, and the impossible, rather than coming clean with the truth.

    Perhaps it will take a whistleblower to leak the truth. But then who would do such a thing and who would publish it? A man who published secrets about war crimes that the US Government didn't want revealing, is currently being treated in Belmarsh Prison and Woolwich Crown Court in much the same way that Soviet political dissidents and enemies of the state were treated back in the day. Another man who is tenaciously publishing the truth behind the OPCW's sham investigation into the Douma chemical incident is smeared and slandered as a charlatan by those who are not fit to lick his shoes.

    This is the kind of country we are becoming. This is the kind of society that those behind this riddle, wrapped in a cover up, inside a hoax, are leading us to. A national security state, where the truth is buried underneath an avalanche of deception, and where those who try to honestly get to the bottom of it are labelled enemies of the state, treated shamefully, so that others are deterred from following suit. It rather minds me of this, from one of the early church fathers, St. Anthony:

    "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.'"

    It's not the kind of society I hoped to see when I was growing up. It's not the kind of society I hoped my children would grow up in. My guess is that it's not even the kind of society that those who are playing these elaborate games wanted to grow up in. Yet it is what it is, and I am persuaded that those who have brought us to this point have more trouble sleeping than I do. I would urge them to consider this, before it is too late:

    "For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light." – Jesus Christ (Luke 8:17)


    POSTSCRIPT

    I just wanted to say thanks once again for all the many wonderful commenters and their thoughtful analysis of this case over the last couple of years. Your contributions are much appreciated. Once again, it is my intention to write about other things, and my sincere hope is that I don't find myself writing a 3rd anniversary piece.

    I also wanted to draw your attention to a new book on the subject, Skripal in Prison , by John Helmer. I regret that I would have liked to be in a position to be able to make one or two comments on the book, but unfortunately I have not had the time to read it myself yet. But given John's pieces on the subject on his blog, I have no doubt that it will be a most interesting and enlightening read. You can get a copy of it here:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Skripal-Prison-John-Helmer/dp/B084PY9W4R

    [Apr 11, 2020] Tchaikovsky - Hymn of the Cherubim - USSR Ministry Of Culture Chamber Choir

    Apr 11, 2020 | www.youtube.com

    YellowDaffodil , 3 months ago

    Perhaps if the US had a Ministry of Culture producing these soul elevating music videos we would not be becoming a godless country.

    Bless Russia and May she grow in Grace and Peace.

    Louis XXV , 11 months ago

    "The music could exist even if the Universe doesn't." Schopenhauer

    [Apr 11, 2020] Hamish de Bretton-Gordon

    An interesting connection between Skripal false flag and Syria false flag.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Main Stream Media ..."
    "... "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." [4] ..."
    Apr 11, 2020 | sunray22b.net

    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is the pretentious name used by a fellow who seems to have been a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and a chemical weapons expert. He has access to the media and markets the Party Line . Whose? The Foreign Office's version of truth, one that denies the very active role of the Israel Lobby in using American forces to make war in the Middle East.

    de Bretton Gordon's public position is that chemical weapons are nasty dangerous things being used by Bashar al Assad , the president of Syria to attack innocent civilians. Before believing this story look at what Seymour Hersh has to say; that the Syria Gas Attack Carried Out By America .

    ... ... ...

    Civilians were under fire, he went on. He failed to mention that Al-Nusra might be holding them as human shields, as they did in Eastern Aleppo. The Syrian army liberated that area in December twenty-sixteen.

    The UNHCR tweeted in October last year : 'After years of darkness, city of # Aleppo is lit at night, we hope that # Syrians find light at the end of the tunnel finally # SupportSyrians '

    We ran a report on Aleppo's liberation at the time .

    For the first time in five years the city's Christians were able to celebrate Christmas free from constant bombardment from the Al-Nusra terrorists in the east.
    Celebrating Christmas in Aleppo December 2016.
    Celebrating Christmas in Aleppo December 2016.

    The US and UK Governments and the mainstream media hated the liberation of Eastern Aleppo. They will equally bewail the liberation of Eastern Ghouta, when it comes.

    Indeed, during the BBC interview, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon came across as nothing more than a UK government sock-puppet. He confirmed this when he commended what he said were 'the peace talks in Geneva'. We shall come to that below.

    Doctors Under Fire
    Mr David Nott is a respected surgeon but blames 'Assad' for everything.

    Mr David Nott is a respected surgeon but blames 'Assad' for everything.

    But what of this man, and what of 'Doctors Under Fire'? Well, the latter has apparently just two members, De Bretton Gordon and one David Nott, a surgeon who has been in war-torn areas. Mr Nott similarly finds no good word to say about the Syrian government.

    Oddly, in a video on Vimeo from 2016 he says Doctors Under Fire will be a charity. The Charity Commission has no record of it, nor of 'Medics under Fire' which is what the Doctors Under Fire website is called. When you go to the website , at this time of writing, you're invited to a rally on 7th May. On further investigation, that is 7th May 2016. Their website is two years out of date. Of course hospitals should not be attacked in war zones, but the Doctors Under Fire platform gives Messrs De B-G and Nott credibility to advance another agenda.

    Hospital bombing scam
    Furthermore, this astonishing video collated all the times the 'last hospital' in eastern Aleppo was put out of action by 'Syrian regime airstrikes'. Can you guess how many it was? And how do the mainstream media source their footage of sick children, hospitals, and dare we add, 'doctors under fire'? They are entirely dependent on the terrorists. No western journalist can venture into their areas. Why? For fear of being kidnapped and held for ransom by the very people they champion.

    De Bretton Gordon also claimed on the BBC a hospital in eastern Ghouta had been hit. That was why they gave him a platform under his 'Doctors Under Fire' persona. But again, it was second-hand terrorist propaganda. Here, the impressive 'Off-Guardian' website exposes the Syrian totem head of the 'White Helmets', which was a British Foreign Office creation, as we investigated here . This relentless tugging at western heart-strings is a scam and the msm [ Main Stream Media ] know it.

    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon SecureBio spun off from Hamish De Bretton-Gordon's time in the British Army

    SecureBio spun off from Hamish De Bretton-Gordon's time in the British Army

    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a retired Colonel with an OBE. He commanded NATO's Rapid Reaction Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Battalion. He ran a company called SecureBio with, we read on this 'military speakers' website , 'an impressive list of blue chip clients globally.' However, Companies House says SecureBio resolved to go into liquidation in June 2015.

    The Colonel now apparently works for a company which makes breathing masks, Avon Protection . His LinkedIn profile claims he is 'Managing Director CBRN' of Avon, despite not actually being a director. He also claims still to be director of SecureBio. He does not mention that company was dissolved in August 2017 with debts over £715,000.

    Call for France to drop bombs on Syria

    De Bretton-Gordon has teamed up with Avon Protection which makes breathing masks.

    De Bretton-Gordon teamed up with Avon in 2014 . Avon then took over the SecureBio name in June 2015 as SecureBio Ltd shut down. Avon did not take over SecureBio Ltd's large debts.

    De Bretton-Gordon no longer has any connection with military field-work. Nevertheless, he has continued access to the world's media when subjects like Syria and alleged chemical weapons come up.

    Securebio's YouTube channel is still online and has a number of videos of the colonel calling for 'safe havens' for terrorists. He has appeared frequently on Sunni-Muslim Qatar's Al Jazeera TV channel.

    And as this Guardian opinion piece shows , he is not slow to blame 'Assad' and 'Putin' for each and every alleged chemical attack, just as the UK Foreign Office would want him to do. In this belligerent BBC article he even calls on France to declare war by dropping bombs on Syria.

    Geneva vs Astana Peace Talks

    Finally, why did the Colonel's promotion of the Geneva peace talks raise the alarm? Because this is a UK-driven political view. In reality the Geneva talks stalled in February twenty-seventeen. The Kurds took against the inconsequential opposition in exile pompously called the High Negotiations Committee.

    The Geneva talks finally collapsed in November when the Syrians would not agree to President Assad stepping aside, a key, but stupid, UK and US demand. The Guardian's highly-respected Patrick Wintour says the talks De Bretton Gordon extols are 'perilously shorn of credibility'.

    Meanwhile, the real peace talks, unmentioned by the Colonel, have been held in Astana, capital of Kazakhstan. They are brokered by Russia, so the UK wants them to fail. But the UN's Staffan de Mistura says the Astana talks are making small but 'clear progress' to reducing violence in Syria. They have now moved to Sochi on the Black Sea and we need to pray for them.

    Terrorists should lay down their arms

    Make no mistake, the UK government helped start the dreadful civil war in Syria . Even now its tame media pundits cannot bear the idea that the Islamic terrorists we assisted are mercifully losing.

    They need to lay down their arms. But don't expect the Colonel to agree. The Bible says in Psalm 120:7:

    I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

    Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon will keep ringing the UK Government bell. A knighthood cannot be far away. But we must take what he and the rest of the BBC's pro-Foreign Office pundits say with a very large pinch of salt.

    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon ex Wikispooks
    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (born September 1963) is a chemical weapons expert and chief operating officer of SecureBio Limited . He was formerly a British Army officer for 23 years and Commanding Officer of the UK's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and NATO 's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion. [1]

    De Bretton-Gordon is Managing Director CBRN at Avon Protection , the recognised global market leader in respiratory protection system technology specialising primarily in Military, Law Enforcement, Firefighting, and Industrial. [2]

    Novichok nerve agent
    On 4 March 2018, a Russian double agent Sergei Skripal was reported to have been poisoned in Salisbury with a nerve agent which British authorities identified as Novichok . Theresa May told Parliament that she held Russia responsible for Skripal's attempted murder.

    According to Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, Novichok was allegedly developed in the Soviet Union at a laboratory complex in Shikhany, in central Russia. Vil Mirzayanov , a Russian chemist involved in the development of Novichok, who later defected to the United States , said the Novichok was tested at Nukus, in Uzbekistan . [3]

    Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray , who visited the site at Nukus, said it had been dismantled with US help. He is among those advocating scepticism about the UK placing blame on Russia for the poisoning of Sergei Skripal. In a blog post, Murray wrote:

    "The same people who assured you Saddam Hussein had WMDs now assure you Russian 'Novichok' nerve agents are being wielded by Vladimir Putin to attack people on British soil." [4]
    Deployments
    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon's operational deployments included the 1st Gulf War , Cyprus , Bosnia , Kosovo , Iraq (multiple tours) and Afghanistan (2 tours) and has been in Syria & Iraq frequently in the last 3 years. This considerable experience in the field places Hamish de Bretton-Gordon as one of the world's leading and most current experts in chemical and biological counter terrorism and warfare.

    De Bretton-Gordon is a visiting lecturer in disaster management at Bournemouth University . [5]

    Doctors Under Fire
    In December 2017, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon and fellow director David Nott of Doctors Under Fire highlighted the case of seven children with curable cancer who were said to be dying in Ghouta, Syria, for want of drugs and nourishment. They claimed Union of Syrian Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) hospitals in Ghouta were on their knees with very few medicines left, and that kind words for the dying children were the only palliative care available. [6]
    UNQUOTE
    This Christian has been abused; he does not approve of Homosexuality or abortion. In other words, he is not a heretic.

    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon ex Wiki
    Hamish de Bretton-Gordon
    OBE (born September 1963) is a chemical weapons expert and chief operating officer of SecureBio Limited. He was formerly a British Army officer for 23 years and commanding officer of the UK's CBRN Regiment and NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion . [1] He is a visiting lecturer in disaster management at Bournemouth University . [2] He attended Tonbridge School and has a degree in agriculture from the University of Reading (1987).

    Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment ex Wiki
    A temporary formation that has been and gone.

    Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defence Battalion
    A NATO outfit.

    Al-Nusra Front ex Wiki
    Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra ( Arabic : جبهة النصرة ‎), known as the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham ( Arabic : جبهة فتح الشام ‎, transliteration : Jabhat Fataḥ al-Šām ) after July 2016, and also described as al-Qaeda in Syria or al-Qaeda in the Levant, [34] [35] is a Salafist jihadist organization fighting against Syrian government forces in the Syrian Civil War , with the aim of establishing an Islamic state in the country. [36] The group announced its formation on 23 January 2012. [37]

    The United States designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, followed by the United Nations Security Council and many other countries. [38] It was the official Syrian branch of al-Qaeda until July 2016, when it ostensibly split. [39] [40]

    In early 2015, the group became one of the major components of the powerful jihadist joint operations room named the Army of Conquest , which took over large territories in Northwestern Syria . It also operates in neighbouring Lebanon . [41] In November 2012, The Washington Post described al-Nusra as the most successful arm of the rebel forces. [[42]

    In July 2016, al-Nusra formally separated from al-Qaeda and re-branded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham ("Front for the Conquest of the Levant"). [39]

    On 28 January 2017, following violent clashes with Ahrar al-Sham and other rebel groups, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham merged with four other groups to become Their al-Sham .

    Al-Qaeda ex Wiki
    Al-Qaeda ( / æ l ˈ k aɪ d ə , ˌ æ l k ɑː ˈ iː d ə / ; Arabic : القاعدة ‎ al-qāʿidah , IPA: [ælqɑːʕɪdɐ] , translation: "The Base", "The Foundation" or " The Fundament " and alternatively spelled al-Qaida, al-Qæda and sometimes al-Qa'ida) is a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization founded in 1988 [31] by Osama bin Laden , Abdullah Azzam , [32] and several other Arab volunteers who fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. [6]

    Christian Voice ex Wiki
    Christian Voice (CV) is a Christian advocacy group based in the United Kingdom . [1] Its stated objective is "to uphold Christianity as the Faith of the United Kingdom, to be a voice for Biblical values in law and public policy, and to defend and support traditional family life." [2] It is independent of religious, denominational, or political parties. [3]

    CV is led by Stephen Green, with Lord Ashburn as its patron. [3] Green is the group's spokesperson, producing scores of press releases from 2005 to 2010. According to Green, Christian Voice had in excess of 600 members in 2005. [4]

    The group has been criticised for its positions. David Peel, leader of the United Reformed Church called Christian Voice "a disgrace" [4] and described their "claim to represent Christians" in the UK as "absurd". [[5]

    Leadership
    Stephen Green
    The leader, and sole staff member, of Christian Voice is Stephen Green [6] , a former Chairman of the Conservative Family Campaign, who attends an Assemblies of God Church. In the early 1990s, Green was a prominent campaigner against homosexuality through the Conservative Family Campaign, and wrote a book called The Sexual Dead-End .

    In January 2011, Green's former wife, Caroline Green, accused him of repeatedly physically assaulting her and their children, including one incident where he allegedly beat her with a weapon until she bled, and another in which their son allegedly required hospital treatment after having been beaten with a piece of wood. The couple subsequently divorced. [7] Stating that the article was "highly defamatory" and calling it a "catalogue of smears and distortions stitched together," Green denied some of the allegations. On his blog he wrote: [8]

    I sincerely tried to lead my marriage and household in a loving and responsible way, and one which was faithful to the Lord.

    ... ... ...

    https://ww.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/will-chemical-weapons-attacks-like-douma-fail-punish-assad-crimes/

    Medics Under Fire - com

    Medics Under Fire - org
    Anti-Syrian government [ of 2016 ]
    The repeated targeting of healthcare workers and hospitals by the Russian and Syrian governments are war crimes. We call on you to give Syria's heroic healthcare workers and the communities they serve a zone free from bombing to ensure their protection. The international community has agreed the bombs need to stop. The resolutions are in place. They simply need to be enforced.

    Secure Bio Limited ex Companies House
    Registered office address
    Bell Advisory, Tenth Floor 3 Hardman Street, Spinningfields, Manchester, M3 3H
    Company status
    Dissolved
    Dissolved on
    17 August 2017
    Company type
    Private limited Company
    Incorporated on
    29 June 2011
    Last accounts made up to 31 December 2013
    Nature of business (SIC)
    82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified

    Appointment of Hamish De Bretton-Gordon as a director View PDF Appointment of Hamish De Bretton-Gordon as a director - link opens in a new window - 3 pages (3 pages)
    05 Sep 2011 Appointment of Andrew Duckworth as a director View PDF Appointment of Andrew Duckworth as a director - link opens in a new window - 3 pages (3 pages)
    29 Jun 2011 Termination of appointment of Yomtov Jacobs as a director

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5589207/Syrian-government-intensifies-offensive-against-rebel-stronghold-Eastern-Ghouta.html awful innit?

    Syrian activists and doctors being trained to combat chemical attacks - Allegation Made By Bretton Gordon
    More Quislinggraph , more propaganda.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/08/dozens-reported-dead-chemical-attack-insyria-us-blames-russia/
    Believe it if you want.

    [Apr 07, 2020] Three big claims of 'Russian disinformation' and 'Russian trolls/bots' on social media.

    Apr 07, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    John A , April 7, 2020 at 04:09

    Over the last week, there have, to my knowledge, been three big claims of 'Russian disinformation' and 'Russian trolls/bots' on social media.
    1. Last week, Russian equipment and support sent to Italy to help fight Covid-19. Nato stenographers claim and spread the disinformation that '80% of the equipment was useless', citing one anonymous source. Total lies.

    2. Swedish minister claims social media campaign against a 5G network in Sweden is run by russian trolls. Turns out it is a 64 year old grandmother living in Stockholm who is behind the campaign.

    3. Yesterday afternoon, russia media report, according to a National Health Service source, Boris Johnson is on a ventilator in hospital. Utter nonsense say MSM, Russian disinformation. Overnight headlines in British media – Boris in intensive care.

    The western media are so totally venally corrupt in serving the 1% yet get found out in their lies time after time and yet carry on. I try to read as many different media as possible, but have no doubt, which are more credible, and it aint NATO stenographers

    AnneR , April 7, 2020 at 14:33

    Yes, John A. Truly there is something warped about the western ruling elites' mindset. But I guess they have to have a bugaboo and Russia (then China, sometimes Iran and others) is the primary, western created, go-to one. Even among those who did not grow up, or were only young, during the cold war.

    I am only thankful that, despite my father's Tory politics (all but regarding the land, which he believed should be nationalized and 50 acres given to every male [well, he was sexist]; an curious, decidedly not Tory viewpoint) the USSR as was then never was on either his or my mother's agenda. Indeed, we used to watch with much pleasure the Red Army choir, once we got a television (not till 1958, when I was 10), which toured the UK, I *think*

    No ducking under school desks. Nor any other weird thing

    [Apr 06, 2020] Permanent/long term expats are usually not your best source of information about a country.

    Apr 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    William Gruff , Apr 6 2020 11:29 utc | 170

    dltravers @138

    Permanent/long term expats are usually not your best source of information about a country. Being informed of something concerning China by a Chinese-American friend isn't necessarily authoritative. Consider someone in China asking an expat from New England about eating habits in Mississippi: "It's disgusting! They eat opossums! Road kill raccoons that they find on the side of the highway! Raccoon balloons! People from America's South are filthy!"

    Perhaps people in America's South do not always eat road kill, but people from other parts of the US believe they do. You have the same kinds of beliefs in China about peoples in different regions.

    Anyway, here is what the insufferably jingoistic and national chauvinistic Washington Bezos Post has to say about China's wet markets reopening: "The prevalence of food-borne microbial illness in developing East Asia suggests that far from being cesspits of disease, wet markets do a good job of providing households with clean, fresh produce."

    [Apr 05, 2020] Sometimes Western courts work the way they're supposed to.

    Apr 05, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    TRIALS. One of Mueller's "triumphs" was indicting a St Petersburg company for interference on behalf of the Russian government. ( Weepy Maddow flashback ). A safe stunt because the Russians wouln't show up in court. But they did. The prosecution has dropped the case. Why? Bluster, bluster, but the short answer is that there was no evidence. Let Bernhard, who got the story right from the beginning, take you through it . Oh, and the owner of the company is going to sue . In a similar situation, the judge in the MH-17 trial has demanded the prosecution 1) say whether it did receive the claimed US evidence 2) show it to the judge . Leaks tell us that the JIT has never seen it ; not surprising because there isn't any (that's an easy deduction: if the US really did "observe it" as Kerry claimed , we would have seen it now.) Sometimes Western courts work the way they're supposed to.

    [Apr 05, 2020] Sending top shelf ventilators made by a Russian firm under U.S. sanctions? I wonder if this is some sort of ironic Russian humor

    Apr 05, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    JerseyJeffersonian , 04 April 2020 at 12:19 PM

    Here's another one for you from Clownworld, courtesy of Andrei at his Smoothiex12 blog:

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/04/send-them-back.html?m=1

    Sending top shelf ventilators made by a Russian firm under U.S. sanctions? I wonder if this is some sort of ironic Russian humor, besides being a bridge-building gesture, of course. If it's a troll, we richly deserve it, IMHO.

    Remind me again why we are not working collegially with this talented nation of Russia.

    Lyttennburgh , 04 April 2020 at 05:50 PM
    2Ulenspiegel

    I will give you 100% TrueUkrainian (the new plucky "democratic" friends of the Great West, remember?) answer - of course not!

    As everybody knows (tm), Russian help is not just useless, but promotes this dreadful, aggressive "Russki Mir", that stands for everything wrong, compared to the bright* genderless globalist and eco-friendly progressive future.

    Western countries and their populations, that have become the subject of the brutal and aggressive Russian humanitarian help (that's Italy and US of A) in order to maintain ideological integrity and robust correct-think, have to adopt a few simple measures, already tried and tested by the great patriots of the Ukraine:

    1) Ask any Russian doctor and member of the medical personnel, that might try to treat you, about their attitude towards Putin, war in Syria and to whom really belongs the Crimea (optional for the Westerners – also ask about gays and representation quotas). If the answer is not 156% ideologically pure, refuse to be treated by such violent satrap of the Regime!

    2) Stage a raid on a warehouse with the medical masks from Russia, and expropriate every single one of them! In order to prevent innocent bystanders from ever using such vile tools of Russian propaganda in their daily life, find a new and creative way to dispose of them. One such use is beloved by all truly patriotic members of the Ukrainian civil society (like C14 and "UPA-UNSO") – use them to make torches for your next rally!

    3) Be proactive citizen – refuse to use Russian lung ventilators! Die a free person!

    _______
    *) But not too bright as not to offend epileptics.

    [Apr 05, 2020] US sidestepped OWN SANCTIONS against Russia to save American lives from Covid-19... If only it cared as much about Iranian live

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's like being on eBay" ..."
    "... "They big-footed us" ..."
    "... "We're going broke." ..."
    "... "We're on our own." ..."
    "... "viable" ..."
    "... "money laundering" ..."
    "... "propaganda ploy." ..."
    Apr 03, 2020 | www.rt.com

    US sidestepped OWN SANCTIONS against Russia to save American lives from Covid-19... If only it cared as much about Iranian lives

    Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector.

    Russian plane with medical aid unloaded at JFK airport, United States, New York City © Ruptly Follow RT on

    When it comes to saving American lives, sanctions are not an obstacle to the provision of life-saving medical equipment. Ramping up sanctions on struggling Iran is okay however – which goes to show the US price tag on human life. It was a sight that warmed the heart of even the most cynical American opponent of Vladimir Putin's Russia -- a giant An-124 aircraft, loaded with boxes of desperately needed medical supplies, being offloaded at JFK Airport. When President Trump spoke on the phone with his Russian counterpart on March 31, he mentioned America's need for life-saving medical supplies, including ventilators and personal protective equipment. Two days later the AN-124 arrived in New York.

    As the aircraft was being unloaded, however, it became clear that at least some of the equipment being offloaded had been delivered in violation of existing US sanctions. Boxes clearly marked as containing Aventa-M ventilators, produced by the Ural Instrument Engineering Plant (UPZ), could be seen. For weeks now President Trump has made an issue about the need for ventilators in the US to provide life-saving care for stricken Americans.

    There was just one problem -- the manufacturer of the Aventa-M, UPZ, is a subsidiary of Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies (KRET) which, along with its parent holding company ROSTEC, has been under US sanctions since 2014. Complicating matters further is the fact that the shipment of medical supplies was paid in part by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), a Russian sovereign wealth fund which, like ROSTEC, was placed on the US lending blacklist in 2014 following Russia's intervention in Crimea. Half of the Russian aid shipment was paid for by the US State Department, and the other half by RDIF.

    Read more Russian declaration aimed at stopping sanctions amid coronavirus crisis REJECTED at UN General Assembly

    According to a State Department spokesperson, the sanctions against RDIF do not apply to purchases of medical equipment. KRET, however, is in the strictest SDN (Specially Designated Persons) sanctions list , which means US citizens and permanent residents are prohibited from doing business with it. So while the letter of the sanctions may not have been violated, the spirit certainly has been.

    One only need talk to the embattled Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, to understand the difficulty in trying to purchase much-needed medical equipment during a global pandemic where everyone else is trying to do the same. New York has been competing with several other states to purchase much-needed ventilators from China. "It's like being on eBay" , Cuomo recently told the press, with 50 states bidding against one another, driving the price up. The issue became even more complicated when the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, entered the bidding war. "They big-footed us" , Cuomo said, driving the price per ventilator up to $25,000. "We're going broke."

    Cuomo estimates that New York will need upwards of 40,000 ventilators to be able to handle the influx of stricken patients when the outbreak hits its peak. At the moment, New York has 17,000 ventilators available -- including 2,500 on order from China -- and Cuomo doesn't expect any more. "We're on our own." Plans are in place to begin imposing a triage system to prioritize ventilator availability if and when the current stockpile is exhausted. These plans include the issuance of an emergency waiver that permits health care providers to take a patient off a ventilator to make it available for another patient deemed to be more "viable" -- that is, who has a greater expectation of surviving the disease.

    Cuomo's predicament is being played out around the world, in places like Italy, Spain -- and Iran, where the outbreak of coronavirus has hit particularly hard. The difference, however, is that while the US, Italy and Spain are able to scour the global market in search of life-saving medical supplies, Iran is not. US sanctions targeting the Iranian financial system, ostensibly imposed to prevent "money laundering" by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command, which has been heavily sanctioned by the US over the years, have made it virtually impossible for Iran to pay for humanitarian supplies needed to fight the coronavirus outbreak.

    Also on rt.com 'This is NUTS!' Russiagaters see red over Putin's planeload of corona-aid for Trump, queue to look gift-horse in mouth

    As bad as it is for Governor Cuomo, at least he can enter a bidding war for medical supplies. Iran can't even get its foot in the door, and it is costing lives. Making matters worse, at a time when the international community is pleading for the US to ease sanctions so Iran can better cope with an outbreak that is taking a life every ten minutes, the US instead doubled down, further tightening its death grip on the Iranian economy.

    The global coronavirus pandemic will eventually end, and when it does there will be an accounting for how nations behaved. Nations like Russia and China have been repeatedly vilified in the US media for any number of reasons -- even the Russian aid shipment containing the sanctioned ventilators has been dismissed as a "propaganda ploy." What, then, do you call the US' blatant disregard for select human lives?

    The callous indifference displayed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other officials to the suffering of the Iranian people by increasing sanctions at a time when the situation cries out for them to be lifted in order to save lives, when contrasted to the ease in which US sanctions on Russia are ignored when life-saving medical equipment is needed, drives home the point that, as far as the US is concerned, human life only matters when it is an American one. That might play well among American voters (it shouldn't), but for the rest of the world it is a clear sign that hypocrisy, not humanitarianism, is the word that will define the US going forward.

    EDITOR'S NOTE: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that entering a financial relationship with RDIF is prosecutable under the US sanctions regime. In reality, RDIF is under sectoral sanctions that only apply to certain interactions, which, according to a State Department spokesperson, do not include purchases of medical equipment. The article has been changed accordingly.

    Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

    [Apr 04, 2020] It doesn't seem to matter how much the US hoses the EU they'll still fall in lockstep when Trump says "jump"

    Apr 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Tobi , Apr 4 2020 0:26 utc | 103

    Posted by: Likklemore | 94

    It doesn't seem to matter how much the US hoses the EU they'll still fall in lockstep when Trump says "jump".

    Russian declaration aimed at stopping sanctions amid coronavirus crisis REJECTED at UN General Assembly

    A User , Apr 4 2020 1:22 utc | 108

    I realise few will since amerikans are 100% exceptionalist right up to their last breath but please read the best article by far on masks & respirators cleaning issues esp such ones as 'steam' cleaning are on this link I posted earlier.

    It is written by Dr John Campbell who has been writing on this virus for several months. My brother the retired journo recommended him to me in early February, so naturally I have been assiduous in ignoring the bloke for that reason, combined with the fact Campbell is an englander, but he has put together an excellent piece on masks & respirators, one which uses y'know those pesky fact things to support his statements about assorted items efficacy, longevity and ability to be cleaned. With respirators 95% & above he recommends having several and rotating them so that they cop 4-5 days down time which should be enough time for the virus to kark it of its own accord.

    I don't believe for a moment that will stop the continual spouting of uninformed claptrap, but I tried.

    [Apr 02, 2020] Bloomberg spent north of $500 millions to become president with zero results, and you want me to believe that Russians spent 1% of that and got better results

    Highly recommended!
    Apr 02, 2020 | hub.jhu.edu

    PBO kenformerlyfromRI8 days ago ,

    There is no conspiracy, they didn't make up false documents to start a Russian investigation, oh wait they did.. I just read that Bloomberg spent north of $500,000,000.00 to become president and you want me to believe the Russians spent 1% of that and got better results.. You have to be a special kind of stupid.

    [Apr 02, 2020] We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them, attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military adventure since 1945

    Highly recommended!
    Apr 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    bevin , Apr 1 2020 20:48 utc | 38

    US Politicians never forget that for the past seventy years russophobia and sinophobic racism- both of which have deep roots in the culture- formed the bases of the ideology of anti-communism.

    The Democrats, totally discredited by the 2016 Election campaign and decades of Clinton/Obama swings towards the right and away from the old New Deal constituencies, began by accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians- who most of the DNC deliberately suggested, and probably genuinely thought, were Communists.

    Trump's response is now to revive the anti-Peoples Republic witch-hunts of the past to use against the Democrats.

    We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them, attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military adventure since 1945 - the all purpose anti-gook racism that saw them through the wars against Japan, Korea, IndoChina and the People's Republic.

    It is going to make the spectacle of two monkeys throwing shit at each other seem positively restrained - the Democrats howling about Russia and the Republicans, reverting to type, starting up lynch mobs against China.

    [Mar 31, 2020] Putin's was delivered on 25 March

    Mar 31, 2020 | en.kremlin.ru

    , Trump gave his speech on 11 March . It should come as no surprise that Putin's speech framing and proposals were far superior to Trump's, who employed the Big Lie at the top of his speech:

    "Because of the economic policies that we have put into place over the last three years, we have the greatest economy anywhere in the world, by far.

    "Our banks and financial institutions are fully capitalized and incredibly strong. Our unemployment is at a historic low. This vast economic prosperity gives us flexibility, reserves, and resources to handle any threat that comes our way.

    "This is not a financial crisis, this is just a temporary moment of time that we will overcome together as a nation and as a world."

    Absolutely nothing he said above is true and in many cases he was immediately proved wrong. In stark contrast, Putin chose the following to begin his speech:

    "By taking precautionary measures, we have been largely able to prevent the infection from rapidly spreading and limit the incidence rate. However, we have to understand that Russia cannot insulate itself from this threat, simply considering its geography. There are countries along our borders that have already been seriously affected by the epidemic, which means that in all objectivity it is impossible to stop it from spilling over into Russia.

    "That said, being professional, well organised and proactive is what we can do and are already doing. The lives and health of our citizens is our top priority .

    "We have mobilised all the capabilities and resources for deploying a system of timely prevention and treatment. I would like to specially address doctors, paramedics, nurses, staff at hospitals, outpatient clinics, rural paramedic centres, ambulance services, and researchers: you are at the forefront of dealing with this situation. My heartfelt gratitude to you for your dedicated efforts." [My Emphasis]

    We must also consider the numerous gaffs Trump committed prior to his speech, his earlier gleeful gloating over China's troubles in January, and his politicizing of the crisis along with that of Pompeo. Then there's his escalation of the illegal attacks on Iran and Venezuela specifically, which are crimes against humanity. Yes, I readily admit my anti-Trump bias, but I'm not blinded like those who applaud him. Putin had immediate proposals for aid to his people that they can count on, while Trump did next to nothing by comparison. But do please read them both and make your own determination as to which nation and leader you'd rather have during this sort of crisis.

    Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 31 2020 16:07 utc | 141

    [Mar 30, 2020] As a Russian I don't approve of this aid that Putin sent to Italy. That's Soviet-slyle showmanship, when our country objectively cannot afford it.

    Mar 30, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Felix Keverich , says: Show Comment March 26, 2020 at 1:22 pm GMT

    As a Russian I don't approve of this aid that Putin sent to Italy. That's Soviet-slyle showmanship, when our country objectively cannot afford it. Stalin was sending grain to East Germany, when Russia was starving. Now Putin is doing something similar.

    At the very least he should have extracted some payment for it – Italy is a rich country, has bigger GDP than Russia, and can totally pay.

    Cyrano , says: Show Comment March 26, 2020 at 8:28 pm GMT
    @Felix Keverich I would have to disagree with you on this, my friend. Italy is famous for being one of the most communist friendly countries in the western world. During "communism" Italy's Fiat gave the license to build their cars to many Eastern block countries: Poland, Yugoslavia, and yes USSR.

    The original Lada was nothing else but Fiat 124 model. As a sign of gratitude the Russians even renamed the city where the Lada was being made into Togliatti – after an Italian communist. I think the friendship and respect between Italy and Russia goes way back, and now the Russians are just trying to continue that tradition by helping as much as they can Italy in these difficult times.

    NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment March 27, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT
    @Felix Keverich Soft power is much. much cheaper than hard power. Russia has been constantly demonised in the West and a show of compassion of this magnitude reveals the lies for what they are. It will be much more difficult to garner support for harsh measures against Russians when people everywhere see them as being "just like us". This is especially true of Europe whose support is very much needed by the US and it's minions like the UK, Poland and the usual flunkies.

    Why did you label Cyrano's response to you to be trolling? It was polite and sincere, I thought.

    csucsu , says: Show Comment March 27, 2020 at 4:46 am GMT
    @Felix Keverich If a Russian military gaining experience against an unknown enemy , isn't
    that a form of payment ?
    I am not a Russian , but I am sure your president knows what he is doing.
    yurivku , says: Show Comment March 27, 2020 at 10:57 am GMT
    @Cyrano As a Russian I do support this action, despite it obviously will have no positive changes in Italy's policy.
    Not all Russians are like Felix (if he's really Russian, which I'm not sure).

    [Mar 28, 2020] Russians again were outsmarted by the US intelligence agencies

    Highly recommended!
    By a clever move of the US intelligence agencies they are left without a choice as to support Trump in 2020 election is as idiotic as to support Biden.
    Mar 28, 2020 | www.unz.com

    U.S. intelligence community, through its preferred propaganda sheet the New York Times, is now reporting that Russia is taking advantage of the coronavirus crisis to spread disinformation through Europe and also in the U.S.

    In particular, Putin has escalated a campaign-by-innuendo to reduce confidence in the outcome of the upcoming 2020 presidential election.

    In any event, the Russians are too late as the Democratic and Republican parties' behavior has already convinced many Americans that voting in November will be a waste of time.

    [Mar 28, 2020] Why You Should Never Watch RT -- Ever!

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media ..."
    Mar 26, 2020 | russia-insider.com

    As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up

    The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'

    Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly Pompous Neo-Con' by my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should be making complaints to Ofcom (a British bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it off air.

    1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia

    Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of Russia and its leader. How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We neocons say that demonization of Russia and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!

    RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
    2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers

    There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to face the death penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free society.

    3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash

    Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news breaking. Some even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt were made. Others said that we couldn't rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why it must be taken off the air.

    4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'

    This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who opposed airstrikes on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War coalition – and has a regular weekly show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express their views on international affairs on television, not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle East on deceitful grounds every couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war 'conspiracy theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs – and claimed, fantastically – that Bush and Blair were making it all up.

    5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives

    This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the left and the right. It's given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right, like Ron Paul. These people should not be allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic consensus should be allowed on TV. It's very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are not heard.

    6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links

    I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an RT interviewee who had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a link to another website – which denied the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the US.

    After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow invitee had once sat at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.

    7. RT is anti-semitic

    Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.

    8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything

    This is totally unacceptable.

    9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel

    This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded politicians is demonized for voicing their opinion.

    10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers

    For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century" invade another country on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading American politician is appalling, and in a free society ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political figure speaks is to tug one's forelock.

    11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria

    In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting pro-democracy rebels were actually fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course, it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.

    12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share

    It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?

    13. The most important reason: RT is a threat

    More and more people are watching it – which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal interventionists' are so worried and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who appear on it.

    The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in control of the narrative as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!

    Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much easier for us that way.

    [Mar 26, 2020] Why You Should Never Watch RT -- Ever!

    Mar 26, 2020 | russia-insider.com

    As RT UK launches, attacks on the channel in the British media have stepped up

    The latest is a piece by Mr. Cyril Waugh-Monger, a very important newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea' and 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria.'

    Dear socially inferior person reading this article. My name is Cyril Waugh-Monger (I'm called 'Mr Terribly Pompous Neo-Con' by my friends) and I'm here to tell you why on no account should you watch RT and why you should be making complaints to Ofcom (a British bureacracy which regulates TV) about this dreadful channel so that in the interests of 'free speech' and 'democracy' we can get it off air.

    1. RT doesn't peddle Russophobia

    Outrageously, RT doesn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. It doesn't join in with the demonization of Russia and its leader. How can we have a channel which is watched by people in Britain, which doesn't do that? We neocons say that demonization of Russia and its leader is compulsory. How dare RT not do as we say!

    RT is more vocally in support of Russia than western media
    2. RT is sometimes rude to bankers

    There's a man on RT called Max Keiser and he is often very rude to bankers. Why, he has even called for them to face the death penalty. Such disrespect to our financial elites is shocking and should not be allowed in a free society.

    Former CEO of HSX Holdings/Hollywood Stock Exchange and host of RT''s 'Keiser Report' Max Keiser
    3. Its coverage of the MH17 crash

    Shockingly, RT commentators didn't rush to blame Vladimir Putin for the air disaster within seconds of the news breaking. Some even said that we should wait for the forensic evidence before any statements apportioning guilt were made. Others said that we couldn't rule out that the plane was downed by an another aircraft. This failure to come and say loud and clear "Putin personally shot down the plane with a missile he made and fired with his own hands" within minutes of the crash is clear evidence of RT's bias and why it must be taken off the air.

    Segment of the shot down plane
    4. RT's 'pundits' include people who aren't neocons and 'liberal interventionists'

    This is truly scandalous: RT gives airtime to people who don't support the West's policy of endless war and who opposed airstrikes on Syria last year. Why, it's even broadcast interviews with the convener of the Stop the War coalition – and has a regular weekly show fronted by George Galloway! This is unconscionable. Only people who support Western foreign policy should be allowed to express their views on international affairs on television, not 'cranks' and 'fanatics' who oppose attacking a sovereign state in the Middle East on deceitful grounds every couple of years. Why, if RT had been around in 2003, it would no doubt have given airtime to anti-war 'conspiracy theorists' who would have told viewers that Iraq had no WMDs – and claimed, fantastically – that Bush and Blair were making it all up.

    British politician, broadcaster, and writer George Galloway often speaks out against western foreign policy
    5. RT provides airtime to genuine socialists and genuine conservatives

    This is really terrible: RT interviews people who oppose neo-liberalism and globalization, from both the left and the right. It's given the microphone to socialists, communists, greens, and 'extremists' on the right, like Ron Paul. These people should not be allowed to express their views on television; they are 'cranks' and should be totally marginalized. Only those who support the hegemonic consensus should be allowed on TV. It's very important that in order to protect free speech and democracy, alternative opinions are not heard.

    Former Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul
    6. RT pundits have 'extremist' links

    I monitor the people who appear on RT very, very closely and I can tell you that there was once a case of an RT interviewee who had a link on his website to another website which had a link to another website which had a link to another website – which denied the Holocaust and said that little green men from Mars were ruling the US.

    After considerable research, I also found that another RT pundit once attended a conference where a fellow invitee had once sat at a restaurant table, a few days after another person who had actually praised Adolf Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Josef Stalin in a magazine article published in North Korea in 1962.

    7. RT is anti-semitic

    Ok, I've got no evidence of this, but I'll bung it in anyway as it sounds good.

    8. RT has broadcast documentaries on the wars in Yugoslavia which don't blame the Serbs for everything

    This is totally unacceptable.

    An elderly woman carries her belongings November 22 in Sarajevo's war shattered airport settlement. (Reuters)
    9. RT has had 'experts' on its programs who have made some very strong criticisms of Israel

    This too is totally unacceptable. Anyone with a theory or definition that differs from Western minded politicians is demonized for voicing their opinion.

    Israel's annexed Golan Heights is hosting pop up hospitals to tend to ISIS fighters
    10. RT pundits have often ridiculed leading American policymakers

    For instance, when the US Secretary of State John Kerry said that "you just don't in the 21st century" invade another country on "completely trumped up pretext," some people on RT had the audacity to say "What about Iraq?" This lack of respect towards a leading American politician is appalling, and in a free society ought not to be allowed. The correct procedure whenever a leading US political figure speaks is to tug one's forelock.

    11. RT's coverage of the conflict in Syria

    In 2011-13, we had so-called 'experts' on Syria telling us on RT that some of the freedom-fighting pro-democracy rebels were actually fanatical terrorists who were guilty of committing atrocities. This was obviously a clear lie. Islamist terrorists like ISIS have only been active in Syria since 2014 and of course, it's all the fault of President Assad and Russia.

    Intense shelling destroys buildings in the Damascus suburb of Jobar October 28
    12. RT interviews lots of people whose views I do not share

    It ought not to be allowed! Aren't we supposed to live in a democracy?

    13. The most important reason: RT is a threat

    More and more people are watching it – which is why me and my little group of neocons and 'liberal interventionists' are so worried and stepping up our attacks on the station and denigrating those people who appear on it.

    The next big war is going to be much harder for us to 'sell' to the plebs, because we are no longer in control of the narrative as we were in 2003, before the Iraq war. Oh, what happy days those were!

    Don't watch RT because we really don't want you to 'question more.' We want you to question less. It's much easier for us that way.


    Source: RT

    [Mar 24, 2020] This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda

    Highly recommended!
    Mar 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Dacian Julien Soros , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 2:54 pm GMT

    This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system, despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.

    It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.

    Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used. It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes, tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about "failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin exploited it for propaganda.

    One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site. Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".

    By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance "Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a 10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.

    Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist, perhaps?

    [Mar 24, 2020] A key element of coalition building is having a common enemy.

    Mar 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Divine Right , says: Show Comment March 24, 2020 at 6:49 am GMT

    @TheTotallyAnonymous

    the scenario that China and Russia become extremely hostile with each other in the near future (possibly even distant future) is extremely unlikely

    I don't believe this is as unlikely as some might think, although not in a way most would expect. And changing demographics in the United States could be a key catalyst in such a turn of events. To clarify, I don't think there will be an overtly anti-Russian sentiment running through mainland China in the near future, but I could see ethnic Asian -- particularly Chinese -- demographics in the United States turning that country against Russia, and later the whole of Europe, as a means of deflecting away from the CCP globally and ethnic Chinese domestically.

    Much of the current anti-Russian sentiment promoted by the left is just thinly veiled anti-white animus. A key element of coalition building is having a common enemy. The common enemy of POC is the white American demographic. Russia is the ruling class's whipping boy, a stand in for their white Christian domestic rivals. That's why you see racist identitarians like the South African Trevor Noah obsessing about Russia and Putin even though neither has anything to do with any American's living standard (and never mind the hypocrisy of having so many autocratic non-white allies -- a fact which is strangely omitted from their rhetoric about Russian strongmen).

    When considering past conflicts, most people falsely assume there wasn't a more base motive -- ethnic antipathy. Children in the United States, for instance, are taught that their country entered the Second World War because Hitler was bad and the imperial Japanese were bad. Perhaps, but that isn't really the true reason. The United States government and significant portions of the population lobbied for entry into both world wars due mostly to ethnic allegiances; Britain spoke English and so did an American white population descended largely from that same group. It's not a coincidence that the most anti-war sections of the country were also the most German. Charles Lindbergh, a noted anti-war celebrity, was German, IIRC; Jewish activists have spent decades trying to destroy his image.

    It's also probably not a coincidence that many Americans who opposed entry into these wars were fairly recent descendants of ethnic groups with a history of anti-Anglo sentiment. FDR's Irish ambassador, for example, to the Court of St. James's made it clear to the British Royal Family that the American public opposed entry into the war (true, but the government was working hard behind the scenes to make it happen). An enraged WASP FDR eventually sacked him. In that light, it's not inconceivable to think that had the U.S. accepted 2 or 3 times the number of German and Irish immigrants the country might have remained neutral or even joined the Axis. In contrast, the strongest supporters of these wars were WASP celebrities, politicians, and voting demographics.

    In the present, the U.S. supports Israel mainly because it has a powerful Jewish lobby that influences it to do so, even against its wider interests. The same is true of Cuba where the country sacrifices its national image in order to appeal to a small demographic of Cuban expats in southern Florida. Over in Europe, the UK -- flooded with Indian immigrants -- is now unnaturally friendly to India, even reorienting its recent domestic culture to include far more Indian history, subjects, and characters in shows like Dr. Who (a show that now no longer has a traditional Christmas episode as it went POC woke). Demography is destiny, it would seem. Immigration without assimilation is equivalent to conquest.

    Polls in the United States show Asians have the most positive opinion of the Chinese government by a fairly wide margin, and there have been numerous stories lately of Chinese ethnics protesting in favor of the interests of that country -- against the Hong Kong protests (Disney's Mulan actress, a nationalized American), against college events and monuments they deem against China, and against any description of corona as a "China virus", not that I endorse the description myself. Other demographics show a more mixed opinion. Regardless, I expect there will continue to be a steady flow of Asian immigrants to the United States with predictable consequences.

    I think it is possible that the American system could be co-opted with a concerted effort and repurposed to serve the interests of China, an effective coup similar to Israel's domination of the current establishment by means of diaspora activists. A few diversity programs, a set of prominent politicians, some money thrown around, the founding and infiltration of a few lobby groups, and a few unscrupulous people put in charge of the entertainment and news industries could see a situation where sympathetic Chinese ethnics seize control. We've already seen this several times before in United States history -- protestant then catholic then Jewish. And with few common bonds or any sense of patriotism left to deter such a thing*, this will be all the easier. Consider the recent mass arrests of American academics found to be working for the Chinese government. It was stunning, really.

    In such an event, you'll likely see coalition building against the white demographic by domestic Asian-led minority groups. This will also apply to alliances involving other countries and demographics -- all in an effort to deflect from China and Asians domestically while enhancing their power. This will involve the promotion of various propaganda and even extend to rewriting history. The media will demonize Russia and then Europe. They'll employ rhetoric involving colonialism and various events from European history, such as the Inquisition, to attack Europeans and ally rival racial groups against them for personal gain.

    Jews did something similar previously; they were at the forefront of "civil rights" in the United States and immigration reforms aimed at weakening the electoral strength of their WASP rivals. They've also rewritten history to paint themselves and their allies as the victims of their ethnic rival's hateful machinations -- continually digging up and exaggerating past events. For instance (one among many), you're told as an American that anti-Semitic Southerners murdered an innocent Jewish Leo Frank because they hated Jews for no reason. What you won't be told (because Jewish groups have banned the book that told the tale from Amazon) is that Jews in the South were generally well integrated and not persecuted to any real extent. The same book I'm referencing has tables of prominent Jewish politicians in the South and corrected much of the propaganda surrounding Frank's trial. Why would the history books lie about such a thing? Easy, because the people who wrote them saw the trial as an opportunity to build an inroad with the black demographic against the common enemy, white Christians. **

    Unz has an article on the Leo Frank trial if you're interested. It's worth a read. If anything, it understates the evidence presented in the book as it is quite compelling. No wonder Amazon banned it. BTW, the book does not promote violence, so there was no legitimate reason to ban it other than the fact that it damaged domestic Jewish ethnic interests.

    You've already seen some of this deflection in the democratic presidential primary debates with candidate Andrew Yang, an ethnic Chinese. He claimed in the second debate that Russia was the nation's greatest threat. That's nonsense. China in the near future will easily be 10x the strategic, economic and cultural competitor that Russia will ever be. It was an obvious and uncomfortable deflection away from his ethnic group to another. Expect that trend to potentially accelerate after the democrats seize permanent control of the government and ruling class sometime after 2020. What mechanism is there to stop them?

    I know Anatoly has speculated that the current China / USA rivalry is likely now permanent, but I don't see it that way. The democrats have repeatedly signaled a willingness to go back to business as usual. In the second democratic debate last year, nearly all the candidates opposed trade tariffs on China and deflected away to Russia on foreign policy. These people have one loyalty -- to their bank accounts. I expect the Democrats, spurred on by a donor class that shares practically no loyalty to the working class, to largely reverse the tensions Trump has ratcheted up. That means more economic policies that enrich the corrupt ruling class to the nation's geopolitical detriment -- more outsourcing, and particularly in critical industries that relate to national defense and the economy *** .

    The Chinese could easily exploit this vulnerability to affect a coup against their main rival. Perhaps there will be a counter-coup before 2040 or so by the American military to prevent this, but I think that is unlikely considering just how corrupt, inept, and politically correct it is.

    *Unlike other countries quarantined under Corona, the US has seen no similar patriotic singing or the like. A few celebrities tried creating a viral moment by posting themselves singing a classic John Lennon song, but it was widely mocked. The media has used every opportunity to undermine their implied ethnic enemies, the white republicans. The democrats are busy stuffing the aid bill with giveaways to their ethnic coalition like "diversity" requirements from companies in exchange for aid. The United States is a fragile domestic empire filled with various groups having practically no loyalty to each other and who take every opportunity to screw the other side over. Even in a time of relative crisis, they couldn't come together. It will only get worse.

    ** For a glimpse of the future, consider the extraordinary number of holocaust movies and books, along with media, depicting whites and their history as bad. I couldn't even begin to list it all here. It's extraordinary, and it disproportionately comes from the usual demographics.

    *** The United States is currently beholden to China for much of its pharmaceuticals, almost all the rare earth elements used in its tech industry, and many of the chemicals used in its military machine -- 100% in some cases. If a war starts in the near future, the U.S. will find that it has so many shortages that it cannot be sustained. They will lose or give up. What will the democrats do about this? Probably nothing. Only under Trump has the U.S. funded domestic rare earth mining efforts to create an alternate supply chain, but that effort could easily be shelved in the next Biden administration. The man has already proved himself corrupt over the years by receiving large amounts of corporate campaign contributions and being connected to shady Ukraine deals.

    Daniel Chieh , says: Show Comment March 24, 2020 at 1:21 pm GMT
    @Divine Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency, further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This all is interminged with a generalized rejection of "authoritarian" governments.

    China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.

    Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US( only 20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by immigration is Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly more active and influential in American politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."

    I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.

    The US seems well trapped in its rail tracks.

    Blinky Bill , says: Show Comment March 24, 2020 at 2:35 pm GMT
    @Daniel Chieh

    Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."

    Prime example Saagar Enjeti.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/vkqq74knVXM?feature=oembed

    [Mar 24, 2020] With the neocon foreign policy of "full Spectrum Dominance" the USA seems well trapped in its rail tracks

    Mar 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Daniel Chieh , says: Show Comment March 24, 2020 at 1:21 pm GMT

    @Divine Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency, further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This all is intermingled with a [fake and hypocritical] generalized rejection of "authoritarian" governments.

    China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.

    Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US( only 20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by immigration is Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly more active and influential in American politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."

    I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.

    The US seems well trapped in its rail tracks.

    Blinky Bill , says: Show Comment March 24, 2020 at 2:35 pm GMT
    @Daniel Chieh

    Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."

    Prime example Saagar Enjeti.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/vkqq74knVXM?feature=oembed

    neutral , says: Show Comment March 24, 2020 at 3:25 pm GMT
    @Blinky Bill This is just further proof that there is a growing Indian problem in America.

    [Mar 24, 2020] Western Journalists Really Want There to be a Huge Corona Epidemic in Russia by Anatoly Karlin

    Mar 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

    The stream of articles suggesting that Russia is covering up its Corona numbers has increased from a stream to a veritable flood:

    Russia's coronavirus count under scrutiny as Putin government denies hiding cases Moscow Times: Russia Says It Has Very Few Coronavirus Cases. The Numbers Don't Tell the Full Story. Reuters: Sharp increase in Moscow pneumonia cases fuels fears over coronavirus statistics Business Insider: Doctors in Russia are accusing the government of covering up its coronavirus outbreak and denying them protective equipment CNN: Why does Russia, population 146 million, have fewer coronavirus cases than Luxembourg? Financial Times: Vladimir Putin keeps political plan on track despite virus crisis

    Let's take a look at that last article , written by FT's Henry Foy today, and one of the more balanced (read: less PDS-afflicted) journalists doing the Russia beat (not to mention the most prominent in the above sample, having scored an exclusive interview with Putin in 2019).

    "The present number of patients with coronavirus will be hidden from us," said Anastasia Vasilieva, chairman of Doctors' Alliance, a Russian lobby group affiliated with opposition politician Alexei Navalny.

    Now Foy, to his credit, at least has the journalistic integrity to acknowledge that this doctors' group (which I have never heard of before now) is affiliated with Navalny, whose entire shtick is to oppose everything and anything the Kremlin does.

    A political tilt that its chairwoman helpfully confirms:

    "The value of human life for our president is nil . . . We don't want to admit to any pandemic," said Ms Vasilieva. "We know of hospitals that are completely full and nurses who are asked to sew face masks from gauze."

    ***

    But otherwise it follows the usual template on Russia COVID-19 coverage.

    She claimed Moscow was instead classifying cases of the virus as pneumonia, the incidence of which increased by almost 40 per cent in January compared with a year previously, government data showed.

    The aim here is to insinuate that there was a raging coronavirus epidemic camouflaged as the flu from as early as January 2020.

    Oh Corona, where to start.

    1. Flu mortality fluctuates wildly season to season by a factor of as high as 4x . So this is a perfectly meaningless fact from the outset.

    2. Even China's epidemic only broke 1,000 cases in January 25. Where were Russians getting infected??

    3. If this was true, it is Russia, not Italy, that would be the center of the COVID-19 epidemic now -- something that would certainly be noticed, e.g. in overflowing hospitals (no sign of that to date) or in exported cases (but that was all China in February, and predominantly Italy, Iran, and other EU nations now). It is Britons that Vietnam has started barring ten days ago, not Russians.

    Here's what I guess happened. People got agitated by reports from China, and were more likely to consult doctors, producing more flu diagnoses. Even though the actual chance of Russians having COVID-19 in January if they hadn't been to Wuhan was on the order of a meteorite hitting them on the head.

    While other foreign leaders have steeled their citizens for a long crisis and have spoken of a "war" against the pandemic, Mr Putin has played down the threat and urged citizens to remain calm in an effort to minimise panic -- and ensure the nationwide ballot on April 22 takes place.

    "The virus is a challenge and comes at a very bad moment for him," said Tatiana Stanovaya, founder of R. Politik, a political analyst. "Putin doesn't want to postpone and is insisting that the referendum takes place as soon as possible . . . The longer they wait, the more risks will appear."

    LOL. Trump was saying Corona was fake news/nothingburger up until the end of February.

    The US epidemic (22k cases) is about two orders of magnitude more advanced than Russia's (306 cases), but most states have continued to hold primaries for the Dem nomination.

    And in any case Putin has allowed the possibility that the April 22 Constitutional Referendum may be postponed. There's no indication it's a hard, immovable date.

    At the same time, Mr Putin has sought to project an image of control, continuing with his diary of local visits and meetings with senior officials, shaking hands and never wearing a face mask.

    Although it would be nice for Putin to set a better example, this is the rule, internationally -- not the exception. Stressing this is so petty, LOL.

    "No matter what happens in the next 35 days, they have to lie, hush up, and deny. It doesn't matter at all what really will happen to coronavirus in Russia, whether there will be a moderate outbreak or tens of thousands are killed," said Igor Pitsyn, a doctor in Yaroslavl, a city 250km north-east of Moscow.

    "By Putin's decree all information about this is declared a state secret until April 22 . . . This 'nationwide vote' will be held at all costs."

    First time I hear of this. Searching "путин коронавирус гостайна" doesn't produce any relevant results. This doctor must have some very high placed sources.

    Or perhaps Foy had to travel all the way to Yaroslavl to get a sufficiently juicy quote.

    While officials have cited the low number as proof of the success of swiftly closing its border with China in January and steadily cutting flights to affected countries, experts have questioned how the country has proved far more immune than almost any other. Neighbouring Belarus has five times more infections per capita than Russia, and France, which has roughly half Russia's population, has more than 50 times the number of cases.

    Russia doesn't have large numbers of Gastarbeiters in the EU, unlike Belarus. Our Belorussian commenters also tell us that there are next to no control measures in place.

    But Ukraine has perhaps 20x more Gastarbeiters in the EU than Belarus, and yet 2 days ago reported only 1/3 as many Corona cases (16 vs. 51). Which suggests where Western journalists covering Eastern Europe should really focus their attention .

    If they, you know, cared about the Corona situation in Eastern Europe. As opposed to promoting the US line that Russia bad and China bad.

    ***

    Incidentally, an update on Ukraine, two days after my alarm-raising article , in which I suggested that it's likely there's a big cluster developing undetected in Ukraine.

    Even though testing in Ukraine remains extremely patchy -- even in per capita terms, its ~500 tests are two orders of magnitude lower than Russia's ~150k, or for that matter Belarus' ~16k -- the past two days have seen a surge of new cases from 16 to 41. The majority of those cases, some 25 of them, are concentrated in Chernivtsi oblast, which also saw the death of a 33 year old woman from existing problems magnified by the coronavirus.

    The unlikelihood of such a mortality profile, coupled with the flood of new cases despite continued low testing rates, strongly suggests that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and that a cluster is developing in Chernivtsi oblast.

    This suggestion is backed up by an observation by Twitter user from_kherson :

    There's a reason Chernivtsi has so many cases -- large # of people go to Italy for work.

    An acquaintance of mine from there confirmed his business partner just tested positive for the virus.

    But just in case you think I am piling on to Ukraine because of my own political obsessions you would be mistaken.

    I will say that after Ukraine, probably the second biggest undetected Corona timebomb in Europe may be Serbia. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on COVID-19 testing doesn't have information for Serbia. However, one of my Serbian friends on Thursday wrote me that:

    We are still testing around 50 per day, with 1/5 being positive

    So both the intensity of testing and the rate of positives is similar to Ukraine.

    This Friday, he continued:

    We still have competent health care workers (the decision not to test the wider population is purely political, as was the decision no to close schools until 5 days ago), relatively functioning health care system, about 1500 respirators on a population that is 7+ million.

    On the other hand, we have the second lowest reported total test volume anywhere in the world, after Malorossiya :), at 545 total as of this morning, one of the highest positive rates per 1000 tests (after Italy, Spain, Ecuador and the Philippines). We have seen an influx of over 250 000 gastarbeiters from Western Europe in the past 10 days Many people are breaking the 14 day mandatory self isolation. When I say many, I'm talking about thousands every day

    We have 3 things potentially on our side. God, warmth, and Sun. Or it's all just God?

    And to think that Serbia was one of the first countries in the world to eradicate smallpox in the 1830s Under the lifelong illiterate knyaz Miloš

    The large number of Gastarbeiters in Western Europe, most of whom are now going to be let go, is another similarity that Serbia shares with Ukraine. And is something that will be a very problematic issue going forwards.

    Fortunately, it appears that China (and Russia ) are going to bail Serbia out with test kits.

    Extraordinary address the president of Serbia, the largest #EU membership candidate now banned from importing medical kit. "European solidarity does not exist. It was a fairy-tale the only country who can help us out of this difficult situation is China." #coronavirus https://t.co/JTbtPCS6NK 

    -- Bojan Pancevski (@bopanc) March 16, 2020

    Despite their rather different geopolitical viewpoints, European attitudes to both Serbia and the Ukraine are quite similar. They are to be exploited to the extent they are useful; otherwise discarded as needed. It's a lesson they should mull over.


    Dmitry , says: Show Comment March 21, 2020 at 11:11 pm GMT

    Why are you sensitive about what some article said in an American newspaper about Russia? Who cares? Half of articles in Russian websites are often ten times more stupid than even articles in American websites (which are already stupid), and people in America don't care about that.

    Also, I read only CNN's article on the topic, and I notice it follows the pattern that CNN report more accurately outside America, than they do in America. I.e. They are more objective (like most people) writing about things which are far away from them
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/21/europe/putin-coronavirus-russia-intl/index.html

    Felix Keverich , says: Show Comment March 21, 2020 at 11:37 pm GMT

    Business Insider: Doctors in Russia are accusing the government of covering up its coronavirus outbreak and denying them protective equipment

    I have to say that on reddit this kind of conspiratorial crap gets a LOT of interest and upvotes, an order of magnitude more upvotes than the factual Russian news. It seems that a large chunk of Western public feels better about themselves and their situation, "knowing" that there is terrible epidemic going on in Russia.

    So these articles are actually having therapeutic effect on Western societies: ordinary people in West take comfort in [imaginary] Russian suffering.

    Dmitry , says: Show Comment March 21, 2020 at 11:40 pm GMT
    Serbia and Ukraine should have less developed epidemic of coronavirus, compared to most European countries, as they are one of the minority of European countries which is not in the EU.

    As a result, they should have less per capita connectivity to Northern Italy, that is the "staging point" for the coronavirus epidemic's invasion into Europe.

    Well, perhaps I am wrong about Serbia, as it is a neighbouring country to Italy. But the EU has a very intense labour mobility and incredibly amount of flights between themselves, if we would look at flightradar on a normal week.

    Of course, now flightradar is pretty crazy and not quite representative of last month. https://www.flightradar24.com/59.77,29.75/8

    But EU is still covered by flights. While planes are generally avoiding Serbia and Ukraine. Russia is almost disconnected from Europe now by planes (except for cargo planes). However, even in normal, pre-Coronavirus times, Russia (as well as Ukraine) is far more disconnected than any EU country, and is never blanketed by flights on flightradar in the same way as Europe.

    Perhaps Serbia still receives a lot of entry by people in buses and cars.

    Aedib , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 12:24 am GMT
    Wishing the virus to hit hard Russia is a way Westerners try to cover their incompetence. There is an explosion of new cases in the USA but the American MSM keeps its Russophobe obsession.

    Today new cases in USA reached the numbers of Italy

    Mikhail , says: Website Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT
    @Anatoly Karlin From the MSN homepage:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-does-russia-population-144-million-have-fewer-coronavirus-cases-than-luxembourg/ar-BB11vhDw?li=BBnb7Kz

    Mikhail , says: Website Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 12:47 am GMT
    In line:

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/coronavirus-coming-russia-134797

    Not among the worst:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/world/europe/russia-coronavirus-covid-19.html

    utu , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 4:35 am GMT
    https://www.rt.com/russia/483744-russia-doctor-coronavirus-holiday/
    " A leading infectious diseases specialist in Russia's southern Stavropol region endangered the lives of dozens of her colleagues and students by failing to self-quarantine after a holiday in Spain, where she contracted coronavirus."
    last straw , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT
    I think some Western journalists also want to see a second wave in China/Asia.
    JimDandy , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 4:57 am GMT
    Just read the headline and thought, "Western journalists really want there to be a huge corona epidemic in America ."

    We all remember Bill Maher, to his credit, admitting to wanting what so many Progressives pray for -- a brutal recession that would sink Tump's chances of reelection -- but I am continually astounded by the fact that the MSM's hysterical, cult-like fervor for destroying Trump, even to the tragic detriment of the American people, simply will not exhaust itself. It is, if you will, a virus that keeps mutating into more and more virulent strains.

    I think American-journalist-as-suicide-bomber is the number one potential threat to the United States, and preventing this should be the FBI's number one priority. Thx.

    Alfa158 , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 7:33 am GMT
    @yakushimaru The Chinese economy has at least one good thing going for it. They are the world's manufacturing floor. Ultimately they can still make things unlike the US which has hollowed itself out. Refilling the world supply chain gives them an advantage in recovering faster than the US will.
    JL , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 8:04 am GMT
    @Dmitry Don't be silly, there are entire organizations in the West dedicated to fact checking Russian news agencies and publishing their mistakes. So Anatoly's counterparts in the West do seem to care, they seem to care very much. Furthermore, there is the asymmetry between the geopolitical power of the two countries which makes what Americans write about Russia much more important than the inverse.

    AK has been covering this topic for years, so it may not be interesting to you, but it is to him. And we come here, partly, because he writes about what he wants to, not what others want him to. You, yourself, pointed this out.

    Realist , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 11:33 am GMT

    Western Journalists Really Want There to be a Huge Corona Epidemic in Russia

    Correction: The Deep State Really Want There to be a Huge Corona Epidemic in Russia and China.

    Beckow , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 12:07 pm GMT
    Western media openly wishing that a plague strikes Russia is very low class. It has a minor therapeutic role for the West to show that the evil ones are also suffering. But it is basically a continuing descent into hysteria. Next we will hear that Putin was spotted poisoning wells in Italy. (Sneaky bastard, probably used a face-mask, he is after all a trained KGB spy.)

    Regarding facts: it is a truism that all numbers are understated. There must be at this point millions of people around the world who have been exposed and most will never know about it. Corona hurts the old and the sick, most other people probably wouldn't know it was happening without the media. In a preventive way it might actually benefit young, healthy people to be exposed when their bodies can develop immunity -- you don't in general get the same virus twice.

    But a decision was made to protect our elders and it is a humane thing to do. And the usual suspects can't avoid their low class ideological manias, attacking China, Russia and/or Trump. These days they mostly work in the Western media. One wonders how that happened.

    LondonBob , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 12:16 pm GMT
    @Aedib That Russia proves, like China, to be more competent again is another nail in the coffin for the ruling sixties liberal ideology.
    Realist , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 12:50 pm GMT
    @LondonBob Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.

    https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/liberal-npcs-hate-russia-conservative-npcs-hate-china-9b4ac2f853

    Ms Karlin-Gerard , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 1:50 pm GMT
    @utu This was actually going to be the subject of my next post. She is the chief infectious disease doctor for Stavropol!

    She went to Madrid , from March 6th- March 9th- the exact period when cases in Spain started ballooning up (420 went to 1200)

    She has infected 11 other people, at least, in Stavropol and also taken part in a conference there where about 1000 people attended.

    I don't know if it was definitely a holiday -- sure, those are weekend dates and Madrid is a wonderful place but infections there then still exceeded
    the number in Russia now.

    Dacian Julien Soros , says: Show Comment March 22, 2020 at 2:54 pm GMT
    This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system, despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.

    It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.

    Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used. It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes, tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about "failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin exploited it for propaganda.

    One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site. Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".

    By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance "Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a 10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.

    Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist, perhaps?

    [Mar 24, 2020] Western vs Russian propaganda

    Mar 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Ms Karlin-Gerard , says: Show Comment March 23, 2020 at 12:32 am GMT

    @Dmitry Can you show me even ONE article or report from Izvestiya, life, kp. Vz, RBK, vesti, Channel 1 etc that is stupid about the west? I can't because most of them are extremely well written.
    The inverse situation? . I have just read 3 cretinous western lie reports about Russia/coronavirus in the last half an hour! Each one born out of jealousy or CIA psyops There is no comparison to make at all. You are doing false equivalence.

    Gayropa DOES exist. It is a thing, an ideology

    Your premise is absurd-50 % because Russian journalists are a lot more intellectual than their western counterparts . and the other 50 % is quite naturally because millions of Russians have closely admired or studied or been influenced by western practises and popular culture in the last 30 years .. than vice versa.

    Kiselyov has had an American wife, speaks English, family in Germany and has done many excellent reports on western countries.

    Brilyev speaks perfect English and is a British citizen.

    Solovyov knows Italy and the US very well and on his talk shows he has done many objective, constructive/positive comments about American business climate and bureaucracy, for instance.

    Can you compare any of those guys to their dumb as f ** k western counterparts trying to do a report on Russia?

    Different matter if you are talking about RT – that is lowest of the low, anti-russian, garbage.

    who cares? Half of Russian articles are 10 times more stupid than US ones

    Who cares ? Because the culmination of these deceitful idiot scumbag stories is what creates the momentum to ban Russia from the Olympics based on "collective" not individual punishment , pull Ukraine away from Russia, make a friend of mine be too scared to come to Russia on holiday because "the police will arrest you there for no reason" BS.,dissuade investors from billions in investment because of PR, not practical reasons. create the conditions so that self-discrediting freaks like Browder and Rodchenkov can say any BS as a pretext to sanction russia with zero chance of getting refuted because of the "they will get killed" by Russian agents if they go into the public (whilst going to the public) theory- a hypothesis based on other lie reporting.

    Russian media will make clear that its a disgrace the number of people the US police shoot dead each year- but they won't say or imply that Russian tourists will get shot by US police or dissuade them from going on holiday there.

    [Mar 22, 2020] Liberal NPCs Hate Russia, Conservative NPCs Hate China

    Mar 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Jackrabbit , Mar 21 2020 23:10 utc | 54

    Caitlin Johnstone also sees the response being manipulated to focus hate on China: Liberal NPCs Hate Russia, Conservative NPCs Hate China

    But she sees this China-bashing as mostly a political reaction:

    In reality these people are rallying behind the campaign to blame China for the health crisis they're now facing because they understand that otherwise the blame will land squarely on the shoulders of their president, who's running for re-election this year.
    instead of a deliberate Deep-State strategy (which is my view).

    We can argue who created the virus (I'm still looking for any rebuttal to the Chinese claim that USA must be the source because it has all five strains of the virus), but the Empire's gaming of the virus outbreak seems very clear to me.

    !!

    [Mar 21, 2020] When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply

    Highly recommended!
    Mar 22, 2020 | https://www.moonofalabama.org

    Dick | Mar 22 2020 0:48 utc | 66

    When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply. (repost):

    1. Avoid abstract ideas - appeal to the emotions. When we think emotionally, we are more prone to be irrational and less critical in our thinking. I can remember several instances where this has been employed by the US to prepare the public with a justification of their actions. Here are four examples:

      The Invasion of Grenada during the Reagan administration was said to be necessary to rescue American students being held hostage by Grenadian coup authorities after a coup that overthrew the government. I had a friend in the 82nd airborne division that participated in the rescue. He told me the students said they were hiding in the school to avoid the fighting by the US military, and had never been threatened by any Grenadian authority and were only hiding in the school to avoid all the fighting. Film of the actual rescue broadcast on the mainstream media was taken out of context; the students were never in danger.

      The invasion of Panama in the late 80's was supposedly to capture the dictator Manual Noriega for international crimes related to drugs and weapons. I remember a headline covered by all the media where a Navy lieutenant and his wife were detained by the police. His wife was sexually assaulted while in custody, according to the story. Unfortunately, it never happened. It was intended to get the public emotionally involved to support the action.

      The invasion of Iraq in the early 90's was preceded by a speech by a girl describing the Iraqi army throwing babies out of incubators so the equipment could be transferred to Iraq. It turns out the girl was the daughter of one of the Kuwait's ruling sheiks and the event never occurred. However, it served its purpose by getting the American public involved emotionally supporting the war.

      During the build up to the bombing campaign by NATO against Libya, a woman entered a hotel where reporters were staying claiming she was raped by several police officers of the Gaddafi security services. The report was carried by most media outlets as representative of the brutality of the Gaddafi regime. I was not able to verify if this story was true or not, but it fits the usual method employed to gain public support through propaganda for military interventions.

      The greatest emotion in us is fear and fear is used extensively to make us think irrationally. I remember growing up during the cold war having the fear of nuclear war or 'The Russians are coming!' After the cold war without an obvious enemy, it was Al Qaeda even before 911, so we had 'Al Qaeda is coming!' Now we have 'ISIS is coming!' with media blasting us with terrorist fears. Whenever I hear a government promoting an emotional issue or fear mongering, I ignore them knowing there is a hidden Truth behind the issue.

    2. Constantly repeat just a few ideas. Use stereotyped phrases. This could be stated more plainly as 'Keep it simple, stupid!' The most notorious use of this technique recently was the Bush administration. Everyone can remember 'We must fight them over there rather than over here' or my favourite 'They hate us for our freedoms'. Neither of these phrases made any rational sense despite 911. The last thing Muslims in the Middle East care about is American's freedoms, maybe it was all the bombs the US was dropping on them.
    3. Give only one side of the argument and obscure history. Watching mainstream media in the US, you can see all the news is biased to the American view as an example. This is prevalent within Australian commercial media and newspapers giving only a western view, but fortunately, we have the SBS and the ABC that are very good, certainly not perfect, at providing both sides of a story. In addition, any historical perspective is ignored keeping the citizenry focused on the here and now. Can any of you remember any news organisation giving an in depth history of Ukraine or Palestine? I cannot.
    4. Demonize the enemy or pick out one special "enemy" for special vilification. This is obvious in politics where politicians continuously criticise their opponents. Of course, demonization is more productively applied to international figures or nations such as Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Gaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, the Taliban and just recently Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine, Crimea and Syria. It establishes a negative emotional view of either a nation (i.e. Iran) or a known figure (i.e. Putin) making us again think emotionally, rather than rationally, making it easier to promote evil acts upon a nation or a known figure. Certainly some of these groups or individuals were less than benign, but not necessarily demons as depicted in the west.
    5. Appear humanitarian in work and motivations. The US has used this technique often to validate foreign interventions or ongoing conflicts where the term 'Right to Protect' is used for justification. Everyone should remember the many stories about the abuse of women in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's supposed brutality toward his people. The recent attack on Syria by the US, UK, and France was depicted as an Humanitarian intervention by the UK Government, which was far from the truth. One thing that always amazes me is when the US sends humanitarian aid to a country it is accompanied by the US military. In Haiti some years back, the US sent troops with no other country doing so. The recent Ebola outbreak in Africa saw US troops sent to the area. How are troops going to fight a medical outbreak? No doubt, they are there for other reasons.

    6. Obscure one's economic interests. Who believes the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction? Or the constant threats against Iran are for their nuclear program? Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no one has presented firm evidence Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons. The West has been interfering in the Middle East since the British in the late 19th century. It is all about oil and the control over the resources. In fact, if one researches the cause of wars over the last hundred years, you will always find economics was a major component driving the rush to war for most of them.

    7. Monopolize the flow of information. This is the most important principle and mainly entails setting the narrative by which all subsequent events can be based upon or interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the narrative. The narrative does not need to be true; in fact, it can be anything that suits the monopoliser as long as it is based loosely on some event. It is critical to have at least majority control of media and the ability to control the message so the flow of information is consistent with the narrative. This has been played out on mainstream media concerning the Ukrainian conflict, Syrian conflict, and the Skirpal affair. Just over the last couple of years, we have all been subjected to propaganda in one form or another. Remember the US wanting to bomb Syria because of the sarin gas attack, it was later determined to be false (see Seymour Hersh 'Whose Sarin'). The shoot down of MH17 was immediately blamed on Russia by the west without any convincing proof (setting the narrative). It amazes me just how fast the story died after the initial saturation in the media. When I awoke that morning in July, I heard on the news PM Tony Abbot blaming Russia for the incident only hours afterward. How could he know Russia shot down the plane? The investigation into the incident had not even begun, so I suspect he was singing from the West's hymnbook in a standard setting the narrative scenario.

    [Mar 21, 2020] RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 19 MARCH 2020 (by Patrick Armstrong) - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Mar 21, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 19 MARCH 2020 (by Patrick Armstrong)


    (NOTE: Away in Feb, felled by severe cold this moth. Not.not CV)

    PUTIN 4EVER. ( Russian Constitution text .) In January Putin suggested some amendments to the Constitution to be discussed and put to national vote in a referendum. Which is, I suppose, close enough to the amending procedure set out in Chapter 9. A commission was quickly set up and amendment suggestions came in. The final ones reflected the rather traditionalist flavour of Russia – marriage is between a man and a woman, a reference to God, indissolubility of Russian territory and some social guarantees. ( Wikipedia list .)

    Two proposals reflect what Russia has learned in the three decades since the first version. Russian legislation will now take primacy over international law and office holders cannot have dual citizenship or foreign residency permits. This is understandable: the original text had been written at a time when Russians were much more hopeful about the outside world than they are now: grim experience has taught them that "international institutions" are another stick to beat them with. (And, given the chaos and destruction that the self-proclaimed " Rules-Based International Order" has produced, even laudable.)

    Among the changes suggested by Putin and approved was the removal from Article 81.3 of "for more than two terms running"; in short two terms only for a president. So what we were looking at was a slightly less president-dominated system with a two-term president, the end of naïve expectations about the " Rules-Based International Order " and some declarations to make conservatives happy.

    (I do not now remember why the term limit was in the Constitution – my vague memory is that Western advisors insisted on it so as to reduce dictatorship possibilities. There were, I remember, much fear of the Communists coming back in those days. But, a term limit is not normal world practice and most countries don't worry about it – MacKenzie King was PM of Canada for more than 21 years.)

    So far so good and all reasonable enough and sensible.

    Enter Valentina Tereshkova . Since we're changing the Constitution, said she, then we should start the presidential term counting clock all over again. In other words, when Putin finishes this term in 2024, he can run twice more. Did she think this up on her own or was she put up to it? No one seems to know. Putin addressed the Duma, said it was OK with him if the Constitutional Court approved. Which it did. At this point it is reasonable to observe that it is hardly "constitutional" if you rule that any president can restart the clock by making a few twiddles to the Constitution, is it?

    The full package has not yet been approved by a referendum on 22 April but all indications are that it will be: a recent poll showed that a solid majority was quite happy to have Putin stay in office. Meretriciously the voters will be asked to approve the whole package or nothing .

    So, what to say about all this? There are, as usual, several theories. First are those who have said from the beginning that Putin would contrive a way to stay on forever. Well, there isn't much of a retort to them except to to wonder why he didn't just amend Article 81.3, is there? Another theory holds that Putin feels he has to stay on because only he can manage things in the dangerous times of the decline of the Imperium Americanum. In his speech to the Duma he referred to Roosevelt's breaking the two-term custom, adding: " When a country is going through such upheavals and such difficulties (in our case we have not yet overcome all the problems since the USSR, this is also clear), stability may be more important and must be given priority. " Well, that decline is undeniably dangerous and there will be many crisis points; but it will take several dangerous decades and Putin certainly won't be here when the power earthquake is finally over. And there's always some crisis, somewhere. Another idea is that what he has really done is leave the possibility of running again thereby avoiding a lame duck period before he does go in 2024. Maybe: Putin is coy in this interview .

    But, altogether, the manoeuvre leaves a bad taste in the mouth: manipulative, shabby, slipshod, legal only in the most pedantic sense, arbitrary, second-rate and poorly thought out. Very disappointing to someone who thought Putin did not want to be the Turkmenbashi of Russia.


    The Twisted Genius , 19 March 2020 at 05:50 PM

    Patrick, thanks for the detailed explanation of this move. I share your disappointment, but I'm not at all surprised. The earlier constitutional changes left an opening for Putin to continue ruling Russia. This change just makes that opening into a four lane highway. To be fair, I think the majority of politicians vying to lead their countries think they are their countries' best hope. Putin is no different.

    When the USSR first collapsed, the void was immediately filled by many Academy of Science technicians. That didn't last long. They were quickly shunted aside by former CPSU members, a decidedly younger and more pragmatic bunch than the CPSU old guard, but with the same background. I knew some of the academics that were shunted aside. That's why I see only minor differences between the Russia of the Bolsheviki (as my great grandmother called all Russians) and today's Russia of the Russkii.

    Hope you recover from your cold. SWMBO and I had colds for several weeks now and are fearful of being hauled off to an isolation ward if we cough in public.

    Barbara Ann , 19 March 2020 at 06:02 PM
    Good to see you back Patrick.

    "..office holders cannot have dual citizenship or foreign residency permits." No constitution is complete without similar safeguards IMO. Compare and contrast with Iraq, where a dual US citizen, formerly of Bremmer's CPA no less, has just been appointed PM-designate. Perhaps one day Iraq too will get to exert sovereignty over its own constitution.

    Do you have any thoughts on the OPEC+ bust up? Have Putin & MBS cooked this up together to challenge the petrodollar or just poach market share? Thanks.

    Voatboy , 19 March 2020 at 06:27 PM
    >, legal only in the most pedantic sense,

    I am not a lawyer, but all modern laws seem corrupt to me. All modern laws seem to uphold the letter of the law and subvert the spirit of the law. All modem laws seem to be legal only in a pedantic sense. Let us pray that my perception is wrong about this, or at least let us hope that most people don't share my perception, because a nation state that is widely perceived to be without meaningful law lacks legitimacy, and thus is unstable.

    Patrick Armstrong , 19 March 2020 at 07:01 PM
    OIL price.
    My first thoughts are 1) yes Putin & Co have decided that it's time to strike at the US 2) lower energy prices will help China a) recover from Covid b) take a big step forward. If so, the next punch may come from Beijing.

    What's going on with MbS? Haven't a clue but I doubt he'll be smiling as the price war drags on.

    Are we going through a Really Big Change Point? My thoughts when Covid appeared (and I'm collecting data) is that 2020 will be the year the West lost its mojo. No longer the Leader, the Most Competent, the Saviour.
    For example this (all based on the prime directive that we're best https://www.statista.com/chart/19790/index-scores-by-level-of-preparation-to-respond-to-an-epidemic/?fbclid=IwAR2dmwOy9_c387cdrOL4f-PdXmr4aWSI684cJx3M98zm31wVIFdw_62tsZg). Hasn't worn well has it?

    So maybe Putin is staying on because he's fired a barrage and wants to be around to mastermind the next stages.

    JerseyJeffersonian , 19 March 2020 at 09:59 PM
    Patrick,

    I think that this oil thing is, indeed, aimed at the fracking "industry". Yes, it is impressive that it is done at all, but it is not now, nor will it ever be likely to be profitable. The yield so rapidly declines, that the capital investment required is not going to be recouped in the vast majority of instances. Thus far, the only thing that has kept it even marginally viable has been the oil price being high enough, coupled with the willingness of investors to set large sums of money on fire. Unless the whole thing were to be nationalized, and accepting plunging into a black hole of misallocated resources by the Fed (nothing new there, so never say never...), that sector is toast.

    But I suspect that Putin has had enough of the Saudis, and the jihadi-supporting Gulfies, setting the Middle East ablaze with the sponsorship of this stuff made possible by the price of oil. This is a matter of national security for Russia, which has had to fight down Wahabbist types in their country, as well as in their near abroad. By slashing the oil price, they undermine that high price and the ability to both support the Wahabbists, and to content their growing and mostly unproductive home populations. I am quite sure that the Russians are also mindful of the threats made against them by the Gulfies around the time of the Sochi Olympics, and it is payback time now. They have helped fight the Islamists to a standstill, and now they are letting the Saudis & ilk reflect on the errors of their ways.

    But the Russians are not just settling into a comfortably numb leaning on the Chinese. As recently clearly seen, China has some feet of clay, and all the big talk about the Belt & Road is scarcely a dome deal. Andrei Martyanov just put up a post about how the Russians are working on developing an access through Azerbaijan & Iran to the Indian Ocean, and thence to India, as well as many other points. It is The Grand Game Redux. And why not, because they are thereby not putting all of their eggs in the Chinese basket.

    And pace McCain, being a gas station with nukes (but way, way more than that...) confers some real advantages. It comes down to EROEI, energy returned on energy invested, and not being limited to "tight oil" as a nationally, territorially controlled resource gives them a leg over. I think of money, in the context of a modern, technological society as nothing more than a proxy for access to energy, and currently it seems as if the Russians have it all over the US & Europe.

    Big doings, and having such an experienced hand on the tiller, with the broad vision that Putin and his team exhibits is a material advantage. Why toss it away when your nation's sovereignty may depend on access to this asset?

    Peter AU1 , 19 March 2020 at 10:16 PM
    I very much doubt Putin will run for president again. His one request for change to the constitution was that "in a row" clause be removed. He has laid the foundations and more. There will be others who can continue the job.

    When the government changed, some of the old guard government moved I think to the security council. Medvedev at least went to the security council. Putin spoke about it in the Tass interviews. If I recall correctly some new planning bodies were set up.
    I suspect this is where Putin is planning to head at the end of his current term.

    Fred , 19 March 2020 at 10:41 PM
    "Russian legislation will now take primacy over international law and office holders cannot have dual citizenship or foreign residency permits"

    A couple of ideas we need to return too ourselves.

    "If so, the next punch may come from Beijing."

    Yep, economic warfare from the East. We need to treat it as such.

    Christian J Chuba , 20 March 2020 at 08:41 AM
    "If the system that he and his team spent 20 years building doesn't work without him then it doesn't work."

    Agreed. In the Oliver Stone interview, derided by his lessers in our MSM, asked a series of questions revealing Putin to be one of those micro-managers who can't delegate. Ironic that Yeltsin, who crushed Russia, managed to find an obscure St. Petersburg politician to succeed him to bring Russia back from ruin.

    Any thoughts on how Russia was able to contain Coronavirus so well? I'm certain do more commerce w/China but Russia still has significant contact.

    Patrick Armstrong , 20 March 2020 at 09:29 AM
    As to Russia and Covid-19. As you may recall Moscow shut its borders pretty quickly -- long before the West did. I hear from contacts that if you arrive at Sheremetyevo, your temperature is taken immediately and other checks are made by people in hazmat suits. Again, anecdotal evidence says this isn't happening in the West. Moscow is building a big hospital (quickly although not as quickly as Beijing did.) Other factors I would suggest is that Russians by and large trust their govt and Moscow has serious civil defence preparations.
    This piece makes interesting reading today. https://www.statista.com/chart/19790/index-scores-by-level-of-preparation-to-respond-to-an-epidemic/?fbclid=IwAR2dmwOy9_c387cdrOL4f-PdXmr4aWSI684cJx3M98zm31wVIFdw_62tsZg
    Patrick Armstrong , 20 March 2020 at 10:30 AM
    Of course there may be a simpler answer: looking across the pond, Putin sees an election between Biden (b Nov 1942) and Trump (b June 1946) and realises that he (b Oct 1952) is just at the start of his career.
    Paul Anderson , 20 March 2020 at 11:23 AM
    Patrick,
    I have to largely agree with your coda. Chretien, King ... while I agree that there need be nothing sacrosanct about term limits, time waits for no man. I lean towards the lame duck thesis, because I suspect the man has to be tired and really would like to take a step back.

    For instance, although the RF seems to be handling this as well as or better than the Western countries (low bar, I know), I have so far seen no evidence that V.V. Putin sees the COVID response as a strategically vital threat / opportunity. If Russia is able to emerge relatively quickly and whole, to join with China and East Asia among those that have demonstrated the efficacy of their cultural / civilizational models, this might prove decisive indeed, and might even succeed in prising Europe from the grip of the U.S. and the comprador Atlanticists.

    With the medical diplomacy to Italy, France, Cuba, Venezuela ... China I think may already be acting on this. I've been surprised not to see more evidence of Russia / China solidarity and joint actions (pace the joint denunciation of Iran sanctions). But, then again, maybe the oil-price war is a coordinated element of this.

    Though the decline of the Imperium will, as you say, not be the work of a day, this particular moment is as dangerous and turbulent as anything we've seen since the Cuban missile crisis. The slope of decline might be quite a bit steeper than any cautious thinker might have imagined just three months ago. Maybe he just can't commit to stepping back now. It does seem sloppy though. Be well, in whatever part of the Dominion that you happen to inhabit.

    Sincerely
    @EmpireinWinter

    Joe Kowalski , 20 March 2020 at 01:38 PM
    Patrick,
    I would suggest that a much more important reason for the new presidential amendment in Russia is the likely, imminent collapse of the United States economy. You need to read and study Rotislav Ischenko's 2015 post which is as follows;
    http://thesaker.is/time-is-running-out-for-pax-americanas-apologists/

    In this post, Ischenko sees that some time in 2016 the U.S. will only get an "hard landing. He ends this post with:

    "The point of no return will pass once and for all sometime in 2016, and America's elite will no longer be able to choose between the provisions of compromise and collapse. The only thing that they will then be able to do is to slam the door loudly, trying to drag the rest of the world after them into the abyss."

    Knowledgeable analysts are writing that this collapse, because of the Coronavirus being a catalyst, will take place in 2020.

    https://www.goldmoney.com/research/goldmoney-insights/the-journey-to-monetary-gold-and-silver

    If the U.S. can stay in its current stagnation mode for the mid-term, IMO Russia would not have made plans to change the constitution in the way you reported. It's governance is in great shape, and I am confident that the new prime minister can continue Putin's work. If the U,.S. economy collapses, we have a different scenario. Putin is needed to manage the U.S. slamming the door when its economy drops into the abyss.

    Patrick Armstrong , 20 March 2020 at 01:57 PM
    There's a lot of ruin in a nation and the USA still has a lot left that isn't ruined.
    But Covid is certainly going to kick it a step down (and the West too) and China will be kicked a step up; so it's a major tremor in the geopolitical tectonic plate movement.
    So I'm sure that that's in there somewhere in the Putin Team's calculation. I do notice that when he talks about the oil price "war" he says "we have a solid safety margin for several years" which suggests a timeline of <5years.
    The problem is that we/I are just speculating: nobody expected this. But we ARE dealing with a team that has shown it can think long term so it is certainly possible that they foresee (accurately IMO) that oil price+covid will be a bad combination for NATOland and the pilot wants to remain at the helm.

    [Mar 20, 2020] Russiagater and greedy bastard. Usual combination. Nothing new, nothing interesting

    Mar 20, 2020 | www.rt.com

    Richard Burr, chair of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, has been accused of deceiving the public about the coronavirus outbreak and seeking to profit from it by dumping stocks that are crashing due to the pandemic. Burr (R-North Carolina) found himself under attack from two directions on Thursday. Early in the day, National Public Radio ran a story based on "secret recordings" from a speech he gave in North Carolina in late February, when he gave oddly specific warnings about Covid-19 to an elite group of donors, while keeping the rest of the American public in the dark.

    SCOOP: Secret recording obtained by NPR shows that Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr raised alarms about Coronavirus weeks ago in private meeting with well-connected constituents -- concerns he never shared with the public https://t.co/afyvzaMyXK

    -- Tim Mak (@timkmak) March 19, 2020

    The North Carolina Republican struck back later in the day, accusing NPR on Twitter of "journalistic malpractice" for "knowingly and irresponsibly" misrepresenting the speech, calling the article a "tabloid-style hit piece."

    By then, however, he was taking flanking fire from a different position. Open Secrets, a "nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit" research group tracking money in politics – with George Soros' Open Society Foundation as one of their biggest donors , mind you – published his financial disclosures, showing that Burr and his wife sold over $1 million worth of stocks in corporations that took it on the chin as the Covid-19 pandemic tanked the US stock markets.

    SCOOP: NC's GOP Senator Richard Burr told the public he was confident the govt can fight off COVID-19 the same time he & his wife sold up to ~$1.5 million stock in major corporations that ended up losing most of their value during the coronavirus pandemic https://t.co/JsXkaxb2Pw pic.twitter.com/lMnnbBfoNZ

    -- Anna Massoglia (@annalecta) March 19, 2020

    Much of the outraged responses to both the NPR and Open Secrets, praising their revelations and demanding Burr be imprisoned – along with the rest of the Republican Party, President Donald Trump, and who knows who else – have been the usual suspects promoting the 'Russiagate' conspiracy theory over the past four years.

    NPR's article was authored by Tim Mak, a Daily Beast alum who famously co-authored a fake Russiagate bombshell in December 2018, accusing the president's son Donald Trump Jr of lying to Congress based on misquoting the publicly available transcript.

    Also on rt.com 'Sound conclusions': Senate panel backs 'Russiagate' intel report

    To make the irony even greater, Burr has been extremely helpful to the 'Russiagate' gang while chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee. For example, he endorsed the infamous "intelligence community assessment" based on wishful thinking . He has also treated the ranking minority member, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) as "co-chair," covering for him even when it emerged that Warner was trying to secretly communicate with the British spy who wrote the debunked anti-Trump "Steele dossier."

    None of it availed Burr one bit when they came for his head, of course – the "R" next to his name automatically made him a Trump supporter in the minds of the woke mob. If it turns out to be true that he knew far more about the dangers of the pandemic but chose to keep silent and profit from it, that would indeed be a colossal dereliction of duty. But as his prior record in overseeing the US spy community indicates, it wouldn't have been the first time.

    Like this story? Share it with a friend!

    [Mar 17, 2020] DOJ drops charges against Russian trolls after they dared demand evidence in US court -- RT USA News

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," ..."
    "... "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination, ..."
    "... "information warfare against the United States of America ..."
    "... The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in court. ..."
    "... The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13 individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques." ..."
    "... Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing in January 2019 that Concord was leaking them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election. ..."
    Mar 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

    The US is dropping the much-hyped indictment for 'election meddling' against a company supposedly behind the so-called Russian troll farm, closing the opening chapter of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russiagate investigation. Further pursuing the case against Concord Management & Consulting LLC, "promotes neither the interests of justice nor the nation's security," the Department of Justice wrote to the federal judge overseeing the case on Monday, in a motion to drop the charges.

    DOJ lawyers cited "recent events and a change in the balance of the government's proof due to a classification determination, " saying only that they submitted further details in a classified addendum.

    Wow.The DOJ moves to dismiss the charges against the Russian Company (Concord) who conducted the alleged "information warfare against the US"The troll case will be dismissed w/ prejudice.How embarrassing for Team Mueller. pic.twitter.com/wfZ78EWgKc

    -- Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) March 16, 2020

    Concord was one of the three companies – the Internet Research Agency is another – and 13 individuals charged in February 2018 with waging "information warfare against the United States of America " using social media.

    Also on rt.com US indicts 13 Russians for 2016 election meddling, but 'no allegations' they influenced outcome

    The DOJ rationalizes the motion to dismiss by arguing that Concord is "a Russian company with no presence in the United States and no exposure to meaningful punishment in the event of a conviction." That has always been the case, however. What really changed since the indictment was filed is the complete implosion of Mueller's case, helped in part by Concord fighting the case in court.

    The motion inadvertently reveals that Mueller's prosecutors never intended the case against Concord, two other entities and 13 individuals to actually go to trial, otherwise they would have anticipated what ended up happening: Concord's lawyers demanding discovery documents from the DOJ, which the US authorities say risks "exposure of law enforcement's tools and techniques."

    But the Russians *did* show up, got to claim they were innocent until proven guilty, availed themselves of discovery, tied up the court in time, cost hundreds of thousands of $ in legal bills for DOJ, and gave Mueller a few black eyes in the process, and ended up victorious

    -- Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 17, 2020

    Mueller's team tried to fight the discovery proceedings by arguing in January 2019 that Concord was leaking them to "discredit " the investigation. Within two months, however, the investigation discredited itself, by having to admit there was no "collusion " between US President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election.

    Also on rt.com Another nail in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim

    They still insisted that Russia had "meddled " in the election, but there too the case proved a problem. Concord successfully petitioned Judge Dabney L. Friedrich in May last year to rebuke the prosecutors for presenting their allegations as facts.

    This is not to say that the DOJ is ready to disavow 'Russiagate' as a debunked conspiracy theory, however. Though the Concord case was dropped, the charges against the Internet Research Agency and the 13 Russian individuals were not. Given that none of them have a presence in the US, and have not dignified the indictment with a response, it is unclear how – if at all – the DOJ intends to proceed with the case.

    Keeping it on the books may keep the flames of 'Russiagate' alive, though, which is very convenient for the media and others heavily invested in the narrative of Moscow somehow menacing US elections, despite not a shred of actual evidence being presented to back it up.

    For a snapshot in time, this was the NYT homepage after the Russian troll farm indictment back in February 2018. Russia, we were told, "is engaged in a virtual war against the United States." pic.twitter.com/Z0xXCZoT9P

    -- Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) March 16, 2020

    Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

    [Mar 17, 2020] Russia Strikes Back Where It Hurts American Oil by Scott Ritter

    Mar 17, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    R ussia and Saudi Arabia are engaged in an oil price war that has sent shockwaves around the world, causing the price of oil to tumble and threatening the financial stability, and even viability, of major international oil companies.

    On the surface, this conflict appears to be a fight between two of the world's largest producers of oil over market share. This may, in fact, be the motive driving Saudi Arabia, which reacted to Russia's refusal to reduce its level of oil production by slashing the price it charged per barrel of oil and threatening to increase its oil production, thereby flooding the global market with cheap oil in an effort to attract customers away from competitors.

    Russia's motives appear to be far different -- its target isn't Saudi Arabia, but rather American shale oil. After absorbing American sanctions that targeted the Russian energy sector, and working with global partners (including Saudi Arabia) to keep oil prices stable by reducing oil production even as the United States increased the amount of shale oil it sold on the world market, Russia had had enough. The advent of the Coronavirus global pandemic had significantly reduced the demand for oil around the world, stressing the American shale producers. Russia had been preparing for the eventuality of oil-based economic warfare with the United States. With U.S. shale producers knocked back on their heels, Russia viewed the time as being ripe to strike back. Russia's goal is simple: to make American shale oil producers " share the pain ".

    The United States has been slapping sanctions on Russia for more than six years, ever since Russia took control (and later annexed) the Crimean Peninsula and threw its weight behind Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The first sanctions were issued on March 6, 2014, through Executive Order 13660 , targeting "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets."

    The most recent round of sanctions was announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on February 18, 2020, by sanctioning Rosneft Trading S.A., a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-owned oil brokerage firm, for operating in Venezuela's oil sector. The U.S. also recently targeted the Russian Nord Stream 2 and Turk Stream gas pipeline projects.

    Russia had been signaling its displeasure over U.S. sanctions from the very beginning. In July 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that U.S. sanctions were "driving into a corner" relations between the two countries, threatening the "the long-term national interests of the U.S. government and people." Russia opted to ride out U.S. sanctions, in hopes that there might be a change of administrations following the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear that he hoped the U.S. might elect someone whose policies would be more friendly toward Russia, and that once the field of candidates narrowed down to a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Putin favored Trump .

    "Yes, I did," Putin remarked after the election, during a joint press conference with President Trump following a summit in Helsinki in July 2018. "Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal."

    Putin's comments only reinforced the opinions of those who embraced allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election as fact and concluded that Putin had some sort of hold over Trump. Trump's continuous praise of Putin's leadership style only reinforced these concerns.

    Even before he was inaugurated, Trump singled out Putin's refusal to respond in kind to President Obama's levying of sanctions based upon the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia had interfered in the election. "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!" Trump Tweeted . Trump viewed the Obama sanctions as an effort to sabotage any chance of a Trump administration repairing relations with Russia, and interpreted Putin's refusal to engage, despite being pressured to do so by the Russian Parliament and Foreign Ministry, as a recognition of the same.

    This sense of providing political space in the face of domestic pressure worked both ways. In January 2018, Putin tried to shield his relationship with President Trump by calling the release of a list containing some 200 names of persons close to the Russian government by the U.S. Treasury Department as a hostile and "stupid" move .

    "Ordinary Russian citizens, employees and entire industries are behind each of those people and companies," Putin remarked. "So all 146 million people have essentially been put on this list. What is the point of this? I don't understand."

    From the Russian perspective, the list highlighted the reality that the U.S. viewed the entire Russian government as an enemy and is a byproduct of the "political paranoia" on the part of U.S. lawmakers. The consequences of this, senior Russian officials warned, "will be toxic and undermine prospects for cooperation for years ahead."

    While President Trump entered office fully intending to " get along with Russia ," including the possibility of relaxing the Obama-era sanctions , the reality of U.S.-Russian relations, especially as viewed from Congress, has been the strengthening of the Obama sanctions regime. These sanctions, strengthened over time by new measures signed off by Trump, have had a negative impact on the Russian economy, slowing growth and driving away foreign investment .

    While Putin continued to show constraint in the face of these mounting sanctions, the recent targeting of Russia's energy sector represented a bridge too far. When Saudi pressure to cut oil production rates coincided with a global reduction in the demand for oil brought on by the Coronavirus crisis, Russia struck.

    The timing of the Russian action is curious, especially given the amount of speculation that there was some sort of personal relationship between Trump and Putin that the Russian leader sought to preserve and carry over into a potential second term. But Putin had, for some time now, been signaling that his patience with Trump had run its course. When speaking to the press in June 2019 about the state of U.S.-Russian relations, Putin noted that "They (our relations) are going downhill, they are getting worse and worse," adding that "The current [i.e., Trump] administration has approved, in my opinion, several dozen decisions on sanctions against Russia in recent years."

    By launching an oil price war on the eve of the American Presidential campaign season, Putin has sent as strong a signal as possible that he no longer views Trump as an asset, if in fact he ever did. Putin had hoped Trump could usher in positive change in the trajectory of relations between the two nations; this clearly had not happened. Instead, in the words of close Putin ally Igor Sechin , the chief executive of Russian oil giant Rosneft, the U.S. was using its considerable energy resources as a political weapon, ushering in an era of "power colonialism" that sought to expand U.S. oil production and market share at the expense of other nations.

    From Russia's perspective, the growth in U.S. oil production -- which doubled in output from 2011 until 2019 -- and the emergence of the U.S. as a net exporter of oil, was directly linked to the suppression of oil export capability in nations such as Venezuela and Iran through the imposition of sanctions. While this could be tolerated when the target was a third party, once the U.S. set its sanctioning practices on Russian energy, the die was cast.

    If the goal of the Russian-driven price war is to make U.S. shale companies "share the pain," they have already succeeded. A similar price war, initiated by Saudi Arabia in 2014 for the express purpose of suppressing U.S. shale oil production, failed, but only because investors were willing to prop up the stricken shale producers with massive loans and infusion of capital. For shale oil producers, who use an expensive methodology of extraction known as "fracking," to be economically viable, the breakeven price of oil per barrel needs to be between $40 and $60 dollars. This was the price range the Saudi's were hoping to sustain when they proposed the cuts in oil production that Russia rejected.

    The U.S. shale oil producers, saddled by massive debt and high operational expenses, will suffer greatly in any sustained oil price war. Already, with the price of oil down to below $35 per barrel, there is talk of bankruptcy and massive job layoffs -- none of which bode well for Trump in the coming election.

    It's clear that Russia has no intention of backing off anytime soon. According to the Russian Finance Ministry , said on Russia could weather oil prices of $25-30 per barrel for between six and ten years. One thing is for certain -- U.S. shale oil companies cannot.

    In a sign that the Trump administration might be waking up to the reality of the predicament it faces, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin quietly met with Russia's Ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov. According to a read out from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the two discussed economic sanctions, the Venezuelan economy, and the potential for "trade and investment." Mnuchin, the Russians noted, emphasized the "importance of orderly energy markets."

    Russia is unlikely to fold anytime soon. As Admiral Josh Painter, a character in Tom Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October," famously said , "Russians don't take a dump without a plan."

    Russia didn't enter its current course of action on a whim. Its goals are clearly stated -- to defeat U.S. shale oil -- and the costs of this effort, both economically and politically (up to and including having Trump lose the 2020 Presidential election) have all been calculated and considered in advance. The Russian Bear can only be toyed with for so long without generating a response. We now know what that response is; when the Empire strikes back, it hits hard.

    Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump (2020).

    [Mar 12, 2020] Did Joe Biden's Former IT Guy Masquerade as Guccifer 2.0 by Larry C Johnson

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... The computer used to create the original Warren Document (dated 2008) was a US Government computer issued to the Obama Presidential Transition Team by the General Services Administration. ..."
    "... The Warren Document and the 1.DOC were created in the United States using Microsoft Word software (2007) that is registered to the GSA. ..."
    "... The author of both 1.doc and the PDF version is identified as "WARREN FLOOD." ..."
    "... "Russian" fingerprints were deliberately inserted into the text and the meta data of "1.doc." ..."
    "... This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA product. ..."
    "... If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? ..."
    "... The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress. ..."
    "... There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July 26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC: ..."
    "... A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation. ..."
    "... Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url. ..."
    "... It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us. ..."
    Mar 12, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    Why does the name of Joe Biden's former Internet Technology guru, Warren Flood, appear in the meta data of documents posted on the internet by Guccifer 2.0? In case you do not recall, Guccifer 2.0 was identified as someone tied to Russian intelligence who played a direct role in stealing emails from John Podesta. The meta data in question indicates the name of the person who actually copied the original document. We have this irrefutable fact in the documents unveiled by Guccifer 2.0--Warren Flood's name appears prominently in the meta data of several documents attributed to "Guccifer 2.0." When this transpired, Flood was working as the CEO of his own company, BRIGHT BLUE DATA. (brightbluedata.com). Was Flood tasked to masquerade as a Russian operative?

    Give Flood some props if that is true--he fooled our Intelligence Community and the entire team of Mueller prosecutors into believing that Guccifer was part of a Russian military intelligence cyber attack. But a careful examination of the documents shows that it is highly unlikely that this was an official Russian cyber operation. Here's what the U.S. Intelligence Community wrote about Guccifer 2.0 in their very flawed January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment:

    We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

    The laxity of the Intelligence Community in dealing with empirical evidence was matched by a disturbing lack of curiosity on the part of the Mueller investigators and prosecutors. Here's the tall tale they spun about Guccifer 2.0:

    On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were responsible for the breach. Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.

    [Apelbaum note--According to Crowdstrike and Special Counsel Mueller, both were present, APT28 AKA "Fancy Bear" and APT29 AKA "Cozy Bear".]

    The claims by both the Intelligence Community and the Mueller team about Guccifer 2.0 are an astounding, incredible denial of critical evidence pointing to a U.S. actor, not a Russian or Romanian. No one in this "august" group took the time to examine the metadata on the documents posted by "Guccifer 2.0" to his website on June 15, 2016.

    I wish I could claim credit for the following forensic analysis, but the honors are due to Yaacov Apelbaum. While there are many documents in the Podesta haul that match the following pattern, this analysis focuses only on a document originally created by the DNC's Director of Research, Lauren Dillon. This document is the Trump Opposition Report document.

    According to Apelbaum , the Trump Opposition Report document, which was "published" by Guccifer 2.0, shows clear evidence of digital manipulation:

    1. A US based user (hereafter referred to as G2 ) operating initially from the West coast and then, subsequently, from the East coast, changes the MS Word 2007 and Operating System language settings to Russian.
    2. G2 opens and saves a document with the file name, "12192015 Trump Report - for dist-4.docx". The document bears the title, "Donald Trump Report" (which was originally composed by Lauren Dillon aka DILLON REPORT) as an RTF file and opens it again.
    3. G2 opens a second document that was attached to an email sent on December 21, 2008 to John Podesta from [email protected]. This WORD document lists prospective nominees for posts in the Department of Agriculture for the upcoming Obama Administration. It was generated by User--Warren Flood--on a computer registered to the General Services Administration (aka GSA) named "Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20-3.doc", which was kept by Podesta on his private Gmail account. (I refer to this as the "WARREN DOCUMENT" in this analysis.)
    4. G2 deletes the content of the 2008 Warren Document and saves the empty file as a RTF, and opens it again.
    5. G2 copies the content of the 'Dillon Report' (which is an RTF document) and pastes it into the 2008 Warren Document template, i.e. the empty RTF document.
    6. G2 user makes several modifications to the content of this document. For example, the Warren Document contained the watermark--"CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT". G2 deleted the word "DRAFT" but kept the "CONFIDENTIAL" watermark.
    7. G2 saves this document into a file called "1.doc". This document now contains the text of the original Lauren Dillon "Donald Trump Report" document, but also contains Russian language URL links that generate error messages.
    8. G2's 1.DOC (the Word version of the document) shows the following meta data authors:
      • Created at 6/15/2016 at 1:38pm by "WARREN FLOOD"
      • Last Modified at 6/15/2016 at 1:45pm by "Феликс Эдмундович" (Felix Edmundovich, the first and middle name of Dzerzhinsky, the creator of the predecessor of the KGB. It is assumed the Felix Edmundovich refers to Dzerzhinsky.)
    9. G2 also produces a pdf version of this document almost four hours later. It is created at 6/15/201`6 at 5:54:15pm by "WARREN FLOOD."
    10. G2 first publishes "1.doc" to various media outlets and then uploads a copy to the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress website (which is hosted in the United States).

    There are several critical facts from the metadata that destroy the claim that Guccifer 2.0 was a Romanian or a Russian.

    This begs a very important question. Did Warren Flood actually create these documents or was someone masquerading as Warren Flood? Unfortunately, neither the Intelligence Community nor the Mueller Special Counsel investigators provided any evidence to show they examined this forensic data. More troubling is the fact that the Microsoft Word processing software being used is listed as a GSA product.

    If this was truly a Russian GRU operation (as claimed by Mueller), why was the cyber spy tradecraft so sloppy? A covert cyber operation is no different from a conventional human covert operation, which means the first and guiding principle is to not leave any fingerprints that would point to the origin of the operation. In other words, you do not mistakenly leave flagrant Russian fingerprints in the document text or metadata. A good cyber spy also will not use computers and servers based in the United States and then claim it is the work of a hacker ostensibly in Romania.

    None of the Russians indicted by Mueller in his case stand accused of doing the Russian hacking while physically in the United States. No intelligence or evidence has been cited to indicate that the Russians stole a U.S. Government computer or used a GSA supplied copy of Microsoft Word to produce the G2 documents.

    The name of Warren Flood, an Obama Democrat activist and Joe Biden's former Director of Information Technology, appears in at least three iterations of these documents. Did he actually masquerade as Guccifer 2.0? If so, did he do it on his own or was he hired by someone else? These remain open questions that deserve to be investigated by John Durham, the prosecutor investigating the attempted coup against Donald Trump, and/or relevant committees of the Congress.

    There are other critical unanswered questions. Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to James come on July 26, 2016 about the the DNC hack. Lynch wrote concerning press reports that Russia attacked the DNC:

    If foreign intelligence agencies are attempting to undermine that process, the U.S. government should treat such efforts even more seriously than standard espionage. These types ofcyberattacks are significant and pernicious crimes. Our government must do all that it can to stop such attacks and to seek justice for the attacks that have already occurred.

    We are writing to request more information on this cyberattack in particular and more information in general on how the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF attempt to prevent and punish these types ofcyberattacks. Accordingly, please respond to the following by August 9, 2016:

    1. When did the Department of Justice, FBI, and NCIJTF first learn of the DNC hack? Was the government aware ofthe intrusion prior to the media reporting it?
    2. Has the FBI deployed its Cyber Action Team to determine who hacked the DNC?
    3. Has the FBI determined whether the Russian government, or any other foreign
      government, was involved in the hack?
    4. In general, what actions, if any, do the Justice Department, FBI, and NCIJTF take to prevent cyberattacks on non-governmental political organizations in the U.S., such as campaigns and political parties? Does the government consult or otherwise communicate with the organizations to inform them ofpotential threats, relay best practices, or inform them ofdetected cyber intrusions.
    5. Does the Justice Department believe that existing statutes provide an adequate basis for addressing hacking crimes of this nature, in which foreign governments hack seemingly in order to affect our electoral processes?

    So far no document from Comey to Lynch has been made available to the public detailing the FBI's response to Lynch's questions. Why was the Cyber Action Team not deployed to determine who hacked the DNC? A genuine investigation of the DNC hack/leak should have included interviews with all DNC staff, John Podesta, Warren Flood and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post reporter who broke the story of the DNC hack. Based on what is now in the public record, the FBI failed to do a proper investigation.

    Recent Comments

    h | 12 March 2020 at 12:08 PM

    Of course sleepy Joe was in on the overall RussiaGate operation. And now another reasonable question by sleuth extraordinaire will fall into the memory hole b/c no one who has the authority and the power in DC is ever going to address, let alone, clean up and hold accountable any who created this awful mess.

    Resolving who was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks seems to me to be a rather simple investigative exercise. That is, somebody registered and bought the names of G2 and DCL. One can't have a Wordpress blog without purchasing a url. So, there is a record of this registration, right? Simply subpoena the company who sold/rented the url.

    What's troubling to me is that even the most simplest investigative acts to find answers never seems to happen. Instead, more than three years later we're playing 'Whodunit.'

    It's been over 3 years now and if we had a truly functioning intel/justice apparatus this simple act would have been done long ago and then made public. Yet, here we are more than three years later trying to unravel, figure out or resolve the trail of clues via metadata the pranksters left behind.

    It's now obvious that we don't have a functioning intel/justice apparatus in the U.S. This is the message sent and received by the intel/justice shops over and again. They no longer work for Americans rather they work against us.

    [Mar 10, 2020] The American conference in Bratislava in the Slovak Republic in April 2000 made the American goal for Europe clear: An Iron Curtain between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, with hopefully Russia be eventually divided or broken up into smaller states

    Mar 10, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Malbrough , says: Show Comment March 10, 2020 at 2:50 am GMT

    In an op-ed in the Financial Times on March 4th, he [Soros] urged that "Europe must stand with Turkey over Putin's war crimes in Syria," an astonishing misreading of the situation in the region as Turkey is the aggressor while Russia is fighting to eliminate the last major terrorist enclave in Idlibt.

    " Defender 2020" is a "maneuvre of shame"
    by Willy Wimmer
    former State Secretary at the German Ministry of Defence

    "The German Chancellor, Dr Angela Merkel, is breaking a taboo by allowing German soldiers to participate in the biggest NATO manoeuvre since the end of the Cold War against Russia .

    It is therefore no wonder that the German Federal Government in May 2019 did not commemorate the "Versailles" of one hundred years ago, nor did the German President do so in a commemoration ceremony for which he can be held accountable. Versailles does not only mean "the demon of revenge", but also a deliberate inability to strive for peace.

    This way of thinking is expressed once again in the NATO major manoeuvre, deliberately planned for the 9 May, the day the war ended in 1945. As if the fact had needed further proof that the "NATO West" cannot make peace, it can only make war, be that war cold or hot.

    The American conference in Bratislava in the Slovak Republic in April 2000 made the American goal for Europe clear: An Iron Curtain between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, Russia can stay anywhichwhere, and be divided or broken up into smaller states. The NATO manoeuvre called "Defender 2020" is a "manoeuvre of shame" that only serves the warmongers . "

    [Mar 10, 2020] The Long Roots of Our Russophobia by Jeremy Kuzmarov

    Notable quotes:
    "... Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria ..."
    "... Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or characteristics." ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most insidiously by the nation's foreign policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand chess-masters seeking to checkmate their Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian heartland. ..."
    "... This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian bear as a menace to Western civilization. ..."
    Mar 06, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
    For the last five years, the American media has been filled with scurrilous articles demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Putin has been accused of every crime imaginable, from shooting down airplanes, to assassinating opponents, to invading neighboring countries, to stealing money to manipulating the U.S. president and helping to rig the 2016 election.

    Few of the accusations directed against Putin have ever been substantiated and the quality of journalism has been at the level of "yellow journalism."

    In a desperate attempt to sustain their political careers, centrist Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton accused their adversaries of being Russian agents – again without proof.

    And even the progressive hero Bernie Sanders – himself a victim of red-baiting – has engaged in Russia bashing and unsubstantiated accusations for which he offers no proof.

    Guy Mettan's book, Creating Russophobia: From the Great Religious Schism to Anti-Putin Hysteria (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2017) provides needed historical context for our current political moment, showing how anti-Russian hysteria has long proliferated as a means of justifying Western imperialism.

    Mettan is a Swiss journalist and member of parliament who learned about the corruption of the media business when his reporting on the world anticommunist league rankled his newspapers' shareholders, and when he realized that he was serving as a paid stenographer for the Bosnian Islamist leader Alija Izetbegovic in the early 1990s.

    Mettan defines Russophobia as the promotion of negative stereotypes about Russia that associate the country with despotism, treachery, expansion, oppression and other negative character traits. In his view, it is "not linked to specific historical events" but "exists first in the head of the one who looks, not in the victim's alleged behavior or characteristics."

    Like anti-semitism, Mettan writes, "Russophobia is a way of turning specific pseudo-facts into essential one-dimensional values, barbarity, despotism, and expansionism in the Russian case in order to justify stigmatization and ostracism."

    The origins of Russophobic discourse date back to a schism in the Church during the Middle Ages when Charlemagne was crowned emperor of the Roman empire and modified the Christian liturgy to introduce reforms execrated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine empire.

    Mettan writes that "the Europe of Charlemagne and of the year 1000 was in need of a foil in the East to rebuild herself, just as the Europe of the 2000s needs Russia to consolidate her union."

    Before the schism, European rulers had no negative opinions of Russia. When Capetian King Henri I found himself a widower, he turned towards the prestigious Kiev kingdom two thousand miles away and married Vladimir's granddaughter, Princess Ann.

    A main goal of the new liturgy adopted by Charlemagne was to undermine any Byzantine influence in Italy and Western Europe.

    Over the next century, the schism evolved from a religious into a political one.

    The Pope and the top Roman administration made documents disappear and truncated others in order to blame the Easterners.

    Byzantium and Russia were in turn rebuked for their "caesaropapism," or "Oriental style despotism," which could be contrasted which the supposedly enlightened, democratic governing system in the West.

    Russia was particularly hated because it had defied efforts of Western European countries to submit to their authority and impose Catholicism.

    In the 1760s, French diplomats working with a variety of Ukrainian, Hungarian and Polish political figures produced a forged testament of Peter 1 ["The Great"] purporting to reveal Russia's 'grand design' to conquer most of Europe.

    This document was still taken seriously by governments during the Napoleanic wars; and as late as the Cold War, President Harry Truman found it helpful in explaining Stalin.

    In Britain, the Whigs, who represented the liberal bourgeois opposition to the Tory government and its program of free-trade imperialism, were the most virulent Russophobes, much like today's Democrats in the United States.

    The British media also enflamed public opinion by taking hysterical positions against Russia – often on the eve of major military expeditions.

    The London Times during the 1820s Greek Independence war editorialized that no "sane person" could "look with satisfaction at the immense and rapid overgrowth of Russian power." The same thing was being written in The New York Times in the 2010s.

    A great example of the Orientalist stereotype was Bram Stoker's novel Dracula , whose main character was modeled after Russian ruler, Ivan the Terrible. As if no English ruler in history was cruel either.

    The Nazis took Russo-phobic discourse to new heights during the 1930s and 1940s, combining it with a virulent anti-bolshevism and anti-semitism.

    A survey of German high school texts in the 1960s found little change in the image of Russia. The Russians were still depicted as "primitive, simple, very violent, cruel, mean, inhuman, cupid and very stubborn."

    The same stereotypes were displayed in many Hollywood films during the Cold War, where KGB figures were particularly maligned. No wonder that when a former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, took power, people went insane. Russophobia in the United States has been advanced most insidiously by the nation's foreign policy elite who have envisioned themselves as grand chess-masters seeking to checkmate their Russian adversary in order to control the Eurasian heartland.

    This view is little different than European colonial strategists who had learned of the importance of molding public opinion through disinformation campaigns that depicted the Russian bear as a menace to Western civilization.

    Guy Mettan has written a thought-provoking book that provides badly needed historical context for the anti-Russian delirium gripping our society.

    Breaking the taboo on Russophobia is of vital importance in laying the groundwork for a more peaceful world order and genuinely progressive movement in the United States. Unfortunately, recent developments don't inspire much confidence that history will be transcended. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Jeremy Kuzmarov Jeremy Kuzmarov is the author of The Russians are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce (Monthly Review Press, 2018) and Obama's Unending Wars: Fronting for the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019).

    [Mar 09, 2020] Defender of Europe 2020: a Dangerous Provocation on Russia's Border

    Mar 09, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
    by Ellen Taylor At this very moment thousands of US soldiers are disembarking from troop transports in six European countries and rushing toward prepositioned munitions around Europe, to deploy weapons as swiftly as possible.

    This excitement marks the beginning of "Defender Europe 2020", the largest military exercises to be staged in Europe in over 25 years. Strategists will record how swiftly our forces can reach the Russian border, and test our NATO allies.

    There has already been a massive US build-up in the countries bordering Russia.

    In the words of Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, "The last 18 years of conflict built muscle memory in counterinsurgency, but with this came atrophy in other areas. We are now engaging these other muscle groups."

    General Tod Wolters, Commander of US forces in Europe and of NATO, has stated, "I'm in favor of a flexible first-use (nuclear weapon) policy."

    The US has withdrawn from the INF treaty.

    Most diabolical and chilling of all: the exercises will come to a climax in June, which is the 75 th anniversary of Operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, which killed 27 million people. Russians born in 1930 turn 90 this year. They remember. The heart and soul of Russia remembers as well.

    Russian Chief General Gerasimov is convinced the US is preparing for war. All it would take for an attack is one false-flag operation.

    The people of the world lie in helpless ignorance. And the Doomsday clock moves 20 seconds closer to midnight.

    [Mar 09, 2020] HMG novel on what happened to the Skripal's is unbelievable. Has the quality of modern day Agatha Christie's deteriorated that much?

    Mar 09, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Tom , Mar 8 2020 22:57 utc | 38

    New article from John Helmer "MI6 & BBC REVEAL OPERATION MINCEPIE – SKRIPAL BLOOD-TESTS AT SALISBURY HOSPITAL FAILED TO SHOW NERVE AGENT UNTIL PORTON DOWN ADDED IT FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO ANNOUNCE".

    "The evidence of the Salisbury hospital personnel has been reviewed by a sharp-eyed English analyst who prefers anonymity and an internet handle called Twiki. He has discovered that the blood testing of the Skripals for at least 36 hours after their hospitalisation – that is between their admission on Sunday afternoon March 4, and the following Tuesday morning March 6 – did not (repeat not) reveal a marker for organo-phosphate nerve agent poisoning; that is, the level of acetylcholinesterase (ACE) in the bloodstream.*"

    It seems to me that HMG fiction writers need to up their game. HMG novel on what happened to the Skripal's is unbelievable. Has the quality of modern day Agatha Christie's deteriorated that much? It seems that the events on March 4th in Salisbury were not anticipated and a clusterfuck of the coverup has no clothes on it.

    [Mar 09, 2020] When two US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, sought to slow the rush of the US executive into emergency measures and war, they and the US Congress they served were hit hard by a military grade bioweapon, anthrax

    Mar 09, 2020 | www.unz.com

    The importance of getting to the factual roots of what happened to put humanity on this epidemiological trajectory should be especially clear after the debacle of September 11, 2001. Without any sustained investigation of the 9/11 crimes, Americans were rushed into cycles of seemingly perpetual warfare abroad, police state and surveillance state interventions at home. This cycle of fast responses began within a month of 9/11 with a full-fledge military invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion that continues yet.

    When two US Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, sought to slow the rush of the US executive into emergency measures and war, they and the US Congress they served were hit hard by a military grade bioweapon, anthrax. The violent tactic of the saboteurs proved effective in easing aside close scrutiny that might have slowed down the fast approval by the end of October of Congress's massive Patriot Act.

    Since then a seemingly endless cycle of military invasions has been pushed forward in the Middle East and Eurasia. The emergency measure powers claimed by the executive branch of the US government extended to widespread illegal torture, domestic spying, media censorship and a meteoric rise in extrajudicial murders especially by drones. This list is far from complete.

    All of these crimes against humanity were justified on the basis of an unproven official explanation of 9/11. Subsequent scholarly investigations have demonstrated unequivocally for the attentive that officialdom's explanations of what transpired on the fateful day in September were wrong, severely wrong. The initial interpretations are strongly at variance with the evidentiary record available on the public record.

    We must not allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in the same manner once again. The stakes are too large, maybe even larger than was the case in 2001. The misinterpreted and misrepresented events of 9/11 were exploited in conformity with the " Shock Doctrine ," a strategy for instituting litanies of invasive state actions that the public would not otherwise have accepted.

    The conscientious portion of humanity, many of whose members have done independent homework of their own on the events of 9/11, will well understand the importance of identifying the actual originating source of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.

    No less than in the wake of the 9/11 debacle , there are grave dangers entailed in being too quick or too naïve or too trustful in immediately accepting as gospel fact the Chinese government's initial explanations of the COVID-19 outbreak. Why not take the time to investigate and test the current interpretations of the authorities that proved themselves to be so wrong in their decision to reprimand Dr. Li?

    Especially when the stakes are extremely high, the need is great for objective, third-party adjudication to establish what really happened irrespective of official interpretations. History provides abundant evidence to demonstrate that official interpretations of transformative events often veer away from the truth in order to serve and protect the interests of entrenched power.

    All semblance of due process and the rule of law can quickly evaporate when powerful institutions advance interpretations of catastrophic events used to justify their own open-ended invocation of unlimited emergency measure powers. The well-documented examples of the misrepresentation and exploitation of the 9/11 debacle demonstrate well the severity of the current danger. The origins of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic have yet to be adequately addressed and explained by a panel of genuinely independent investigators.

    The Chinese Ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai, acknowledged on Feb. 9 on CBS's Face the Nation that there is no certainty about the origins of COVID-19. When asked by CBS's Margaret Brennan where the virus came from, the Chinese Ambassador responded, "We still don't know yet."

    [Mar 06, 2020] Brainwashing works: I have heard people evoke Russia in conspiracies, in real life. Not just on the internet.

    Mar 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

    songbird , says: Show Comment February 26, 2020 at 12:17 am GMT

    @Bill If you view China as a Han ethnic construct, antipathy to it (in the West) is very low compared to most other ethnic constructs: such as core-Americans, European nationalists, or worse still, Russia.

    I've heard people evoke Russia in conspiracies, in real life. Not just on the internet.

    The only large, noteworthy, homogeneous country with lessor antipathy in the West is Japan. But it is something of a double-edged sword, as Japan is nowhere near as praised as China because it doesn't have the same power and has been stagnating.

    [Mar 05, 2020] Intelligence Officials Sow Discord By Stoking Fear of Russian Election Meddling by Dave DeCamp

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF. ..."
    "... Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy. ..."
    "... The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more . ..."
    "... Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored. ..."
    Feb 24, 2020 | original.antiwar.com
    Another presidential election year is upon us, and the intelligence agencies are hard at work stoking fears of Russian meddling. This time it looks like the Russians do not only like the incumbent president but also favor who appears to be the Democratic front-runner, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

    On Thursday, The New York Times ran a story titled , "Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump." The story says that on February 13 th US lawmakers from the House were briefed by intelligence officials who warned them, "Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected."

    The story provides little detail into the briefing and gives no evidence to back up the intelligence officials' claims. It mostly rehashes old claims from the 2016 election, such as Russians are trying to "stir controversy" and "stoke division." The intelligence officials also said the Russians are looking to interfere with the 2020 Democratic primaries.

    It looks like other intelligence officials are already undermining the leaked briefing. CNN ran a story on Sunday titled "US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated assessment of 2020 Russian interference." The CNN article reads, "The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at re-electing Trump, the officials said."

    According to The Times, President Trump was upset with acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire for letting the briefing happen, and Republican lawmakers did not agree with the conclusion since Trump has been "tough" on Russia. In his three years in office, Trump certainly has been tough on Russia, and it is hard to believe that Putin would work to reelect such a Russia hawk.

    Under Trump, NATO has strengthened and held its largest war games since the cold war. The Trump administration withdrew from the Reagan-era nuclear arms treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), an arms control agreement that prohibited Russia and the US from developing medium-range nuclear and ballistic missiles. Shortly after tearing up the treaty, the Pentagon began developing and testing missiles that were banned under the INF.

    The Trump Administration might let another nuclear arms treaty lapse. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits the number of nuclear warheads that Russia and the US can have deployed. The US does not want to re-sign the treaty and is using the excuse that it wants to include China in the deal. China's nuclear arsenal is estimated to be around 300 warheads , which is just one-fifth of the amount that Russia and the US are allowed to have deployed under the New START. It makes no sense for China to limit its deployment of nuclear warheads when its arsenal is nothing compared to the other two superpowers. China appears to be a scapegoat for the US to blame if the treaty does not get renewed. Without the New START, there will be nothing limiting the number of nukes the US and Russia can deploy, making the world a much more dangerous place.

    Despite all the drama over military aid to Ukraine, Trump never actually delayed it, and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes $300 million in lethal aid to Ukraine , $50 million more than the previous year. The NDAA also calls for mandatory sanctions against any companies working on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a natural gas pipeline that connects Russia and Germany. Of all Trump's hawkish policies, his effort to kill the Nord Stream 2 and the pressure he puts on Germany not to buy gas from Russia can do the most damage to Russia's economy.

    The policies listed above are just a few examples of Trump's hostility towards Russia. Others include attempting to overthrow Russia's ally in Venezuela, maintaining a troop presence in Syria to "secure the oil," sanctioning Russian officials and businessman, and much more .

    Despite all these provocations towards Russia, Trump is still accused of being a "puppet" of Vladimir Putin. No matter how much the president moves the US closer to direct confrontation with Russia, the talking heads and pundits of the mainstream media take superficial examples – like the 2018 Helsinki conference – as proof of Trump's loyalty to Putin. Trump's words are put under a microscope, while his policies that make nuclear war more possible are largely ignored.

    The leaked briefing harkens back to an intelligence assessment that came out in January 2017 during the last days of the Obama administration. The assessment concluded that Vladimir Putin himself ordered the election interference to help Trump get elected. At first, a falsehood spread through the media that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with the conclusion. But later testimony from Obama-era intelligence officials revealed the assessment was prepared by hand-picked analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The assessment offered no evidence for the claim and mostly focused on media coverage of the presidential candidates on Russian state-funded media.

    On Friday, The Washington Post piled on to the Russia hysteria and ran a story titled "Bernie Sanders briefed by US officials that Russia is trying to help his campaign." The story says Sanders received a briefing on Russian efforts to boost his campaign. The details are again scant and The Post admits that "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."

    The few progressive journalists that have been right on Russiagate all along had the foresight to see how accusations of Russian meddling would ultimately be used to hurt Sanders' campaign. Unfortunately, Sanders did not have that same foresight and frequently played into the Russiagate narrative.

    Last week, during a Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, when criticized for his supporters' behavior on social media, Sanders pointed the finger at Russia . "All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me," Sanders said.

    In comments after The Post story was published, Sanders said he was briefed on Russian interference "about a month ago." Sanders raised the issue with the timing of the story, having been published on the eve of the Nevada caucus. But the story did not slow down Sanders' momentum in the polls, and he came out the clear victor of the Nevada caucus. Sanders' victory seemed to rattle the Democratic establishment, and some wild accusations were thrown around during coverage of the caucus.

    Political analyst James Carville appeared on MSNBC as Sanders took an early and substantial lead in Nevada. Carville said, "Right now, it's about 1:15 Moscow time. This thing is going very well for Vladimir Putin. I promise you. He's probably staying up watching this right now." What could be played off as a joke was followed up with some serious accusations from Carville, "I don't think the Sanders campaign in any way is collusion or collaboration. I think they don't like this story, but the story is a fact, and the reason that the story is a fact is Putin is doing everything that he can to help Trump, including trying to get Sanders the Democratic nomination."

    This delusional attitude about the Russians rigging the Democratic primary is underpinned by claims of meddling from the 2016 election. Central to Robert Mueller's claim that Russia engaged in "multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election" is the St. Petersburg based company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA).

    The IRA is accused of running a troll farm that sought to interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton. Mueller failed to tie the IRA directly to the Kremlin, and further research into their social media campaign shows most of the posts had nothing to do with the election. A study on the IRA by the firm New Knowledge found just "11 percent" of the IRA's content "was related to the election."

    Many believe the Russian government is responsible for hacking the DNC email server and providing the emails to WikiLeaks. But there are many holes in Mueller's story to support this claim. And WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange – who Mueller did not interview – has said the Russian government was not the source of the emails.

    Regardless of who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, they show that DNC leadership had a clear bias against Bernie Sanders back in 2016. The emails' contents were never disputed, and Democratic voters had every right to see the corruption within the DNC. With the release of the DNC emails, and later the Podesta emails, the American people were able to make a more informed choice in the presidential election. This type of transparency provided by WikiLeaks would be celebrated in a healthy democracy, not portrayed as the work of a foreign power.

    Sanders would be wise to keep a watchful eye on how the DNC operates over the next few months. The debacle that was the Iowa caucus shows the Democrats can "stoke division" and "stir controversy" just fine on their own.

    These claims of Russian meddling will continue throughout the election season. President Trump's defense that he is "tough" on Russia is nothing to be proud of, but that is inevitably where these accusations lead. Trump is encouraged to be more hawkish towards Russia in an effort to quiet the claims of Putin's preference for him. And if Bernie Sanders plays into this narrative now, can we believe that he will make any real foreign policy change towards Russia if he gets the nomination and beats Trump?

    Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave .

    [Mar 05, 2020] Who Or What Started The Wuhan Coronavirus Epidemic

    Mar 05, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    There has been considerable scholarly scrutiny of the anthrax attacks targeting the US Congress and some media organizations in early October of 2001. The anthrax attacks constitute the most serious assault ever on the operations of the US Congress, the primary interface between law and politics in the United States.

    These attacks have come to be understood as an integral part of the large body of crimes committed in Manhattan and Washington DC on 9/11. The anthrax attacks killed five people including two postal workers. Seventeen people were injured and Congress was shut down for a few days.

    Anthrax-laden letter attacks were specifically directed at two Democratic Party Senators, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle. When they received the contaminated letters both lawmakers were engaged in questioning provisions of the post-9/11 emergency measures legislation known as the Patriot Act. Both Senators Leahy and Daschle were hesitant to rubber stamp the enactment that was seemingly instantly drafted and put before Congress within three weeks of the 9/11 debacle.

    The anthrax attacks took place just as the US Armed Forces began invading Afghanistan where the culprits of the 9/11 crimes were supposed to be hiding out. The perpetrators of the anthrax attack, who we were supposed to imagine at the time as al-Qaeda terrorists, succeeded in easing aside the major locus of opposition to the Patriot Act's speedy passage in late October. Why, one might legitimately ask, ask, would Islamic jihadists want the Patriot Act to be rushed through Congress. In early October the US Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan at the same time that the US executive branch was seeking with the Patriot a license to kill and torture and steal without any checks of accountability.

    Once the US Armed Forces went to war with Afghanistan on the basis of a fraudulent explanation of 9/11's genesis, there was basically no chance that a genuine and legitimate evidence-based investigation of the September 11 crimes would ever take place. To this day the Global War on Terror continues to unfold on a foundation of lies and illusions that have had devastating consequences for the quality of life for average people throughout the United States and the world.

    In his 2005 book, Biowarfare and Terrorism , Prof. Boyle's analysis pointed to major problems in the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks including the agency's destruction of relevant evidence. To Prof. Boyle, the highly refined military-grade quality of the anthrax made it almost certain that the anthrax bioweapon was produced within the US Armed Forces at the lab in Fort Detrick Maryland. Anthrax, or Bacillus anthracis , is a rod-shaped bacteria found naturally in soil.

    Looking back at the episode Dr. Boyle observed , "The Pentagon and the C.I.A. are ready, willing, and able to launch biowarfare when it suits their interests. They already attacked the American People and Congress and disabled our Republic with super-weapons-grade anthrax in October 2001."

    Prof. Boyle's interpretation was later verified and expanded upon in a book by Canadian Prof. Graeme MacQueen. Prof. Boyle acknowledges the veracity of Prof. MacQueen's study of the anthrax deception as part of a "domestic conspiracy." He sees The 2001 Anthrax Deception as the most advanced finding of academic research on the topic so far.

    Prof. MacQueen is prominent among a very large group of academics and public officials who condemn the official narrative of 9/11 for its dramatic inconsistencies with the available evidence. Those who share this understanding include former Italian Prime Minister Francesco Cossiga, former German Defence Minister Andreas von Bülow, former UK Minister of the Environment Michael Meacher, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Director of the US Star Wars Missile Defense Program Lt. Col. Bob Bowman, Princeton International Law Professor Richard Falk, and the author of ten academic books on different aspects of the 9/11 debacle, Claremont Graduate University Professor David Ray Griffin.

    Prof. Francis Boyle shared the 9/11 skepticism of many when he asked ,

    Could the real culprits behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the immediately-following terrorist anthrax attacks upon Congress ultimately prove to be the same people? Could it truly be coincidental that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?

    In his coverage of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic, Spiro Skouras highlighted the proceedings known as Event 201. Event 201 brought together in New York on October 18, 2019 an assembly of delegates hosted by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. The gathering anticipated the COVID-19 crisis by just a few weeks. I retrospect it is almost as if Event 201 announced many of the controversies about to arise with the outbreak of the real epidemic in Wuhan China. Event 201 performed functions similar to those of the drills that frequently mimic the engineered scenarios animating false flag terror events but especially those of 9/11.

    A major subject of the meeting highlighted the perceived need to control communications during an epidemic. Levan Thiru of the Monetary Authority of Singapore went as far as to call for "a step up on the part of governments to take action against Fake News." Thiru called for recriminatory litigation aimed at criminalizing "bad actors." Cautioning against this kind of censorship, Skouras asked, Who is going to decide what constitutes "Fake News"? If fact checkers are to be employed, "who will fact check the fact checkers"?

    Hasti Taghi, a media executive with NBC Universal in New York, was especially outspoken in condemning the activities of "conspiracy theorists" that have organized themselves to question the motives and methods of the complex of agencies involved in developing and disseminating vaccines. She frequently condemned the role of "conspiracy theories" in energizing public distrust of the role of pharmaceutical companies and media conglomerates in their interactions with government.

    Tom Ingelsby of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security injected an interesting twist into the discussion. He asked, "How much control of information should there be? By whom should control of information be exercised? How can false information be effectively challenged?" Ingelsby then added, "What happens if the false information is coming from companies and governments?"

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/AoLw-Q8X174

    This final question encapsulates a major problem for conscientious citizens trying to find their way through the corruption and disinformation that often permeates our key institutions. Those that try to counter the problem that governments and corporations sometimes peddle false information can pretty much expect to face accusations that they are "conspiracy theorists." Too often the calculations involved in deciding whom or what is credible (or not) depends primarily on simple arithmetic favouring the preponderance of wealth and power.

    Spiro Skouras gives careful consideration to the possibility that the United States instigated the COVID-19 epidemic starting in Wuhan China.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/WE8m309gKVE

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/p0DDXsPKGHw

    He notes the precedent set in 1945 on the atomic attacks by the US government on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Skouras points out that there is proof that since the Second World War, the US government has conducted at least 239 experiments, secretly deploying toxic chemical and biological agents against portions of its own population.

    On the history of US involvement in biological warfare see here , here and here .

    Skouras highlights the window presented for a covert US bioweapon attack at the World Military Games in Wuhan China in the second half of October of 2019. He notes that 300 US soldiers participated as athletes in the Wuhan Military Games together with a large contingent of American support personnel. The timing and the circumstances of the event were more or less ideal to open up a new pathogenic front in the US government's informal "hybrid war" against China .

    On Feb. 15 at the Munich Security Conference, US Defence Secretary, Mark T. Esper, developed a highly critical characterization of Chinese wrongdoing in order to seemingly justify recriminatory actions. Esper asserted , "China's growth over the years has been remarkable, but in many ways it is fuelled by theft, coercion, and exploitation of free market economies, private companies, and colleges and universities Huawei and 5G are today's poster child for this nefarious activity.

    The US antagonism to Huawei's leadership in the design and worldwide dissemination of 5 G technology might well be a factor in the scandal generated by the Chinese connection to intertwined research in microbiology at the level 4 labs in Winnipeg and Wuhan.

    Back in 2000 the notorious report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses , a publication brought forward by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), proposed that the US government should refurbish and invoke its capacity to wage biological warfare. PNAC was the think tank that anticipated the events of September 11, 2001 by outlining a strategic scheme that could only be realized by mobilizing American public opinion with "a catalytic event like a New Pearl Harbor."

    After 9/11, the PNAC Team of related neoconservative activists and Zionist organizations pretty much took over the governance of the United States along with the build up and deployment of its formidable war machine. PNAC called for the invocation of "advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes." In this fashion "biological warfare might be transformed into a politically useful tool."

    The relationship of this pandemic to internal disagreements within China has been put on full display in Steve Bannon's coverage of the crisis entitled War Room: Pandemic . A prominent member of US President Donald Trump's inner circle , Steve Bannon is often accompanied on the daily show by Chinese billionaire dissident, Miles Guo (aka Guo Wengui, Miles Haoyun, Miles Kwok).

    Guo is an outspoken Chinese refugee . He is a persistent critic of virtually every facet of the policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party.

    Guo regularly condemns those who dominate China's one-party system, a system run by an elite who, he alleges, are corrupt, incompetent and inveterate liars. Guo regularly asserts that all of the Chinese government's numbers on the pandemic, including death rates and infection rates, can probably be multiplied by 10X or even 100X to get closer to accuracy.

    [On the 10X guestimate of mortality and infection see this .]

    Clearly Bannon and Guo would like to see the emergency conditions created by the pandemic as a wedge of division, protest and regime change within China. One of the subjects they regularly raise, as do others who accuse the Chinese government of systematic lying and deception, is that the crematoriums in Wuhan and nearby Chongqing are burning corpses of dead people at a rate far higher than official death figures. Some reports indicated that portable incinerators were being brought into the most infected core of the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic.

    It is troubling, to say the least, that some reports indicate dead people are being cremated far faster and at far higher rates than the Chinese government and the World Health Organization are reporting. Some reckoning with the apparent disparity between reported and actual deaths has led to widespread suspicions about what is actually going in the scenes of violent and angry exchanges between people in the Wuhan area.

    Many of these videos show brutal confrontations between Chinese civilians and Chinese security police. The displays of desperation by some of those trying to escape apprehensions by uniformed officials seem sometimes to suggest the severity of a life or death struggle . It is made to seem that those seeking to escape the grip of authorities are aware that their failure to do so might lead to a quick death and a quick exit by incineration. These reflections are, of course, speculative rather than definitive.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/yvouHwAEYCk

    Questions concerning who we are supposed to believe or not in this crisis are becoming ever more pressing and volatile. One of the emerging themes in the discourse developed at War Room: Pandemic is the propensity of some of the core agencies of mainstream media in the United States to accept at face value the reports they receive from official media outlets answering to the Chinese Communist Party. To Banning and Guo this pattern makes media organizations like the New York Times , The Washington Post , and CNN essentially propaganda extensions of the Chinese government.

    The Chinese people themselves are clearly grappling in new ways with the problem of how to understand the information and directives given them by the governing apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party. Clearly the Party initially failed the people by not intervening early and decisively enough after the first cases of Coronavirus illness began to show up. The exit from Wuhan of almost five million people in prior to the Chinese Lunar New Year celebrations had huge implications for spreading the contagion.

    As noted in the introduction, the death in Wuhan of Dr. Li Wenliang on 7 February has become a flash point for popular criticism of the Chinese Communist Party led by General Secretary Xi Jinping. Dr. Li wrote to members of his medical school alumnus group suggesting that some significant action should be taken in response to the appearance of SARS-like symptoms that suddenly afflicted his patients.

    For sending out this unauthorized communication, Dr. Li was summoned along with seven other supposed offenders to the Public Security Bureau. There he was warned by police to stop "making false statements." He was ordered to cease and desist "spreading rumors," and "acting illegally to disturb social order."

    Dr. Li signed a form indicating he would refrain from continuing to do what he had been accused of doing. The chastised professional returned to his medical practice. He took his own advice and began treating patients exhibiting signs of the new illness. He himself soon died from COVID-19 when it was still known as 19-nCoV.

    Is Twitter's permanent deplatforming of the Zero Hedge web site a North American version of the police intervention in China with the goal of silencing Dr. Li? Is the censorship of the Internet in the name of opposing "conspiracy theorists" repeating the Chinese Communist Party's effort to silence Dr. Li?

    Is Dr. Li to be appropriately understood as a Chinese version of a "conspiracy theorist"? How different was his treatment for allegedly "spreading rumours" and "acting illegally to disturb social order" from the treatment of those in the Occident who have been deplatformed, smeared and professionally defrocked for attempting to speak truth to power?

    I have developed responses to these incursions based on hard-won experiences facing the propaganda blows of an especially powerful political lobby able to seize control of the governing board of my university. These professional lobbyists seek to discredit academic analysis of their own violations of law, ethics and civility by labelling critics of their zealotry as "conspiracy theorists" or worse.

    More recently I have been grappling against a variation on this process in trying to counter the censorious attacks on the American Herald Tribune . These assaults on free expression and open debate began with the machinations of military hawks whose hit job instructions were passed along to the disinformation specialists at CNN and the Washington Post .

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/1MXdLwZ6spE

    No one can say for sure where the Wuhan Coronavirus epidemic is taking the world. Wherever we are headed, however, we are leaving behind an era that can never be recreated. Whatever happened to originate the contagion, this crisis is forcing us to take stock of the framework of biological warfare as it has been developing in China, Russia, Israel and probably many other countries.

    Nowhere, however, is biological warfare being more expansively and expensively developed and probably deployed than by the US Armed Forces. The death and destruction that humanity is presently experiencing should signal to us that it is time to get much more serious about inspecting military facilities and enforcing the terms of the Biological Warfare Convention of 1972. It is, in fact, time to get much more serious about enforcing all aspects of international criminal law in balanced ways that transcend the biases of Victors' Justice.

    It is time to throw off the weight of the pseudo-laws introduced after 9/11 through abhorrent tactics like the inside-job military anthrax attack on Congress. Most certainly, it is time to draw a clear distinction between research in the field of public health and research in the development of lethal bioweapons. Better yet, we should work towards putting an end altogether to militarization through the massive expansion of the "death sciences." The vile activities of fallen practitioners of the endangered life sciences are, for starters, undermining the integrity of our besieged institutions of higher learning.

    Login Channels ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

    General: [email protected]

    Legal: [email protected]

    Advertising: Click here

    Abuse/Complaints: [email protected]

    [Mar 05, 2020] Swamp russsiagators at work again: Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election, With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders Consortiumnews

    Looks like Putin have always been eating CIA homework...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Consortium News ..."
    Feb 21, 2020 | consortiumnews.com
    Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election, With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders

    96 Comments

    Without any proof, The New York Times and Washington Post run "Russia helping Sanders" stories, and Sanders responds by bashing Russia, writes Joe Lauria.

    By Joe Lauria
    Special to Consortium News

    W ith Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders spooking the Democratic establishment, The Washington Post Friday reported damaging information from intelligence sources against Sanders by saying that Russia is trying to help his campaign.

    If the story is true and if intelligence agencies are truly committed to protecting U.S. citizens, the Sanders campaign would have been quietly informed and shown evidence to back up the claims.

    Instead the story wound up on the front page of the Post , "according to people familiar with the matter." Zero evidence was produced to back up the intelligence agencies' assertion.

    "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken," the Post reported. That would tell any traditional news editor that there was no story until it is known.

    Instead major U.S. media are again playing the role of laundering totally unverified "information" just because it comes from an intelligence source. Reporting such assertions without proof amounts to an abdication of journalistic responsibility. It shows total trust in U.S. intelligence despite decades of deception and skullduggery from these agencies.

    Centrist Democratic Party leaders have expressed extreme unease with Sanders leading the Democratic pack. Politico reported Friday that former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's entry into the race is explicitly to stop Sanders from winning on the first ballot at the party convention.

    A day after The New York Times reported , also without evidence, that Russia is again trying to help Donald Trump win in November, the Post reports Moscow is trying to help Sanders too, again without substance. Both candidates whom the establishment loathes were smeared on successive days.

    In a Tough Spot

    The Times followed the Post report Friday by making it appear that Sanders himself had chosen to make public the intelligence assessment about "Russian interference" in his campaign.

    But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on anonymous sources.

    Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin.

    So politician that he is, and one who is trying to win the White House, Sanders told the Post :

    "I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020."

    The Times quoted Sanders as calling Russian President Vladimir Putin an "autocratic thug." The paper reported Sanders saying in a statement: "Let's be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election."

    Responding to a cacophony of criticism that Sanders' supporters are especially vicious online, as opposed to the millions of other vicious people online, Sanders attempted to use Russia as a scapegoat, the way the Clinton campaign did in 2016. He said: "Some of the ugly stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."

    But no matter how strong Sander's denunciations of Russia, his opponents will now target him as being a tool of the Kremlin.

    Mission accomplished.

    Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .


    Juan M Escobedo , February 24, 2020 at 10:55

    Let`s face it,even though Bernie is a moderate Social Democrat,at best.He`s the only one capable of beating "the Orange"version of Hitler.But he sounds as if the DNC,big wigs,decide to deny him the nomination;he`d go along with it.Just like before;when he even campaigned for the"Crooked One(Hillary).I guess we`ll see.

    Kim Dixon , February 24, 2020 at 04:31

    The most-important element missed in this piece is this: Sanders is helping the DNC and the MIC gin up fear of, and hatred for, the only other nuclear superpower on earth.

    If you were around during the McCarthy years, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the '73 Arab/Israeli war, and all the other almost-Armageddon crises of Cold War One, you know that nothing could be stupider and more-dangerous than that. The missiles still sit in their silos, waiting for the next early-warning misunderstanding or proxy-war miscalculation to send them flying.

    Sanders lived through it all. He's supposed to be the furthest-Left pol in Congress. So how can he possibly advocate for anything but detente and disarmament?

    SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:18

    I would really like to support Bernie, but statements like this make me shake my head. It's more a reflection of America today I guess. Politicians believe to a man (or woman) that they must put the hate on Putin and Russia or they have no chance. It doesn't matter that the Russia garbage is 100% false. And, I don't mean they 'interfered' only a little there was nothing, nothing at all. Even Trump has to go along with this propaganda. I don't know how anyone can believe this idiotic (and incredibly dangerous, as you point out) rubbish at this point. But you can't call your friends blanking morons.

    J Gray , February 25, 2020 at 02:55

    I think he successfully dodged a bullet but set himself up to offer comprehensive election reform if he pulls out a victory .

    or it is an early sign that he, the DNC & MIC are coming to terms. It doesn't have that ring to it to me, like when Trump called for regime-change war in Venezuela & defunding schools to build a space army. That was a clear on-the-record sell-out & got him off the Impeachment hook the next day. Similar to when the Clinton signed the Telecom Act to get off his.

    They are still coming after Sanders too hard w/their McCarthiast attacks to feel like he is siding with them. I think he has to do this because they are bundling his movement, Venezuela and Russia into the new Red Scare.

    Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:49

    "#JoeLauria's piece in #ConsortiumNews is excellent. He calmly sets out #Sanders' political dilemma. The latest line from US intelligence agency stenographer media like #NYTimes is that #Russians are helping both #Trump and Sanders because they simply want to sow discord and cynicism about US democracy , they do not care who wins. #CaitlinJohnstone neatly satirises this by writing a spoof article claiming that US intelligence agencies have discovered #Bloomberg is being helped by Russians because he has two Russian grandfathers.

    It has reached the point , as Lauria shows, where any criticism of such US MSM nonsense leaves the speaker open to the allegation that he is soft on/ naive about/complicit in Russian election meddling. Without being a Trump supporter, one can understand Trump's rage and contempt for what is going on .

    Justin Glyn. Consortium News. Joe Lauria. Tony Kevin"

    Tony Kevin , February 23, 2020 at 21:32

    Sanders and Trump will survive this Deep State manipulation and attempted blackmail . They will see off the Clintonistas and Deep State moles, and will go on to fight a tough but fair election. Americans are sick of Russophobia.

    jack , February 24, 2020 at 15:25

    agreed – the Russiagate psyop is past its shelf life – BUT Deep State will carry on – it's a global entity and they're into literally everything – no idea how any known, normal governing structure can deal with it

    Susan J Leslie , February 23, 2020 at 10:40

    Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the people

    Susan J Leslie , February 23, 2020 at 10:40

    Enough with the "Russia" BS already! It is clear to me the wealthy corporate Dems and the MSM are behind all of the smear tactics against Bernie and anyone else who serves the people

    Dfnslblty , February 23, 2020 at 09:07

    Front page drama plus zero evidence began long ago with 'anonymous sources said "!
    Complete lack of accountability on the part of the sources and on the part of the reporters.
    Thus we receive a "reality teevee " potus , and we are pleased to be hypnotised and titillated.
    A true revolution would demand CN-quality reportage and reject msm pablum.

    JohnDoe , February 23, 2020 at 03:43

    It's enough to look at the news on mainstream media to understand who's, as usual, meddling in the elections. In the latest period for the first time I saw a lot of enthusiastic comments and articles about Bernie Sanders. It's clear they are pushing him. But why those who isolated him in during the primaries against Clinton are now supporting him? It's obvious, that they want to get rid of Elizabeth Warren, first push ahead the weaker candidates, then they'll switch their support towards another candidate, probably Bloomberg.

    delia ruhe , February 23, 2020 at 00:14

    Well, thank you Joe Lauria! I am in trouble in several comment threads for suggesting that the intel community is at it again, trying to ruin two campaigns by identifying the candidates with Putin and the Kremlin. Now I can quote you. Excellent piece, as usual.

    Deniz , February 22, 2020 at 22:44

    Imagine Sanders and Trump, putting their differences aside and declaring war on the deep state during a debate. They have the same enemies.

    The same people who planted Steele's dirty dosier are going to try to steal Sanders election from him. It wont be Trump and the Republicans who rigs the election against Sanders.

    SteveK9 , February 24, 2020 at 20:21

    Trump actually seemed to want to help Bernie a bit (well, he keeps calling him 'Crazy Bernie as well). He put out some tweet calling this latest rubbish, Hoax #7. But Bernie would rather say something stupid, like 'I'm not a friend of Putin he is' talk about 5-year olds.

    Deniz , February 25, 2020 at 00:49

    Its disappointing. Sanders heart seems to be in the right place, but when it comes time to face the sinister forces that run the country for their own benefit, he will be absolutely crushed.

    Linda Jean Doucett , February 22, 2020 at 21:32

    This will never end.
    No president will ever change anything.
    The deep state tentacles will eventually kill us all.
    I am going to go and enjoy what's left.

    Marko , February 22, 2020 at 20:24

    " But Sanders had known for a month about this assessment and only issued a statement after the Post asked him for comment before publishing its uncorroborated story based on anonymous sources Sanders was put in a difficult spot. If he said, "Show me the proof that Russia is trying to help me," he ran the risk of being attacked for disbelieving (even disloyalty to) U.S. intelligence, and, by default, defending the Kremlin. "

    I suspect that Sanders was given a classified briefing a month ago , which he couldn't disclose to the public. If so , and given that he didn't make this clear immediately after being accused of withholding this information , he has only himself to blame for the resulting "bad look".

    JWalters , February 22, 2020 at 19:06

    The corporate media has revealed itself to be a monopoly behind the scenes, working in unison to trash Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Even though Gabbard is only at a few percent in the polls, her message is potentially devastating to the war profiteers who own America's Vichy MSM.

    "Congressman Oscar Callaway lost his Congressional election for opposing US entry into WW 1. Before he left office, he demanded investigation into JP Morgan & Co for purchasing control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of his corporate and banking interests, including profits from US participation in the war."
    war * profiteerstory. * blogspot. * com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html

    Thankfully, there is still a free American press, of which Consortium News is a stellar example.

    elmerfudzie , February 22, 2020 at 13:25

    The CIA and DIA (it has about a dozen agencies under it and is much larger than any other Intel agency) are supposed to monitor threats to our national security, that originate abroad. Aside from a few closed door sessions with a select group of congresspersons, our Intel agencies have practically no real democratic oversight and remain, for all intents and purposes, a parallel government(s) well hidden from public view. In particular how they are financed and what their actual annual budgets really are. How these agencies every managed to seep into any electioneering process what so ever, is beyond me, since they are all intentionally very surreptitious- by design. We ask questions and these Intel agencies are quick to tout the usual phrase; that subject area is secret and needs to be addressed in closed session, blah, blah, blah. Of course "secrecy" translates into, we do what we want when we want and use information any way we want because our parallel governments represent the best example(s) of a perpetual motion machine that does not require outside monitoring. The origins of these "parallel entities" can be traced to the Rockefeller brothers and their associated international corporations. There's the rub folks. Our citizens at large will never overtake for the purposes of real monitoring, this empire and elephant in the room, directly. However we do have one avenue left and it requires a rank and file demand from the people to their state representatives demanding two long standing issues, they remain unresolved and until a solution is found, will permit dark powers to side step every level of democratic governments-anywhere.

    The first is true campaign finance reform and the second is assigning, or rather, removing the status of person-hood to corporate entities. The Rockefeller's used their corporate power and wealth to influence legislative, judicial and executive bodies. They cannot help but do as the puppet master commands! Be it some form of, corporatism, fascism, feudalism, monarchy, oligarchy, even bankster-ism or any other "ism We as citizens at large must make every effort to again, obtain true campaign finance reform and remove the lobbying presence inside the beltway. Today, the corporate entity has risen to a level that completely overtakes and smothers any authentic democratic representation, of and by the people. Originally (circa the early1800's) American corporations were permitted to exist and papers were drawn based on the specific duties they were about to perform, this for the benefit of the local community for example, building a bridge. Once the job was completed, the incorporation was either liquidated or remanded over to the relevant governing body for the purposes of reevaluating the necessity of re-certifying the original incorporation papers. Old man Rockefeller changed the governance and oversight privilege by forcing and promulgating legislation(s) such as limited liability clauses, strategies to oppose competition, tax evasion schemes and (eventually) assigning person-hood to corporate entities, thus creating a parallel government within the government. It all began in Delaware and until we clear our heads and assign names to the actual problems, as I've itemized here, our citizenry will never experience the freedom to fashion our destiny. Please visit TUC radio's two part expose' by Richard Grossman. It will help CONSORTIUMNEWS readers to understand just what a monumental task is ahead for all of us. Work for a fair and equitable future in America, demand campaign finance reform and kick the hustling lobbyists out of our government. Voters being choked to death with senseless debates and useless candidates.

    Jeff Harrison , February 22, 2020 at 12:36

    The real threats to our democracy are our unaccountable surveillance state and the craven politicians in Washington, DC. And, no, Ben, we can't keep our republic because we don't have a sufficient mass of critical thinkers to run it. If we did, this kind of BS, having been shot full of holes once, wouldn't get any air.

    Alan Ross , February 22, 2020 at 10:37

    Sanders may win the nomination and the election but he cannot get a break from some purists on the left. His reaction may have been quite astute. When Sanders says that we should station troops on the borders of Russia or arm the Ukrainians, then you can say he really is anti-Russian. I have not heard all that he has said, but what I have heard sounds so much like hot air put out by a left politician trying to deal with the ages-old establishment and right wing smear that he is a pawn of the commies, a fellow traveler, a pinko, and now an agent of a foreign power, a Russian asset and so on. There is real criticism of Sanders, but his statements about Putin and Russia do not add up to much.

    Skip Scott , February 22, 2020 at 09:51

    Anyone who is still under the influence of the MSM hypnosis of RussiaGate, led by Rachel Madcow, needs to think long and hard about this latest propaganda campaign. The real message here is unless you support corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B, you are a tool of the "evil Rooskies". And the funny thing is, Sanders is "weak tea" when it comes to issues of war and peace, and the feeding of the war machine at the government trough with no limits.

    The purpose of this BIG LIE of the "Intelligence" agencies is to make it impossible for someone to be against the Forever War without being tarred as a "Foreign Agent", or at least a "useful idiot", of the "EVIL ROOSKIES". To simply want peaceful coexistence on its own merits is impossible.

    Imagine if Sanders dared to mention that Putin enjoys substantial majority support inside Russia, and seeks peaceful coexistence in a multi-polar world, instead of calling him an "autocratic thug". Often for politicians, speaking the truth is a "bridge too far". I wonder if Sanders (like Hillary) finds it necessary to hold "private" positions that differ from his "public" positions? Or does he really believe his own BS?

    Jacquelynn Booth , February 22, 2020 at 09:19

    I had not seen Mr Joe Lauria's article when I commented on Mr Ben Norton's story, but my reply could fit here as well.
    The idiot American public dismays me. To them, the "MSM news" and "celebrity gossip reports" are equal and both to be wholeheartedly believed.
    There is no point in trying to educate a resistant public in the differences between data and gossip -- public doesn't care.
    I weep for what we have lost -- a Constitution, a nation of free thinkers. My heart breaks for the world's people, and what my country tries to do to them, with only a few resistant other countries confronting and challenging America.
    It is so difficult to know the truth of a situation and yet to know that almost no one (statistically speaking) believes you.

    Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:04

    A better distinction might be, concerning the intelligence of the American public, the one Chomsky has used, rooted in Ancient Greek culture, that between KNOWLEDGE and OPINION. Americans, of course, have OPINIONS about everything, but little KNOWLEDGE about much of anything. And it seems their idea of FREEDOM is related to, bound up with, their having OPINIONS about virtually EVERYTHING.

    So much for our being a HIGHER life form.

    We're in the process of destroying EVERYTHING, not just HIGHER LIFE FORMS [us], but all flora and fauna, water and air on the planet–as I said, EVERYTHING. To paraphrase from memory a citation by Perry Anderson from the work of heterodox Italian Marxist, Sebastiano Timpanaro, "What we are witnessing is not the triumph of man over history, but the victory of nature over man."

    Tony , February 22, 2020 at 07:40

    The Trump administration has pulled out of the INF missile treaty citing totally unproven claims of Russian violations.
    It also looks like allowing the START treaty on strategic nuclear missiles to lapse if we do not stop it.

    And so, in what sense would Putin want Trump to get re-elected?

    Van Jones of CNN once described the original allegations of Russian meddling in US elections as a 'great big nothing burger'.

    Sounds right to me.

    Sam F , February 22, 2020 at 07:24

    When the secret agencies and mass media stop manipulating public opinion, despite their oligarchy masters' ability to control election results anyway, we will know that they no longer need deception to control the People. Simple force will do the job, with a few marketing claims to assist in hiring goons to suppress any popular movement. Democracy is completely lost, and the pretense of democracy will soon follow.

    michael , February 22, 2020 at 07:03

    Another foray into domestic politics by the CIA, with anonymous sources and no evidence shown (as no evidence exists). Perhaps the CIA (which probably works for Putin, or Bloomberg, or anyone who pays them best, but they are loyal to the US dollar only; and maybe heroin?) is even now making up another Chris Steele/ Fusion GPS/ CrowdStrike dossier, getting that Russian caterer to the Kremlin to pump out clickbait and sink both Trump and Sanders. Because RUSSIANS!!! are "genetically driven" to interfere in American democracy. Next we'll have the DNC (CIA) pushing Superpredator tropes such as "this enormous cohort of black and Latino males" who "don't know how to behave in the workplace" and "don't have any prospects." With this Clintonian (and Biden and Bloomberg) mindset, America will be increasing incarceration once again. That $500,000 bribe the Clintons took from Putin in 2010 when Hillary was Secretary of State probably plays a role.
    Meanwhile, the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Mark Esper have surprisingly noted that China, not Russia, is America's #1 concern: "America's concerns about Beijing's commercial and military expansion should be your concerns as well." Since Bill Clinton's Chinagate fiasco in 1996, Communist China, for a measly $million or so in illegal campaign donations, gained permanent trade status, took millions of American jobs, and suddenly were allowed access to advanced, even military technologies. This was the impetus for China's rise to be the strongest nation in the world. There are no doubt statues of the Clintons all over China, and soon to Hunter Biden, if his Chinese backed hedge funds do well. There are some rumors that Bloomberg has transacted business with China, although doubtful he tried to build a hotel in Beijing or Moscow, or the CIA would be all over it (for a cut)!

    Realist , February 24, 2020 at 00:22

    Esper is a dangerously deranged man who seems, at least to me, to be telegraphing his intent, and certainly his desire, to get into a kinetic war with both Russia and China (Washington already has most of the hybrid war tactics already fully operational), unless English usage has changed so drastically that insults, overt threats and unrestrained bombast are now part of calm, rational cordial diplomacy. I would not be surprised if neocon mouthpieces like Esper are not secretly honing their rhetorical style to emulate the exaggerated volume and enunciation of der ursprüngliche Führer.

    Ma Laoshi , February 22, 2020 at 06:04

    "So politician that he is" -- isn't this already on the slippery slope towards double standards, that is, would say Hillary get a similar pass for making McCarthyite statements like this? Isn't a dispassionate reading of the situation that Bernie is an inveterate liar , and moreover specializing in the particular brand of lies that could get us all into nuclear war? Whether it's character or merely age, haven't we seen enough to conclude that Mr. Sanders would be much weaker still vis-a-vis the Deep State than Donald Trump turned out to be?

    For those without a dog in this fight, shouldn't it cause great merriment if the various RussiaGaters devour each other? Mr. Sanders has seen for years that the "muh Putin" hoax will be turned against him whenever needed. If he nonetheless persists, doesn't that show his resignation that his role in this election circus is a very temporary one, like in '16? How was that definition of insanity again?

    If you want to fix America, then the Empire and Zionism are your enemies; so is the Dem party that is inextricably wedded to these forces. Play along with them and–well what can you expect.

    aNanyMouse , February 22, 2020 at 13:29

    Yeah, and Bernie sucked up to the Dem brass on the impeachment crap, even tho Tulsi had the stones to at least abstain. How sad.

    GMCasey , February 21, 2020 at 22:33

    Dear DNC:
    KNOCK IT OFF! The only person I am voting for President is the only one who is capable -- and that is Bernie Sanders.
    And really, with NATO breaking the agreement where they agreed to NOT go up to Russia's border : it is getting very sad and embarrassing to be an American because the elected ones make agreements and yet break so many. What with Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to disrupt the area, I am sure that Russia is too busy to bother disrupting America . Lately America seems to disrupt itself for many ridiculous reasons. I am sorry that the gossip rags, which used to be important newspapers have failed in supporting their First Amendment right of Free speech . I just finished reading "ALL the Presidents Men. " What has happened to you, Washington Post, because as a newspaper, you really used to be somebody. Please review your past and become what you once were, a real genuine news source.

    Sam F , February 23, 2020 at 09:18

    Wikipedia: "In October 2013, the paper's longtime controlling family, the Graham family, sold the newspaper to Nash Holdings, a holding company established by Jeff Bezos, for $250 million in cash."

    Jim Hartz , February 23, 2020 at 12:37

    One of the craziest ongoing media phenomena, prevalent in the Impeachment Hearings, is the repeated claim that RUSSIA IS AT WAR WITH UKRAINE.

    What kind of "Higher Life Form" enthusiastically EATS IT'S OWN SHIT?

    Sam F , February 21, 2020 at 22:10

    Mass media denouncing politicians based upon "information" from secret agencies are propaganda operations, and should be sued for proof of their claims. But of course the judiciary are tools of oligarchy as much as the mass media. No one has constitutional rights in the US under our utterly corrupt judiciary, only paid party privileges.

    Eddie S , February 21, 2020 at 21:55

    Hmmm.. so those oh-so-clever Russkies (I mean they MUST-BE if they were able to outwit ALL the US politicos -- who are immersed in the US political culture 24/7 as well as having grown-up in this country and having billions of $ to spend -- in 2016 with a mere $100k of Facebook ads) messed-up this time! They're supporting OPPOSING candidates, effectively canceling-out their efforts ? Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence community??

    dale t hood , February 21, 2020 at 22:42

    There is NO "intel"; plenty of un-intel, shameless mendacity from these info=dictators zionazi NYT and Wapoop drivel; hopefully the insouciant public is starting to see what a sham these rats are. Hearst outdistanced.

    Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 10:45

    "Kinda strange, unless that whole 'Russia meddling' thing was a vastly exaggerated distraction by a losing hawkish candidate and her party, further inflated by a sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence community??"

    Exactly. Shame on Hillary Clinton and all who view the electorate with such disdain as to have pushed this propaganda on us for the last three years, and continue to do so, obviously. If either Hillary Clinton or the "sensationalistic media and a predictably antagonistic military & intelligence community" had any integrity at all, they would have beaten Trump handily in 2016, just as they condescendingly told us they would. They did not, though, and have been outraged to have been exposed as the frauds they are ever since.

    When your political party is nothing more than a marketing scheme designed to fool the population, that population will turn on you. Imagine that. And no amount of Russia-gating will save you. Shame on all who would continue this charade.

    John Drake , February 21, 2020 at 21:33

    Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad Ruskies are trying to help. One week its Trump, the next it is Sanders. Frankly on the face, it sounds like bad intel to me.
    But fortunately I am a regular reader of this site and Ray McGovern; and know it's all, to put it politely , disinformation; or less politely a pile of diarrhea invented by Hillarybots after a really really bad election day three years ago.
    The only thing that disturbs me is the way Bernie buys into this Russiagate thing himself. Maybe you all could send him a trove of articles debunking the whole mess, especially Ray and Bill's forensics.

    Fred Dean , February 23, 2020 at 03:52

    When Durham starts indicting people and the story of the Deep State coup against the President becomes common knowledge, Bernie's statements on Russiagate will be a liability. Trump's people are digging up whatever videos they can of Bernie talking smack about Trump/Russia. It is a crack in Bernie's armor and we can expect Trump to exploit. Bernie has been such a toadie to the DNC. He cowers to the Democratic establishment because he fears they will pull his credentials to run as a Democrat.

    OlyaPola , February 23, 2020 at 08:08

    "Gosh I wish those so called intel people could make up their mind about whom the big bad Ruskies are trying to help."

    Output is a function of framing and consequently the intelligence community/opponents are helping others including the Russians who encourage such help by doing nothing.

    KiwiAntz , February 21, 2020 at 21:26

    What a shambolic mess of a Nation that America is! Nothing more than a Billionaire's Banana Republic? A International laughingstock ruled by a Oligarchy, masquerading as a Democracy? And if all else fails to get rid of Bernie Saunders by vote rigging or gerrymandering or other nefarious acts of sabotage with Superdelegates stealing the nominations then resurrect the bogus Russiagate Conspiracy, a ridiculous failed & faked experiment to gaslight, spook & confuse the population again? Wouldn't it be delicious if Russiagate was actually TRUE, it would be payback for the USA, a Nation that meddles in the affairs & politics of every other Country on Earth, overthrowing & regime changing everyone who doesn't "bend the knee" to America, the most corrupt & evil Nation on Earth since Nazi Germany! I've never seen a more propagandised or mindf**ked People on Earth than the American people! It must be soul destroying to live in this Country & have to put up with this nonsense, day in, day out?

    Ian , February 22, 2020 at 02:47

    Yes, it is. Living with the infuriating unreality and militaristic worldview that is so cultivated here takes a personal emotional and intellectual toll. No place is perfect, but when I travel to Europe I feel a weight lifted.

    Broompilot , February 22, 2020 at 03:50

    Kiwi you may have a point.

    ML , February 22, 2020 at 09:19

    Yep. But for those of us with our critical thinking skills intact, we won't let it be soul destroying, Kiwi. Still, the daily crapload of bs we are fed in the "legacy" press is aggravating beyond the beyonds. Cheers, fellow Earthling.

    Daniel , February 22, 2020 at 11:09

    I hear you, KiwiAntz. It IS soul destroying to withstand this onslaught of disinformation each and every day. There is a rhythm to it that is undeniable, too. One can almost predict when the next propaganda hit will come, as here – after their latest would-be savior, Mike Bloomberg, imploded on live TV, and with Bernie looking more and more inevitable.

    Our reality in the US today is that we have to fight against our own media to approach anything resembling a reasonable discussion about what is important to vast majorities (mean tweets and fake memes aren't it) or to champion candidates who display even the slightest integrity. But, of course, it is not 'our' media. It is 'theirs.' And they will continue to abuse us with it until we reject it completely.

    robert e williamson jr , February 23, 2020 at 20:31

    I see things pretty clearly for what they are and the billionaire democrats are heading for a train wreck and I hate to admit I cannot look away.

    Trump is just another self serving U.S. president leaving a stain in America's underwear adding to the humongous pile of America's dirty laundry.

    When the demographics finally dictate it change will come and likely not before. On that note I wold like to reach out here. Justin King, who goes as Beau on the net runs a site called the Fifth Column News and does a ton of informative and educational videos on many various topics. .

    If you go to youtube, search and watch each of the videos I'm about to list here you stand to learn quite a lot about how Americans got screwed by the two party system without really realizing it. Plenty of blame to go around , no doubt though. You will also learn of the changing demographics in American politics. Many of the poor, minorities and youth of the country are coming into politics for they stand to lose everything if they don't change the status quo.

    Feb 11 2020 runs 6:21 minutes and seconds- Search terms, Beau Lets talk about the parties switching and the party of trump

    Feb 15 2020 runs 4:11 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about dancing left and dancing right

    Feb 20 2020 runs 10:44 Search terms, Beau Lets talk about misunderstanding Bernie's supporters

    This last video is a long video by Justin's standards. Most of his videos are under 7 minutes.

    Much thanks to CN this site and the Fifth Column New site give me strength and bolster my courage by allowing me to know that there are those of us who know what gong on and know things must change.

    [Mar 05, 2020] Who needs the Russians to meddle in the US elections when the DNC is much better at undermining the democratic process?

    NY Times is citing "people familiar with the situation." How the mighty have fallen. What about Shadow, and the Iowa caucuses, and Buttigieg? That was real. This is absolute horseshit.
    Mar 05, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    jmg , February 22, 2020 at 11:32

    > Apparent US Intel Meddling in US Election With 'Report' Russia is Aiding Sanders

    It looks like the CIA is short of ideas on how to meddle in the elections. Trump had a very similar briefing on January 6, 2017 -- with Brennan, Clapper, Rogers, and Comey -- on Russia allegedly aiding his campaign. As well without any evidence.

    Charlene Richards , February 22, 2020 at 14:47

    Russia couldn't possibly do the damage to Sanders that the DNC and Democrat Establishment elites are doing out in the open every day with the MSM as their prime propagandists.

    As they say in wrestling, it's all "a work".

    richard baker , February 22, 2020 at 10:55

    Bart Hansen , February 22, 2020 at 18:27

    Looking at the comments at the Post and Times, I'd say you are on target. Oh, for the Kool Aid contract at those organs of misinformation and omission.

    [Mar 05, 2020] Salisbury poisoning unleashed Russian bogeyman ... but where are the Skripals 2 years on by Simon Rite

    Mar 04, 2020 | www.rt.com
    Forget Where's Wally, what we really want to know is where are the Skripals? It's exactly two years to the day since the Russian spy and his daughter were novichoked in Salisbury, and we've still not seen hide nor hair of them. Former double agent Sergei has been completely off-grid, while Yulia Skripal was seen in a highly staged video in 2018, filmed in an anonymous but pleasant leafy glade shortly after recovering from her poisoning ordeal; but, apart from that, there has been no statements or updates about them at all.

    The most recent piece of 'information', and I use that term loosely, to leak out about their whereabouts came this weekend from Britain's Mail on Sunday, courtesy of a source which became ubiquitous throughout the Skripal saga, the reliably unreliable "security insiders." It's always amazing how willing these apparent insiders are to release top-level secrets to the home of the "sidebar of shame."

    The latest speculation from 'security insiders' is that the Skripals are hoping to head for a new life down under in Australia after "effectively living under house arrest since the attack." This means either those insiders are the leakiest spies in the world, or the Skripals are going to be nowhere near Australia anytime soon.

    Read more Hospitalized children & dead ducks? The 'official' Skripal narrative goes completely quackers

    The house arrest must be at Julian Assange in Belmarsh levels of security, because even the Skripals' family in Russia say they haven't heard from them in months.

    So all quiet on the Skripal front and, frankly speaking, it's all quiet on the geopolitical front, too, and in the media. The disputed events of March 4, 2018, over poisoned spies and their aftermath formed the biggest story on the planet, and not just because the whole world finally started paying attention to the majesty of Salisbury cathedral's glorious 123-metre spire.

    This incident seemed like it might have genuine life-changing political consequences. Britain entered the phrase "highly likely" into the lexicon of geopolitics, and [then-PM] Theresa May's declaration that it was "highly likely" that the Kremlin was to blame was deemed strong enough to see the West turn en masse against Moscow, and Russian diplomats and 'diplomats' were expelled by the dozen, by London and its allies across the world. It seemed the bar for state-to-state accusations had been lowered.

    Russia to this day denies involvement in what happened in Salisbury.

    So what has changed? If anything, all that has changed over the last two years is a desire to get back to business, to rebuild ties and move on. Some of those expelled diplomats have reportedly moved back .

    French leader Emmanuel Macron is pushing hard for relations between the West and Moscow to be repaired, something Germany needs little encouragement for.

    The Brexit dividend (for Russia)... In 2019, British imports of Russian oil jumped by a whopping 57% compared to the previous year, as Boris Johnson's government unleashed the potential of their country. https://t.co/ZSIJGvpFif

    -- Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) February 27, 2020

    Britain is still pretending to be in a huff, but British imports of Russian oil were up 57 percent last year, so realpolitik reigns supreme in London, as ever.

    Boris Johnson is now the prime minister and with a thumping majority doesn't need to use bogeyman Russia as a tool to look strong quite as much as his predecessor did. Johnson and Putin even met in January and there are reports the prime minister is considering an invitation to attend a second world war commemoration parade in Moscow this May.

    And as for the media, it's all gone quiet there, too. Skripal coverage is about as common in the mainstream now as coverage of Julian Assange's imprisonment. He's a journalist whose supporters say is 'highly likely' a victim of a demonstrable state campaign against him because he attempted to uncover the misdeed of power. However, a boring attack on free speech is nowhere near as exciting as a poisoned spy, is it?!

    Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

    Simon Rite is a writer based in London for RT, in charge of several projects including the political satire group #ICYMI. Follow him on Twitter @SiWrites

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

    [Mar 04, 2020] Russiagate should be viewed as classic, textbook case of gaslighting and projecting election interference

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference. ..."
    "... Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn. ..."
    Mar 04, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

    MrWebster on Wed, 03/04/2020 - 1:00pm

    What you describe is probably why Russiagate spread so easily to so many people. Nothing happened in previous elections? Everything you describe never happened as you point out. The American electoral system was and is pristine and virginal.

    Until the Russians came and destroyed American democracy through social media themes, memes, and retweets.

    The American electoral system was never brutally corrupted by rigged votes, voter suppression on the scale of hundreds of thousands, deliberately miscounted votes, voter fraud, etc. Americans never did to each other anything as bad as what the Russians did to Americans.

    Of course, for me never worked as I worked in primaries of a democratic machine dominated city. I tried to sorta warm people on other sites that while they were looking for Russians at the front door, the gop was coming in the bad door for some rather nasty election interference.

    Of course what we are seeing now is democrats cheating other democrats. But that reality will never be acknowledged because, hey, it never happened before. Just unintentional mistakes like in Iowa (farm folk cheating -- no way) or Brooklyn.

    [Mar 04, 2020] Cyber Soldiers Penetrate the Skripal Case

    Mar 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    John Gilberts , Mar 4 2020 10:24 utc | 123

    fyi Helmer reports cyber attacks...

    Cyber Soldiers Penetrate the Skripal Case

    https://twitter.com/bears_with/status/1235099510889566209

    "Cyber attacks have been launched to stop you reading The Blogmire, Dances With Bears and the new book Skripal in Prison."

    [Mar 03, 2020] Russia isn't backing Sanders and Trump as much as hoping for chaos

    Highly recommended!
    This is simply pretty dirty and pretty effective propaganda trick. And it make intelligence agencies the third political party participating in the USA elections. With the right of veto.
    Mar 03, 2020 | www.usatoday.com

    Based on the tone of Tuesday's Democratic debate, you would think the Kremlin has already determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Former Vice President Joe Biden said Russians are "engaged now, as I speak, in interfering in our election." Billionaire Tom Steyer said there is "an attack by a hostile foreign power on our democracy right now." Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg charged that Russia was backing Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt., to ensure a Trump victory in November.

    Clearly, the Russia scaremongering is in full swing. Last week's intelligence community testimony that the Kremlin is backing President Donald Trump made headline news. Another report emerged alleging Moscow is backing Sanders . Biden claimed that Bernie-backing Russian bots have been attacking him on Facebook. And Hillary Clinton told a foreign audience that " Russians are back in our cyber systems ," and that "anyone who tries to deny it" is living in a "sad dreamworld."

    ... ... ...

    But the Russian interference narrative has become entrenched. When intelligence community election expert Shelby Pierson speculated to the House Intelligence Committee in a closed-door meeting that Russia was trying to help President Trump get reelected, it quickly leaked, became a front-page story in The New York Times and precipitated the usual outrage. It took a few days for the less dramatic truth to catch up -- that there was no evidence for the "misleading" supposition that the Kremlin is pro-Trump; at best Russia may have a "preference" for a "deal-maker."

    However, it is not clear how Russia would benefit from a Trump second term, since the first one has not worked out well for them. President Trump has imposed sanctions on Russia , expelled Russian diplomats , sent arms to Ukraine , sold Patriot missiles to Poland , undercut Russia's natural gas markets in Europe, pursued strategic nuclear modernization while not rushing to renew the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and even killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria.

    [Mar 03, 2020] Whacking Rich is a reminder to Sanders what the party establishmen is capable of

    Highly recommended!
    Mar 03, 2020 | www.unz.com

    An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.

    There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made its way from there to WikiLeaks.

    Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used, meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system. Someone like Seth Rich.

    ... ... ...

    Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference, which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the Clinton and Podesta emails.

    Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable of.

    It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.


    plantman , says: Show Comment February 29, 2020 at 9:35 pm GMT

    Excellent roundup.

    I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.

    I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the emails while paving the way for an election victory.

    If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.

    I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one option.

    james charles , says: Show Comment February 29, 2020 at 11:14 pm GMT
    "I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption."
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

    "The FBI Has Been Lying About Seth Rich"
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

    niteranger , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 12:08 am GMT
    @plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have shown the American political process is a complete joke.

    ... ... ...

    Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 1:04 am GMT
    To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016 interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang, otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/_sbT3_9dJY4?feature=oembed

    Ron Unz , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 3:18 am GMT
    Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't seen anything to change my mind:

    Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.

    Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of American history?

    Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good motive for murder.

    Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:

    Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/new-software-releaseopen-thread/#comment-1959442

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/was-seth-rich-murdered-by-the-russians-the-democratic-elite-or-the-democratic-base/#comment-2069185

    Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not long after the leak.

    Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?

    Mustapha Mond , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 3:45 am GMT
    "If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for his treachery ."

    Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.

    In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I understand it.

    Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.

    Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.

    (And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire, please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are capable of.)

    Biff , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 3:46 am GMT
    When the FBI doesn't fully investigate a crime(DNC-emails/9-11/JFK-murder) the only conclusion is " coverup ".
    John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 7:31 am GMT
    I suppose American security services could have been involved.

    That would explain the poor police investigation and lack of information and questions answered.

    But Hillary and her dirty associates were quite capable of hiring a hit.

    That would also explain the lack of information, since DC, unlike any other city, is literally controlled by the Federal government.

    This is a very vicious woman despite her clownishly made-up face.

    Her words after Gaddafi's murder were chilling.

    She is said to have been responsible too for pressuring for the final push to get Waco out of the headlines. 80 folks incinerated.

    She also joked about Assange, "can't we just drone him or something?"

    And there was the dirty business at Benghazi.

    She is indeed a woman capable of anything. A contemporary Borgia.

    Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 9:33 am GMT
    Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
    hobo , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 10:27 am GMT
    Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.

    Seymour Hersh discussing Wikileaks DNC leaks Seth Rich & FBI report ( 7 min)

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZJpQPGeUeQY?feature=oembed

    Antiwar7 , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 10:33 am GMT
    Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks, could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise the other(s).

    Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their associates or families.

    Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.

    Chet Roman , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 11:05 am GMT
    I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview, link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to lose another son.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/_YyuWpjTbg0?feature=oembed

    The story has gone nowhere.

    Chet Roman , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 11:42 am GMT
    "According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."

    Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was authorized by Trump to make any offer.

    The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.

    Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.

    https://www.rohrabacher.com/news/my-meeting-with-julian-assange

    Alfred , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
    @plantman I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking Rich

    Have you never had to deal with a psychopath? That is not the way they reason.

    She would have done it in the "national interest"

    DaveE , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMT
    I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.

    Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of Israel, for example.

    Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .

    It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.

    We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.

    Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 3:27 pm GMT
    @John Chuckman A long time ago I read in the London Guardian ( before it's reputation was in tatters) that the witch kept a list of all who pissed her off and updated it every night.
    A quick search and here it is https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/14/hillary-clinton-hitlist-spreadsheet-grudge
    Altai , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 3:33 pm GMT
    My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.

    What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.

    However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.

    But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.

    Ron Unz , says: Show Comment March 1, 2020 at 3:47 pm GMT
    @Altai

    Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.

    Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign advertising.

    Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such cases that year.

    I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and merely happened together by chance.

    [Mar 03, 2020] The "Russian meddling" fraud: Tulsi Gabbard denounces election interference by US intelligence agencies by Patrick Martin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post, ..."
    "... World Socialist Web Site ..."
    "... The author also recommends: ..."
    Mar 03, 2020 | www.wsws.org

    In a remarkable statement that has gone virtually unreported in the American media, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, publicly denounced US intelligence agencies for interfering in the presidential contest and attempting to sabotage the campaign of Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders.

    In an opinion column published February 27 by the Hill , Gabbard attacked the article published by the Washington Post on February 21, the eve of the Nevada caucuses, which claimed that Russia was intervening in the US election to support Sanders. She also criticized the decision of billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, to repeat the anti-Russia slander against Sanders during the February 25 Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina.

    Gabbard is a military officer in a National Guard medical unit who has been deployed to Iraq and Kuwait and has continuing and close contact with the Pentagon. She is obviously familiar with the machinations of the US military-intelligence apparatus and knows whereof she speaks. Her harsh and uncompromising language is that much more significant.

    She wrote:

    Enough is enough. I am calling on all presidential candidates to stop playing these dangerous political games and immediately condemn any interference in our elections by out-of-control intelligence agencies. A "news article" published last week in the Washington Post, which set off yet another manufactured media firestorm, alleges that the goal of Russia is to trick people into criticizing establishment Democrats. This is a laughably obvious ploy to stifle legitimate criticism and cast aspersions on Americans who are rightly skeptical of the powerful forces exerting control over the primary election process.

    We are told the aim of Russia is to "sow division," but the aim of corporate media and self-serving politicians pushing this narrative is clearly to sow division of their own -- by generating baseless suspicion against the Sanders campaign. It's extremely disingenuous for "journalists" and rival candidates to publicize a news article that merely asserts, without presenting any evidence, that Russia is "helping" Bernie Sanders -- but provides no information as to what that "help" allegedly consists of.

    Gabbard continued:

    If the CIA, FBI or any other intelligence agency is going to tell voters that "Russians" are interfering in this election to help certain candidates -- or simply "sow discord" -- then it needs to immediately provide us with the details of what exactly it's alleging.

    After pointing out that the Democratic Party establishment and the corporate media have had little interest in measures to actually improve election security, such as requiring paper ballots or some other form of permanent record of how people vote, Gabbard demanded:

    The FBI, CIA or any other intelligence agency should immediately stop smearing presidential candidates with innuendo and vague, evidence-free assertions. That is antithetical to the role those agencies play in a free democracy. The American people cannot have faith in our intelligence agencies if they are pushing an agenda to harm candidates they dislike.

    As socialists, we do not share Gabbard's belief that the intelligence agencies have a positive role to play or that the American people need to have faith in them. As her military career demonstrates, she is a supporter of American imperialism and of the capitalist state. However, her opposition to the "dirty tricks" campaign against Sanders is entirely legitimate and puts the spotlight on a deeply anti-democratic operation by the military-intelligence apparatus.

    Gabbard denounces this "new McCarthyism" and calls on her fellow candidate to rebuff the CIA smears and "defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution." Not a single one of the remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination -- including Sanders himself -- has responded to her appeal.

    Her statement concludes that the goal of the "mainstream corporate media and the warmongering political establishment" was either to block Sanders from winning the nomination, or, if he does become the nominee, to "force him to engage in inflammatory anti-Russia rhetoric and perpetuate the new Cold War and nuclear arms race, which are existential threats to our country and the world."

    Despite Gabbard's appeal for the Democratic candidates not to be "manipulated and forced into a corner by overreaching intelligence agencies," the Democratic Party establishment has been working in lockstep with the intelligence agencies in the anti-Russia campaign against Trump, which began even before election day in 2016, metastasized into the Mueller investigation and then the effort to impeach Trump over his delay in the dispatch of military aid to Ukraine for its war with Russian-backed separatist forces.

    Her comments are a complete vindication of what the World Socialist Web Site has written about the anti-Russia campaign and impeachment: these were efforts by the Democratic Party, acting as the representative of the military-intelligence apparatus, to block the emergence of genuine left-wing popular opposition to Trump, and to channel popular hostility to this administration in a right-wing and pro-imperialist direction.

    Gabbard herself was the only House Democrat to abstain on impeachment, although she did not voice any principled grounds for her vote, such as opposition to the intelligence agencies. She has based her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination largely on an appeal to antiwar sentiment, particularly opposing US intervention in Syria. She has also said that if elected, she would drop all charges against Julian Assange and pardon Edward Snowden.

    These views led to a vicious attack by Hillary Clinton, the defeated Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, who last October called Gabbard "a Russian asset," claiming that she was being groomed by Russia to serve as a third-party candidate in 2020 who would take votes away from the Democratic nominee and help re-elect President Trump. "She's the favorite of the Russians," Clinton claimed.

    Since Clinton's attack, the Democratic National Committee has excluded Gabbard from its monthly debates, manipulating the eligibility requirements so that billionaire Michael Bloomberg would qualify even for debates held in states where he was not on the ballot but Gabbard was, such as Nevada and South Carolina.

    The author also recommends:

    Democratic Party deploys Russian meddling smear against Sanders
    [24 February 2020]

    US intelligence agencies meddle in Nevada primary to sabotage Sanders
    [22 February 2020]

    Hillary Clinton slanders Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Green Party candidate Jill Stein as Russian spies

    [Mar 03, 2020] Americans "must remain aware that foreign actors continue to try to influence public sentiment and shape voter perceptions

    Is not this a direct attempt of intelligence agencies to influence election by delegitimizing Sanders and Tulsi ?
    Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Mao , Mar 3 2020 22:20 utc | 57
    NBC News:

    JUST IN: State Dept., DOJ, FBI and others issue joint statement ahead of #SuperTuesday:

    Americans "must remain aware that foreign actors continue to try to influence public sentiment and shape voter perceptions."

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESImtGRWoAYJyus.jpg

    [Mar 03, 2020] Russia hysteria re-purposed by the neoliberal establishment to attack the left of the center politicians like Sanders

    Mar 03, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
    Originally from: Dems Converge Around Dementia-Addled Warmonger Ahead Of Super Tuesday Zero Hedge

    Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Back in January, well before the Democratic primary race had taken on its current composition, independent journalist Ruth Ann Oskolkoff reported that a source had heard from high-level Democratic Party insiders that they were planning to install Joe Biden as the party's nominee, and to smear Bernie Sanders as a Russian asset.

    "On January 20, 2020 at 8:20 p.m. PDT I received a communication from a reliable source," Oskolkoff wrote.

    "This person had interactions earlier that evening with high level party members and associates of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who said that they have now selected Biden as the Democratic Party nominee, with Warren as the VP. They also said the plan is to smear Bernie as a Russian asset."

    Now, immediately before Super Tuesday, we are seeing establishment candidates Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar drop out of the race, both of whom, along with former candidate Beto O'Rourke , are now suddenly endorsing Biden. Elizabeth Warren, the only top-level candidate besides Sanders who could be labeled vaguely "left" by any stretch of the imagination, has meanwhile outraged progressives by remaining in the race, to the Vermont senator's detriment.

    The day before Super Tuesday also saw The Daily Beast , whose corporate owner IAC has Chelsea Clinton on its board of directors , publishing an article titled " Kremlin Media Still Like Bernie, 'Cause They Love Trump " which aggressively smears Sanders as a tool of the Kremlin.

    Prior to the South Carolina primary, Russian state media were touting Bernie Sanders as the most likely Democratic nominee, and it won't be surprising if they do the same after Super Tuesday https://t.co/mH98PVmcjr

    -- The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) March 2, 2020

    This latter development is becoming a conspicuously common line of attack against Sanders and, while we're on the subject, also tracks with a prediction made by journalist Max Blumenthal back in July of 2017. Blumenthal told Fox's Tucker Carlson that "this Russia hysteria will be re-purposed by the political establishment to attack the left and anyone on the left -- a Bernie Sanders-like politician who steps out of line on the issues of permanent war or corporate free trade, things like that -- will be painted as Russia puppets. So this is very dangerous, and people who are progressive who are falling into it need to know what the long-term consequences of this cynical narrative are."

    So we're seeing things unfold exactly as some have predicted. We're seeing the clear frontrunner smeared as a tool of Vladimir Putin, accompanied by a deluge of op-eds and think pieces from all the usual warmongering mass media narrative managers calling on so-called "moderates" to rally around the former Vice President on Super Tuesday.

    Sanders has not been pulling in anywhere near the numbers he'd need to pull to prevent a contested convention. This means that even if he gets more votes than any of his primary opponents, party leaders can still overrule those votes and appoint Biden as their nominee to run against Trump. Establishment spinmeisters as well as all Sanders' primary opponents have been working to normalize this ahead of time.

    "Whatever the case for either Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren...neither is going to be the nominee. And...it's not going to be Mike Bloomberg either. So it's Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden." Tomorrow, if you live in one of 14 states, you can choose Biden. https://t.co/btuPbGtWxG

    -- Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 2, 2020

    And the prediction markets have seen a massive surge for Biden and plunge for Bernie...

    With Biden now surging into the lead

    The only problem? Biden's brain is turning into sauerkraut.

    There are two new clips of video footage making the rounds today, one featuring Biden at a rally telling his supporters that tomorrow is "Super Thursday" , and another featuring the former VP saying (and this is a direct quote ), "We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created -- by the -- you know, you know the thing."

    I've written about Biden's recent struggles to form coherent sentences before, and it seems to be getting worse. There's simply no comparing the befuddled, fuzz-brained man we see before us today with the sharp, lucid speaker we were seeing even a few years ago . The man's brain does not work.

    And yeah, it's unpleasant to have to keep pointing this out. I'm not loving it myself. I resent Biden's handlers and the Democratic Party establishment for making it necessary to continually point out an old man's obvious symptoms of cognitive decline. But it does need to be pointed to, and it's creepy and weird that they're continuing to prop up this crumbling husk of a man while pretending that everything's fine.

    Imagine putting all your eggs in the Joe Biden basket. https://t.co/nRPX4gqol5

    -- Krystal Ball (@krystalball) March 3, 2020

    Not that Biden would be an acceptable leader of the most powerful government on earth even with a working brain; he's a horrible war hawk with an inexcusable track record of advancing right-wing policies. But even rank-and-file Americans who don't pay attention to that stuff would plainly see a man on the debate stage opposite Trump who shouldn't be permitted near heavy machinery, much less the nuclear codes. And Trump will happily point that out.

    It's been obvious since 2016 that the Dems were going to once again sabotage the only candidate with a chance of beating Trump in favor of a scandalously inappropriate candidate, but wheeling out an actual, literal dementia patient for the role is something not even I would have imagined.

    2020 is weird, folks. And it's going to get a whole lot weirder . Buckle up.

    [Mar 01, 2020] Review of the book The Russians Are Coming, Again or New, imporved Soviet Threat by Harry Targ

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe today reflects its perception of a threat from the United States and the NATO countries. For example, President George Herbert Walker Bush promised Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not establish new military installations in Eastern Europe. With new NATO forward bases in Poland and the United States’ support of a coup in Ukraine, the Russians see the United States as having aggressive intent. From Russia’s vantage point United States threats to Soviet/Russian security have been a feature of East/West relations from the Russian Revolution, through the Cold War, to hostile relations with the United States in the twenty-first century. ..."
    Mar 01, 2020 | monthlyreview.org

    The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce
    240 pp, $19 pbk, ISBN 978-1-58367-694-3
    By Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano

    Reviewed by Harry Targ for Socialism and Democracy, vol. 33 (2019), no. 2

    The primary purpose of this book is to challenge the popular view that Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, represents a challenge to U.S. democracy much as the former Soviet Union was alleged to have been during the Cold War. The authors, taking The New York Times as their prime source, argue that what is called Russiagate, a story about the nefarious use of computer hacking, spying, and bribing and threatening to expose public figures, including President Trump, is being promoted day-after-day as the root cause of the outcome of the 2016 election. In addition, they suggest that those who vigorously embrace the Russiagate explanation of the 2016 election are claiming that Russia’s interference might be part of a longer-term Russian threat to American democracy. This is so because alleged hackers spread misinformation about candidates and issues, thus distorting dialogue and debate.

    The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce

    The authors review the charges of subversion of the elections that have been “proven”, or so The New York Times claims. The “proof” includes statements released by spokespersons from the FBI, the CIA and other national security agencies that Russian operatives, agencies, and private institutions have hacked social media with “fake news” about candidates running for office (especially, Hillary Clinton). Advocates of this view presume that such misinformation influenced the voter choices of the American electorate. These are the same institutions that figured so prominently in presenting distorted views of a Soviet “threat” during the Cold War that justified the arms race and massive U.S. military expenditures.

    To illustrate the seriousness of the charges of the impact of Russia’s interference in the election they quote Thomas Friedman who claimed that the Russian hacking of the election was “…a 9/11 scale event. …that goes to the very core of our democracy.” Along with similar opinion pieces by Charles Blow, Timothy Snyder, and other columnists, news stories, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, have been replete with similar claims. The New York Times narrative concludes that the hacking and interference in the U.S. election is designed to promote victories of candidates for public office who would be sympathetic, and subservient to Russia. The long-range goal of Russia, their stories suggest, is to promote Russian expansionism and its restoration to great power status.

    After developing their critique of the Russiagate narrative, Kuzmarov and Marciano, make the case that United States foreign policy since 1917 has been motivated by the desire to crush the Russian Revolution and limit the influence and power of the Soviet Union in world affairs. The Russiagate narrative, they suggest, is primarily a continuation of the story each U.S. administration told the American people about a “Soviet threat” to justify the escalation of the arms race and military spending. They argue that proponents of the Russiagate scenario promote the idea of a new “Russian threat.”

    In fact, Kuzmarov and Marciano say, Russia’s foreign policy in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe today reflects its perception of a threat from the United States and the NATO countries. For example, President George Herbert Walker Bush promised Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not establish new military installations in Eastern Europe. With new NATO forward bases in Poland and the United States’ support of a coup in Ukraine, the Russians see the United States as having aggressive intent. From Russia’s vantage point United States threats to Soviet/Russian security have been a feature of East/West relations from the Russian Revolution, through the Cold War, to hostile relations with the United States in the twenty-first century.

    All too briefly, Kuzmarov and Marciano review the history of the root causes of the United States’ Cold War policy, the lies perpetrated about the Soviet threat, and the enormous damage Cold War policies did to the American people and the victims of war around the world. For those who have not lived through the Cold War and students who are not taught about alternative narratives to “American exceptionalism” this brief volume is very useful. It draws upon the best of historical revisionist scholarship, including the works of William Appleman Williams, Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, Gar Alperowitz, and Ellen Schrecker. It has chapters on the onset of the Cold War and its causes; the attack by Cold War advocates on democracy; Truman, McCarthy, and anti-communism; and the war against the Global South. In sum, the story begins with the substantial U.S. military intervention during the Russian civil war after the Bolshevik victory and continues to Russiagate today.

    The authors effectively develop their two main themes. First, they challenge the argument that Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, represents a threat to U.S. democracy much as the former Soviet Union was alleged to have done during the Cold War. They argue that the Russiagate narrative is fraudulent. Second, they briefly revisit the history of United States/Soviet/Russian relations to argue that the one-hundred-year conflict between the two sides was largely caused by United States’ imperial policies and that proponents of the Russiagate thesis seek to rekindle a new Cold War with Russia.

    Harry Targ. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

    [Mar 01, 2020] Hollywood Goes Full Blacklist and Fails to Grasp the Irony by Larry C Johnson

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead. ..."
    "... "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm." ..."
    "... Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both. ..."
    "... Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation. ..."
    Feb 14, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    In the wake of the latest Hollywood buffoonery displayed at the Oscars, I think it is time for the American public to denounce in the strongest possible terms the rampant hypocrisy of sanctimonious cretins who make their living pretending to be someone other than themselves. Brad Pitt, Joaquin Phoenix and Barbara Streisand pop to mind as representative examples. All three are eager to lecture the American public on the need for equality and non-discrimination. Yet, not one of the recipients of the Oscar gift bags worth $225,000 spoke out against that extraordinary excess nor demanded that the money spent purchasing these "gifts" be used to benefit the poor and the homeless. Nope, take the money and run.

    It is especially galling to see how the Hollywood Community has embraced the era of red-baiting Joseph McCarthy as the new standard for what is acceptable. There was a time that a few brave souls in Hollywood (I am thinking Lucille Ball, Kirk Douglas and Gregory Peck), spoke out against the blacklisting of actors, writers and directors for their past political ties to the Soviet Union.

    Now I have lived long enough to see the so-called liberals in Hollywood rail against Donald Trump and his supporters as "agents of Russia." Many in Hollywood, who weep crocodile tears over the abuses of the Hollywood Blacklist, are now doing the same damn thing without a hint of irony.

    If you are a film buff (and I consider myself one) you should be familiar with these great movies that remind the viewer of the horrors visited upon actors, writers and directors during the Hollywood Blacklist:

    This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America. It was a period of time fed by fear and ignorance. While it is true that there were Americans who identified as Communists and embraced the politics of the Soviet Union, we scared ourselves into believing that communist subversion was everywhere and that America was teetering on the brink of being submerged in a red tide.

    Thirty years ago I reflected on this era and wondered how such mass hysteria could happen. Now I know. We have lived with the same kind of madness since Donald Trump was tagged as a Russian agent in the summer of 2016. And the irony is extraordinary. The very same Hollywood elite that heaped opprobrium on Director Elia Kazan for naming names in Hollywood in front of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, are now leading the charge in labeling anyone who dares speak out against the failed coup as "stooges" of the Kremlin or Putin.

    Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm. Clinton exemplifies the terrifying norm of the political and cultural elite in this country. Accusing political opponents of being controlled by foreign enemies, real or imagined, is an old political tactic. Makes me wonder what Edward R. Murrow or Dalton Trumbo would say if we could bring them back from the dead.


    Bill H , 11 February 2020 at 10:20 AM

    Very well said. And I would extend the same opprobrium to those who label as "racist" anyone who does not agree with their open border policies. Etc.
    plantman , 11 February 2020 at 10:32 AM
    Trump Derangement Syndrome is a vast understatement. You never could have convinced me 4 years ago that virtually all of my liberal friends would have completely lost touch with reality due to their visceral hatred of one man.

    It no longer matters if you agree with people on social policy, entitlements, student loans, homelessness, drug addiction or even wealth distribution.

    If you do not share their irrational hatred of Trump, you're going to be lambasted, shunned and treated like a pariah.

    I've never seen anything like it. It's whacko!

    Jim Henely , 11 February 2020 at 10:34 AM
    Hillary Clinton has become the poster child for the corruption that has captured and paralyzed our political parties and government institutions. Why is she above prosecution? Is the corruption complete? Can we look to any individual or group to restore our Republic? Wake me when the prosecutions begin.
    Flavius , 11 February 2020 at 11:35 AM
    "Hillary Clinton's crazy rant accusing U.S. Army Major and Member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard, as a Kremlin puppet is not a deviation from the norm."

    Ms. President is the closest facsimile to Lady Macbeth that American politics has been able to produce. She'd have murdered her own husband if she had thought succession would have fallen to her. As it was, the only thing that kept him alive was that she needed him for the run she had in mind for herself. The debris that this woman has left in her wake boggles the mind. That she came within a whisker of the job where she would perhaps have left the country in that debris field is a sobering thought to think about what American presidential politics has become in the 21st c. Alas, what passes for her failure and the Country's good fortune, her loved ones in the Arts are still not over. And so they are left commiserating and caterwauling over the Donald this, and the Donald that, while all this good material and their celebrity goes down the tube. Good riddance to them both.

    Dave Schuler , 11 February 2020 at 12:32 PM
    I agree that HUAC's conduct was excessive but you really ought to show the other side of the coin as well.
    1. Communism was genuinely awful. To this day we don't know how many people died, murdered by their own governments, in Soviet Russia and Communist China.
    2. The U. S. government was infiltrated at the very pinnacle of government (as in presidential advisors) by Soviet agents. We know this from Kremlin documents.
    3. We now know (based on Kremlin documents) that the American Communist Party was run by knowing Soviet agents and was funded by the Soviet Union.
    4. The motion picture industry had been heavily infiltrated by Communists including some actual Soviet agents (while Reagan was head of SAG he rooted them out).

    We resolved those issues the wrong way but they desperately needed to be resolved.

    Vegetius , 11 February 2020 at 02:04 PM
    >This was an ugly, awful and evil time in America

    This is self-righteous baby boomer nonsense. It was a brief and slightly uncomfortable time for a handful of people in Hollywood, after which the subversion of American culture and institutions chugged along merrily along to the present day.

    But this episode has been re-purposed and often reduced to caricature as part of a long ideological project aimed at convincing generations of otherwise intelligent white people that their past is a shameful parade of villains.

    They don't call it 'programming' for nothing.

    optimax , 11 February 2020 at 03:53 PM
    Kirk Douglas bravely defied the blacklist by giving Dalton Trumbo credit on Spartacus under his real name, effectively breaking the blacklist.

    I saw part of the Academy Awards and all I heard over and over again were the words race and gender, no female directors nominated.

    On a side note, this being Black History month, teevee is usually filled with the appropriate programing. But because it is the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Aushwitz the Jews are stealing the Blacks thunder by hogging the programming. When the oppressed collide.

    Fred , 11 February 2020 at 04:02 PM
    Just how big is the carbon footprint on a $225,000 swag bag? So nice to see Hollywood integrity in action. I wonder what the Bernie Tax will be on them in 2021?
    bjd , 11 February 2020 at 04:16 PM
    Chills run down my spine that you start your list with 'The Front'.

    Woody Allen's 'The Front', a 'film noir' about the beast and about courage in trying to slay it, is an absolute masterpiece, its end is unmeasurably spectacular and encouraging, and... somehow the movie never got the acclaim it deserves, and lives as one of those quiet orphans.

    But it is highly actual, and that is why you must have come to place it first.

    Thank you for naming it. Extremely recommended.

    blue peacock , 11 February 2020 at 07:26 PM
    Trump campaigned on Drain the Swamp in 2016. The Swamp attempted to take him down with the Russia Collusion hoax that included Spygate and the Mueller special counsel investigation.

    Rep. Devin Nunes uncovered many of the shenanigans while he investigated the claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election. He implored Trump to use his prerogative as POTUS to declassify many documents and communications. Trump instead took the advice of Rod Rosenstein acting as AG who initiated the Mueller investigation and did not declassify. He then passed the buck to AG Barr, who has yet to declassify.

    The question that needs to be asked in light of this: Is Trump a conman who has duped the electorate with Drain the Swamp as he has not used his exclusive powers of classification to present to the voter all the documents and communications about the actions of law enforcement and intelligence agencies relating to claims about Russian influence operations during the 2016 election?

    Fred , 11 February 2020 at 08:13 PM
    Blue,

    Maybe Trump conned the swamp into outing themselves, which hasn't proven that hard since they have even bigger ego's than he.

    D , 11 February 2020 at 09:39 PM
    Blue Peacock, the question that needs to be asked is do you blow your wad all at once on one play. Or do you drip, drip, drip it out strategically. I suggest the latter in this endless game of gotcha politics. Yes, Trump is a con man. That is how he made his billions - selling sizzle. One quality that does translate well into the political arena. No one is surprised - his life has been on the front pages for decades.

    The only newly revealed quality that I find remarkable is his remarkable staying power - the most welcome quality of all. It takes ego maniacs to play this game. Surprised anyone still thinks politics is an avocation for normal people. It isn't. And we the people are the ones that demand this to be the case.

    Sol Invictus , 11 February 2020 at 10:30 PM
    I left the american sh*thole a long time ago and my choice never felt better. I look forward to seeing 50% of americans trying to slaughter the other 50% over socialism. Here we're doing just fine with socialist medecine, and social programs for just about everyting. The Commons are still viable where common sense resides... Oligarchs love cartels, socialism and piratization: it's all about privatizing the gains and socializing the losses to the hoi polloi.
    james , 12 February 2020 at 12:35 AM
    blue peacock... does an alligator want to drain the swamp? the answer is no... that is just a lot of hokum for the naive or illiterate...
    james , 12 February 2020 at 12:36 AM
    @ sol... your first sentence is pretty harsh and more of a reflection on you then anything else..
    anon , 12 February 2020 at 02:26 AM
    Great movie "the front". As to draining the swamp, well trump has to finish the job and here lies the problem. Once done what do you put in its place.

    Bernie of course.

    Diana Croissant , 12 February 2020 at 10:11 AM
    I wonder if Hollywood knows how small some of the audiences in actual movie theaters are now. It's always surprising to me that I am sitting in almost empty theaters now when I decide I want actual movie theater popcorn and so will pay to watch a movie that I have read about and heard about from friends who have already seen the movie. I don't attend unless I've heard good things from my friends about the movie.


    I am constantly surprised that some people even consider watching the Oscars now. I feel the same about professional sports.

    You would be surprised at how good high school plays are and how good high school bands, orchestras, choirs are. The tickets are cheap, and a person actually gets to greet the performers.

    I feel the same about my local university (my Alma Mater). It's Performing Arts departments are excellent. As a student long ago, my student pass allowed me to attend wonderful performances.

    The Glory Days of Hollywood are no more. The actors and directors need to be humbled by having to go to towns across the country to see how sparse the audience in a movie theater is now. It's not at all as I remember as a child when there were long lines at the ticket window.

    [Feb 29, 2020] A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change"

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
    "... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
    Feb 29, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

    likbez , February 29, 2020 7:38 pm

    A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvILLCbOFo4

    I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as the Secretary of State.

    Published on Feb 24, 2020

    In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.

    The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not.

    Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)

    Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."

    Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard Law School.

    He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders, facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation, capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.

    He is the author of several books including the most recent

    Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige (2013)

    [Feb 28, 2020] "Abort operation! Russian agent Bernie Sanders has been compromised!"

    Notable quotes:
    "... I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party" ..."
    Feb 28, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    clarky90 , , February 27, 2020 at 5:04 pm

    "Abort operation! Russian agent Bernie Sanders has been compromised!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=71&v=4xQTr14WMMs&feature=emb_logo

    RT admits that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are both Russian Agents!

    USAian Patriot, Michael Bloomberg has uncovered the truth and heroically, "pulled aside the curtain". (sarc)

    Mel , , February 27, 2020 at 5:13 pm

    A candidate should not be trying to win the nomination.

    LET'S give medals to EVERYbody!

    Samuel Conner , , February 27, 2020 at 8:16 pm

    I would suggest amending this to: Official D policy: "no candidate who intends to govern in the interest of the entirety of the citizenry should seek the nomination of this Party"

    [Feb 26, 2020] How many more years will we be blessed with fables about those dastardly Russians and their omnipotent control of US elections?

    Feb 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    SteveR , Feb 26 2020 18:03 utc | 31

    Darn Russians made people pay $1750 to $3200 to attend the debates last night and clap for Bloomberg. The Russians also aired a long Bloomberg informercial and an anti-Medicare for All commercial during the ad breaks - to divide us. Putin will stop at nothing.

    [Feb 25, 2020] A last-ditch effort to derail the Sanders campaign fails as voters finally reject the Russia con by Matt Taibbi

    Feb 24, 2020 | www.rollingstone.com

    The latest act in the comedy began Friday, just before voting opened in the Nevada Democratic caucus. The Washington Post ran a story -- sourced, I'm not joking, to "people familiar with the matter" -- explaining that Bernie Sanders had been briefed that " Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest."

    Sanders was quick to see through the gambit. "I'll let you guess about one day before the Nevada caucus," he said. "Why do you think it came out?" He pointed to a Post reporter: "It was The Washington Post ? Good friends." The Post, after all, has spent years dumping on Sanders , a fervent critic of the paper's billionaire creep of an owner, Jeff Bezos.

    Intelligence officials and pundits have been screeching for years that patriotism demands voters reject the foreign agent Donald Trump and the Russian asset Bernie Sanders, and support a conventional establishment politician. Voters responded by moving toward Trump in national approval surveys and speeding Sanders to the top of the Democratic Party ticket. A more thorough disavowal of official propaganda would be difficult to imagine.

    Related
    2020 Democrats: Who Should Drop Out Next? Who Should Stay in the Race?
    Everything You Need to Know About the South Carolina Democratic Primary Debate
    Related
    Oscars 2020 Nominations: 12 Biggest Snubs
    Phil Anselmo Remembers Dimebag Darrell: 'I Think of Him Every Day'

    Russiagate will soon be four years old. For the first three years, it pushed parallel themes: that Russia had "interfered" in the 2016 election, and Trump conspired in the fraud.

    The latter theme at times garnered literal around-the-clock coverage. CNN and MSNBC especially (but also the The New York Times , the The Washington Post , the Daily Beast, and other major outlets) preached to audiences that the fall of the Trump administration was imminent. Special counsel Robert Mueller, news audiences were told, would reveal the Trump-Russia conspiracy and save the world.

    After this story died a violent death when Mueller's probe ended with no new charges, conventional wisdom shifted to a new gospel: Russiagate was about foreign interference.

    Russiagate from the start smelled funny , like bad food. Multiple developments worsened the odor. Stories kept coming up wrong. There were too many unnamed sources, too frequently contradicting one another and/or overstating facts. Every hoof print was a zebra's. Outlets stopped worrying about relaying unconfirmed rumors, which is how terms like " blackmail ," " Trump ," " Russia " and even " Golden Showers " kept appearing in headlines, without proof there ever had been blackmail.

    Moreover, while ordinary citizens like Reality Winner went straight to jail for leaking, senior government officials in the past four years repeatedly and with impunity leaked Russia-related tales. The leaks often pushed still more incorrect narratives, like for instance that that Trump aide Carter Page was a foreign agent.

    But the biggest red flag of all was the way in which "Russia" over the past few years became shorthand to describe any brand of political deviance. I wrote this two years ago :

    "Since Trump's election, we've been told Putin was all or partly behind the lot of it: the Catalan independence movement, the Sanders campaign, Brexit , Jill Stein's Green Party run , Black Lives Matter , the resignations of intraparty Trump critics Bob Corker and Jeff Flake "

    Unnamed "officials" have since added the Corbyn movement in England , the gilets jaunes , protesters in Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia , militias in Africa , pro-government disinformation campaigns in Hong Kong , the presidential campaign of Tulsi Gabbard , and countless other undesirables to what has amounted to an ongoing, cumulative blacklist.

    The extraordinary thing about this campaign to identify basically the entire universe of political thought outside of establishment Democrats in the U.S. as Russian assets has been the obvious projection involved.

    The plot running through all of these stories has been the idea that Russia is trying to " undermine our democracy " by " sowing division ." But these charges are coming from the same people who spent the past four years describing Republicans as deplorable fascists, and progressives on the other side as racist, sexist, Nazis, and " digital brownshirts ."

    This has resulted in a four-year parade of official cranks muttering about Russian efforts to "divide" us, when their own relentless message has been that America is besieged by a pair of Hitlerian movements on the left and right that must be put down at all costs. The only vision of "unity" they promote is one of obedience to the crackpot anti-utopia of neoliberalism that populations around the world are currently rejecting at the ballot box.

    The core of the argument about Russian interference rested upon two major news stories: the hack of the DNC in 2016, and a campaign by the "Internet Research Agency" to push "divisive" social media content.

    The former is a leak of true information about the correspondence of senior Democratic Party officials (Jeremy Corbyn was similarly accused of abetting Russian disinformation efforts when damning-but-real materials about the British National Health Service were leaked). The latter? A story about a group of silly memes, amplified a billionfold by the American commercial news reports about these same efforts.

    Did the Russians actually do these things? Maybe. It's not confirmed either way. The sourcing even today remains tied to the same people who've lied about a thousand other things, both in the course of this story and before, from WMDs to the missile gap. As we saw this week, when officials quietly began admitting their ideas about "what Russia wants" rested upon perhaps " overstated " interpretations of intelligence, many of these narratives have been elaborate exercises in reading tea leaves. And they won't let us see the tea leaves.

    But if there is an official Russian agency behind, say, the Internet Research Agency, those efforts pale in comparison to the enormous institutional effort in the United States to use the narrative for other ends.

    The United States, whose spending on intelligence and the military alone nearly equals Russia's GDP, could crush Russia for breakfast and take the rest of the day off for beer and volleyball. But officials have spent the past few years furiously constructing a popular vision of the Russian enemy far bigger than the actual country, which the likes of Rachel Maddow and Barack Obama not long ago were correctly calling a " gnat on the butt of an elephant ."

    Last week was a perfect example. Intelligence officials briefed Sanders about a belief on their part that Russia wanted to "help" his campaign, although the nature of this assistance was not specific enough to be disclosed.

    The Post noted "U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders' campaign against Hillary Clinton," a typically deceptive construction.

    Prosecutors asserted a Russian effort to boost Sanders rather than finding it as true. Nobody has seen the "proof" of this story, not even the Russians charged by Robert Mueller with the conspiracy to help Sanders. In fact, that evidence was deemed so sensitive that Mueller sought to prevent the Russian defendants from seeing it in discovery. The proof was somehow so dangerous, we had to overturn centuries of legal tradition to keep it hidden.

    No matter, the press had no problem repeating the story, because why not? The notion that Russians want to help Sanders always fit nicely into establishment propaganda.

    As a result, we get situations like last week, where there was an assertion about an unknown level of Russian support -- presumably, social media boosting -- that could not possibly equal the impact of a single news story leaked to the Post on the eve of the Nevada primary. Every news consumer in America heard that story last week. Russians could only dream of such saturation.

    The logic of Russiagate is now beyond absurd. Vladimir Putin, somehow in perfect sync with American voting trends, seeks to elevate both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, apparently to compete against himself in the general election, in a desperate effort to suppress the terrifying political might of, say, Joe Biden. I doubt even Neera Tanden in the depths of a wine coma could believe this plot now.

    That this is a dumb story is characteristic. The people pushing it don't have any smart arguments left for remaining in power. Through decades of corporate giveaways, trickle-up economics, pointless wars, and authoritarianism, they've failed the entire population. They are the ones directly threatened by any hint that the population is awakening to its decades-long disenfranchisement.

    They are also the ones who benefit most from "disinformation." Who's trying to divide us? Our own leaders, and as results like the Nevada primary show, the public now knows it.

    [Feb 25, 2020] Russiagate II: Return of the Low Intelligence Zombies

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again." ..."
    "... But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters." ..."
    "... The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken." ..."
    "... Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again? ..."
    "... Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. ..."
    "... The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means. ..."
    "... The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. ..."
    Feb 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    The Russians are back, alongside the American intelligence agencies playing deep inside our elections. Who should we fear more? Hint: not the Russians.

    On February 13, the election security czar in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) briefed the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were meddling again and that they favored Donald Trump. A few weeks earlier, the ODNI briefed Bernie Sanders that the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries, this time in his favor. Both briefings remained secret until this past week, when the former was leaked to the New York Times in time to smear Trump for replacing his DNI, and the latter leaked to the Washington Post ahead of the Nevada caucuses to try and damage Sanders.

    Russiagate is back, baby. Everyone welcome Russiagate II.

    You didn't think after 2016 the bad boys of the intel "community" (which makes it sound like they all live together down in Florida somewhere) weren't going to play their games again, and that they wouldn't learn from their mistakes? Those errors were in retrospect amateurish. A salacious dossier built around a pee tape? Nefarious academics befriending minor Trump campaign staffers who would tell all to an Aussie ambassador trolling London's pubs looking for young, fit Americans? Falsified FISA applications when it was all too obvious even Trumpkin greenhorns weren't dumb enough to sleep with FBI honeypots? You'd think after influencing 85 elections across the globe since World War II, they'd be better at it. But you also knew that after failing to whomp a bumpkin like Trump once, they would keep trying.

    Like any good intel op, you start with a tickle, make it seem like the targets are figuring it out for themselves. Get it out there that Trump offered Wikileaks' Julian Assange a pardon if he would state publicly that Russia wasn't involved in the 2016 DNC leaks. The story was all garbage, not the least of which because Assange has been clear for years that it wasn't the Russians. And there was no offer of a pardon from the White House. And conveniently Assange is locked in a foreign prison and can't comment.

    Whatever. Just make sure you time the Assange story to hit the day after Trump pardoned numerous high-profile, white-collar criminals, so even the casual reader had Trump = bad, with a side of Russian conspiracy, on their minds. You could almost imagine an announcer's voice: "Previously, on Russiagate I "

    Then, only a day after the Assange story (why be subtle?), the sequel hit the theaters with timed leaks to the NYT and WaPo . The mainstream media went Code Red (the CIA has a long history of working with the media to influence elections).

    CNN concluded that "America's Russia nightmare is back." Maddow was ecstatic, bleating "Here we go again," recycling her failed conspiracy theories whole. Everybody quoted Adam Schiff firing off that Trump was "again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling." Tying it all to the failed impeachment efforts, another writer said , "'Let the Voters Decide' doesn't work if Trump fires his national security staff so Russia can help him again." The NYT fretted , "Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation's intelligence agencies." John Brennan (after leaking for a while, most boils dry up and go away) said , "we are now in a full-blown national security crisis." The undead Hillary Clinton tweeted , "Putin's Puppet is at it again."

    It is clear we'll be hearing breaking and developing reports about this from sources believed to be close to others through November. Despite the sense of desperation in the recycled memes and the way the media rose on command to the bait, it's intel community 1, Trump 0.

    But it's still a miss on Bernie. He did well in Nevada despite the leaks, though Russiagate II has a long way to go. Bernie himself assured us of that. Instead of pooh-poohing the idea that the Russians might be working for him, he instead gave it cred, saying , "Some of the ugly stuff on the internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters."

    Sanders handed Russiagate II legs, signaling that he'll use it as cover for the Bros' online shenanigans, which were called out at the last debate. That's playing with fire: it'll be too easy later on to invoke all this with "Komrade Bernie" memes in the already wary purple states. "Putin and Trump are picking their opponent," opined Rahm Emanuel to get that ball rolling.

    Summary to date: everyone is certain the Russians are working to influence the election (adopts cartoon Russian accent) but who is the cat and who is the mouse?

    Is Putin helping Trump get re-elected to remain his asset in place? Or is Putin helping Bernie "I Honeymooned in the Soviet Union" Sanders to make him look like an asset to help Trump? Or are the Russkies really all in because Bernie is a True Socialist sleeper agent, the Emma Goldman of his time (Bernie's old enough to have taken Emma to high school prom)? Or is it not the Russians but the American intel community helping Bernie to make it look like Putin is helping Bernie to help Trump? Or is it the Deep State saying the Reds are helping Bernie to hurt Bernie to help their man Bloomberg? Are Russian spies tripping over American spies in caucus hallways trying to get to the front of the room? Who can tell what is really afoot?

    See, the devil is in the details, which is why we don't have any.

    The world's greatest intelligence team can't seem to come up with anything more specific than "interfering" and "meddling," as if pesky Aunt Vladimir is gossiping at the general store again. CBS reports that House members pressed the ODNI for evidence, such as phone intercepts, to back up claims that Russia is trying to help Trump, but briefers had none to offer. Even Jake Tapper , a Deep State loyalty card holder, raised some doubts. WaPo , which hosted one of the leaks, had to admit "It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken."

    Yes, yes, they have to protect sources and methods, but of course the quickest way to stop Russian influence is to expose it. Instead the ODNI dropped the turd in the punchbowl and walked away. Why not tell the public what media is being bought, which outlets are working, willingly or not, with Putin? Did the Reds implant a radio chip in Biden's skull? Will we be left hanging with the info-free claim "something something social media" again?

    If you're going to scream that communist zombies with MAGA hats are inside the house , you're obligated to provide a little bit more information. Why is it when specifics are required, the response is always something like "Well, the Russians are sowing distrust and turning Americans against themselves in a way that weakens national unity" as if we're all not eating enough green vegetables? Why leave us exposed to Russian influence for even a second when it could all be shut down in an instant?

    Because the intel community learned its lesson in Russiagate I. Details can be investigated. That's where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn't true. Michael Cohen never met the Russians in Prague. The a-ha discovery was that voters don't read much anyway, so just make claims. You'll never really prosecute or impeach anyone, so why bother with evidence (see everything Ukraine)? Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. After all, they managed to convince a large number of Americans Trump's primary purpose in running for president was to fill vacant hotel rooms at his properties. Let the nature of the source -- the brave lads of the intelligence agencies -- legitimize the accusations this time, not facts.

    It will take a while to figure out who is playing whom. Is the goal to help Trump, help Bernie, or defeat both of them to support Bloomberg? But don't let the challenge of seeing the whole picture obscure the obvious: the American intelligence agencies are once again inside our election.

    The intel community crossed a line in 2016, albeit clumsily (what was all that with Comey and Hillary?), to play an overt role in the electoral process. When that didn't work out and Trump was elected, they pivoted and drove us to the brink of all hell breaking loose with Russiagate I. The media welcomed and supported them. The Dems welcomed and supported them. Far too many Americans welcomed and supported them in some elaborate version of the ends justifying the means.

    The good news from 2016 was that the Deep State turned out to be less competent than we originally feared. But they have learned much from those mistakes, particularly how deft a tool a compliant MSM is. This election will be a historian's marker for how a decent nation, fully warned in 2016, fooled itself in 2020 into self-harm. Forget about foreigners influencing our elections from the outside; the zombies are already inside the house.

    Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent .

    [Feb 25, 2020] Glenn Greenwald: Intelligence agencies interfere in the US election using Russia scare

    Feb 25, 2020 | www.youtube.com

    Glenn Greenwald MSNBC's laughable Russiagate meltdown - YouTube


    Al Kene , 1 day ago

    MSNBC is SNL for the sardonic.

    Mike D , 1 day ago

    I can't believe the media keeps accusing politicians they don't like of being Russian assets. Trump, Tulsi, Bernie....seriously....how is CNN and MSNBC still on the air relentlessly pushing crap like that....

    Oathkeeper1992 , 1 day ago

    Norwegian officials just came out in support of a Bernie Sanders presidency....they democratically voted on it. So is Bernie a Norwegian asset? I actually would like that. :p

    flashfloodarea3 , 1 day ago

    A hero of journalism!

    Alan Parker , 1 day ago (edited)

    Russia Isn't Interfering In The Election But Israel & Saudi Arabia Is!

    Arctic Ruffner , 1 day ago

    🤨 Chris Matthews said Bernie supporters would hang him in Central Park and compared his NV win to the Nazi conquest of France. He also suggested Dem leaders let Trump win rather than Bernie take over the party. Chuck Todd called Bernie supporters "brwn shrts". Bernie's Jewish and his family fled the Nazis to America. I can't even tell you the horrible thing Jason Johnson said about women of color or YouTube will block the comment. This 👏🏾 Isn't 👏🏾 a 👏🏾News 👏🏾Channel.

    Nathan Hamilton , 1 day ago

    People who think they can drag Glenn Greenwald on Twitter, are more delusional than people who follow Max Boot.

    JGfromSpace , 1 day ago

    Glenn said Putin is the "Russian Nate Silver"

    Robbie 333 , 1 day ago

    Krystal, Saagar, and Glenn.... doesn't get much better!!

    RawMaterialENT , 1 day ago

    Fun Fact: Putin's biggest detractor in Russia, endorsed Sanders

    SawdEndymon 1312 , 1 day ago

    Glenn Greenwald is a hero

    Lisa Kennedy , 1 day ago

    MSNBC showed their true self after Bernie's win in Nevada and I am completely done with them.

    Steve Joseph , 1 day ago

    When you staff your network chock full of DNC establishment hacks and NatSec partisans, you get the results you have seen on MSNBC

    Brian Loftus , 1 day ago

    My folks told me over and over about hiding under desks from the big one in the 50s.. This tactic goes way back to freaking out the massive generation of children after WW2.

    Prophis , 1 day ago

    Bernie for the win!!!!

    D. Fab , 1 day ago

    The CIA going back to their old routine now that it's becoming more and more clear that they need to overhaul their first version of the cyborg candidate to make him more human like.

    John Siman , 1 day ago (edited)

    0:42 Krystal reads Glenn's description of Rising: "The super-perky radical trans-ideological 21st-century subversive sequel to the Katie Couric Matt Lauer Morning Today Show in its heyday minus all that unpleasantness."

    SeaRose , 1 day ago

    Love ya Glen! One of the bravest journalists of our time.

    [Feb 24, 2020] Seven signs of the neoliberal apocalypse by Van Badham

    Highly recommended!
    Yes, neo-McCarthyism is a sign of the collapse of neoliberal ideology and the crisis within the neoliberal ruling elite, which is trying to patch the cracks int he neoliberal facade of the US society and require the control over the population (which rejected neoliberalism at voting booth in 2016) with Russophobia
    Apr 26, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

    5. The reds are back under the beds

    There's always a bit of judgment and vengeance inherent to the factional shenanigans of Australia's Liberal party, but its refreshed vocabulary warrants inclusion as the fifth sign. Michael Sukkar, the member for Deakin, has been recorded in a dazzling rant declaring war on a "socialist" incursion into a party whose leader is a former merchant banker who pledged to rule for "freedom, the individual and the market" the very day he was anointed.

    Sukkar's insistence is wonderful complement to the performance art monologues of former Liberal MP Bronwyn Bishop on Sky, where she weekly decries socialism is to blame for everything from alcoholism to energy prices.

    The reds may not be under the beds quite yet, but if Sukkar's convinced some commie pinkos are already gatecrashing cocktail events with the blue-tie set, they're certainly on his mind.

    [Feb 24, 2020] The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson

    Notable quotes:
    "... Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity: ..."
    "... Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire. ..."
    "... Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked. ..."
    "... If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE : ..."
    "... "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday. ..."
    "... "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government." ..."
    "... Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining. ..."
    "... Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent. ..."
    Feb 24, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson

    Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:

    Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .

    But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.

    Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?

    Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.

    Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:

    On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.

    Donald Trump did not fire Maguire. He followed the law. The specious claim that Trump fired Maguire exposes McRaven and his ilk as either liars or ignoramuses. The statute governing temporary appointments (i.e., the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998) is quite clear:

    Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.

    Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.

    Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.

    Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.

    The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry streets of Chicago?

    The most recent installment in Putin on the prowl comes courtesy of The NY Times, doing its damndest to masquerade as Pravda.

    Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

    The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.

    During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.

    Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."

    If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE :

    "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.

    "I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.

    Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.

    Senator Mark Warner of Virginia offers up an excellent example of this kind of malicious stupidity :

    "The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.

    "The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.

    Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.

    Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.

    Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming to intensify.


    blue peacock , 23 February 2020 at 02:59 PM

    "When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."

    Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.

    Larry Johnson , 23 February 2020 at 03:10 PM
    If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
    D , 23 February 2020 at 03:52 PM
    Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.

    It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.

    English Outsider , 23 February 2020 at 04:25 PM
    Larry Johnson,

    When it comes to telling us where he's coming from Barr has certainly set out his stall. I have been very interested in AG Barr recently. I quoted this fine lecture - https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/williambarrfederalistsociety.htm

    - on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -

    "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."

    That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.

    So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.

    Upstate NY'er , 23 February 2020 at 07:53 PM
    Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
    Flavius , 23 February 2020 at 08:43 PM
    Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a real adversary.

    Well done, Admiral!

    Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.

    Upstate NY'er , 23 February 2020 at 09:41 PM
    Flavius:

    You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII? BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.

    These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.

    Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.

    JerseyJeffersonian , 23 February 2020 at 10:33 PM
    I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
    prawnik , 24 February 2020 at 10:46 AM
    Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
    PRC90 , 24 February 2020 at 07:17 PM
    Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.

    However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits will begin.

    Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.

    Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.

    Fred , 24 February 2020 at 08:12 PM
    PRC90,

    So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.

    Jack , 24 February 2020 at 10:43 PM
    Fred,

    How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.

    [Feb 24, 2020] The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Feb 24, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    The Russia Interference Hoax--Deja Vu All Over Again by Larry C Johnson

    Admiral Bill McRaven is proving himself to be an ignorant buffoon. Yes, I'm calling a so-called military hero a clown. He is out today with a despicable op-ed attacking President Trump for removing ACTING DNI Joe Maguire. Here is a sampling of McRaven's stupidity:

    Edmund Burke, the Irish statesman and philosopher, once said : "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Over the course of the past three years, I have watched good men and women, friends of mine, come and go in the Trump administration -- all trying to do something -- all trying to do their best. Jim Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Sue Gordon, Dan Coats and, now, Joe Maguire, who until this week was the acting director of national intelligence. . . .

    But, of course, in this administration, good men and women don't last long. Joe was dismissed for doing his job: overseeing the dissemination of intelligence to elected officials who needed that information to do their jobs. As Americans, we should be frightened -- deeply afraid for the future of the nation. When good men and women can't speak the truth, when facts are inconvenient, when integrity and character no longer matter, when presidential ego and self-preservation are more important than national security -- then there is nothing left to stop the triumph of evil.

    Bill, you are wrong as you can be. Are you too damn lazy to do some simple reading and research?

    Maguire's role as DNI was a temporary appointment. It was not permanent and was not submitted to the Senate as part of a confirmation process. He was a mere place holder. Yet McRaven and others in the anti-Trump crowd display their profound ignorance and insist, wrongly, that Trump fired Maguire.

    Here is the dishonest NY Times spin:

    On Wednesday, the president announced that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. And though some current and former officials speculated that the briefing might have played a role in that move, two administration officials said the timing was coincidental. Mr. Grenell had been in discussions with the administration about taking on new roles, they said, and Mr. Trump had never felt a kinship with Mr. Maguire.

    Donald Trump did not fire Maguire. He followed the law. The specious claim that Trump fired Maguire exposes McRaven and his ilk as either liars or ignoramuses. The statute governing temporary appointments (i.e., the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998) is quite clear:

    Once a vacancy occurs, the position is eligible to be filled by an acting officer for 210 days from the date of the vacancy, as well as any time when a nomination is pending before the Senate.

    Guess what? Maguire's resignation coincides with the 210 day limit.

    Facts do not matter to the anti-Trumpers. Remember all of the hysteria surround Attorney General Barr's legitimate and proper submission of a RECOMMENDATION for reduced sentencing in the case of Roger Stone. The media and punditry reacted as if Barr was calling for the mass extermination of physically handicapped children. Hardly any took time to note that Barr's "RECOMMENDATION" was just that--a recommendation. Nothing Barr said or wrote could compel or coerce Judge Berman to act according to Barr's wishes. And guess what? Judge Berman decided that Barr was right. The key point being that, SHE DECIDED. Not Barr.

    Donald Trump is now on the offensive against a corrupt, dishonest intelligence and law enforcement community as well as their enablers in the festering establishment--the whole crowd is panicked.

    The faux outrage over Trump replacing Maguire is just one indicator of this fear. Another is the fact that we are once again being bombarded with the recycled propaganda that Russia meddled in our 2016 election and is poised to do the same in 2020. What next? Resurrect Jussie Smollet and hire a group of pretend rednecks to stage another faux attack on him during the night on the wintry streets of Chicago?

    The most recent installment in Putin on the prowl comes courtesy of The NY Times, doing its damndest to masquerade as Pravda.

    Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

    The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.

    During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump's allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security.

    Just another scurrilous lie. Pure propaganda being spun for the sole purpose of smearing Trump and tainting his election. The real truth is that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is doing less "meddling" in our elections than did his predecessors. We meddled in their elections and domestic politics going back to the end of World War II. Meddling is a natural consequence of having professional intelligence services like the CIA, the FSB, the GRU, the DIA, etc. Another uncomfortable fact is that social media makes it more difficult for the traditional intelligence actors to interfere in politics. Michael Bloomberg's spending in the 2020 Democrat primary dwarfs all efforts to control the social media message. Yet, there are limits to the effectiveness of such "meddling."

    If there really was intelligence that Russia had embarked on a new, more expansive round of meddling then that intelligence should have been briefed to the President as part of Presidential Daily Briefing. But that has not taken place. Trump's National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien says pointedly that he has seen no intelligence to substantiate The NY Times report. NONE :

    "I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump reelected," Robert O'Brien, who was appointed by Trump to the post in September, said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast on Sunday.

    "I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," he said, according to excerpts released on Saturday.

    Another meme in the latest propaganda push by deranged Democrats and discredited media is to portray Maguire's temporary replacement, Ambassador Richard Grenell, as some sort of ignorant, unqualified political hack.

    Senator Mark Warner of Virginia offers up an excellent example of this kind of malicious stupidity :

    "The President has selected an individual without any intelligence experience to serve as the leader of the nation's intelligence community in an acting capacity. This is the second acting director the President has named to the role since the resignation of Dan Coats, apparently in an effort to sidestep the Senate's constitutional authority to advise and consent on such critical national security positions, and flouting the clear intent of Congress when it established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004.

    "The intelligence community deserves stability and an experienced individual to lead them in a time of massive national and global security challenges. And at a time when the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice has been called into grave question, now more than ever our country needs a Senate-confirmed intelligence director who will provide the best intelligence and analysis, regardless of whether or not it's expedient for the President who has appointed him.

    Warner conveniently forgets that Trump named Dan Coats as DNI and the Senate, along with Warner's vote, approved him. Coats had trouble spelling CIA and DNI. He was completely unqualified for the position, yet the Senate rolled over for him with barely a whimper. How about the first DNI? Ambassador John Negroponte was not an intelligence professional. He was career Foreign Service.

    Ambassador Grenell has experience comparable to Negroponte's. Grenell has dealt with all elements of the intelligence community during his tenure working within the realm of the U.S. foreign service. The good news is that Grenell is now on the job as DNI and is starting to clean house. This should have been done four years ago. The DNI, like many other parts of the bureaucracy, is infested with anti-Trump haters doing their best to sabotage his Presidency.

    Robert O'Brien has cleaned out the NSC. There are a lot of empty desks there now. And persons through out the National Security bureacracy, including DOD and CIA, are being emptied. This is a prelude. When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments expect the screaming to intensify.


    blue peacock , 23 February 2020 at 02:59 PM

    "When prosecutor John Durham starts dropping indictments....."

    Larry, it looks like you have a lot of confidence in Durham. What gives you this confidence? The actions of the DOJ to date should make people skeptical that they'll prosecute their own leadership.

    Larry Johnson , 23 February 2020 at 03:10 PM
    If Barr and Durham were going to play ball with the Deep Staters and the anti-Trumpers they would not be attacked as is happening. The hysterical over wrought accusations leveled at Barr last week are merely a symptom of the fear seizing these seditionists.
    D , 23 February 2020 at 03:52 PM
    Americans still retain their keen sense of fair play. Nothing wrong with wanting to be surrounded by those loyal to the elected President.

    It is the President's duty to the office itself to demand those appointed also be competent and act with integrity. The President pays the price if they do not.

    English Outsider , 23 February 2020 at 04:25 PM

    Larry Johnson,

    When it comes to telling us where he's coming from Barr has certainly set out his stall.

    I have been very interested in AG Barr recently. I quoted this fine lecture -

    https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/williambarrfederalistsociety.htm

    - on an English blog in order to underline some parallels between the parliamentary crisis in England last year and the very similar constitutional crisis in the US. But there's a lot more to the lecture than that -

    "Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the Executive Branch and his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes -- It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous -- and indeed incendiary -- notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done in this country for over 200 years, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government."

    That, together with some penetrating remarks about the difference between Progressive and Conservative - and making it amply clear how destructive Progressivism was - was perhaps more than William Barr merely setting out his stall. It was a declaration of intent and if it's held to then we may expect some dramatic results.

    So I'm not surprised the Democrats are attacking him. The wonder is that they're not tearing him limb from limb.

    Upstate NY'er , 23 February 2020 at 07:53 PM
    Chris Murphy - the dolt from CT - on TV whining about Grenell being unqualified and a Trump loyalist. This is the same stooge who just met with the Iranian Foreign Minister (and a head of hair looking for a brain John Kerrey) in Munich.
    Flavius , 23 February 2020 at 08:43 PM
    Admiral McRaven and his gumba Pentagon bureaucrats should be doing a little belly button gazing to determine how after 2 decades they've managed with considerable sturm und drang to win nothing but have succeeded magnificently in piloting the country into Cold War II with a real adversary.

    Well done, Admiral!

    Now don't go troubling yourself, Admiral, over finding a reason why people outside your beltway circle don't give a rat's ass about you and your pals getting disrespected. It's been a long time coming, a very long time, but ya'll have earned in spades the right to be ignored. Get used to it. Fool us for a year, for two years, three... but for eighteen years??? Sorry Admiral. Stop whining.

    Upstate NY'er , 23 February 2020 at 09:41 PM
    Flavius:

    You mean all those VERY important people - dressed like doormen -who haven't won a war since WWII?

    BTW, Gulf Storm doesn't count - you'd probably get more fight back from the NY State Troopers.

    These politicians in uniform know all about "diversity", pissing away LOTS of money, transgenders, sucking up and especially landing Beltway bandit contracts. Fighting, not so much.

    Note, I'm referring to the General Officer ranks, not actual troops.

    JerseyJeffersonian , 23 February 2020 at 10:33 PM
    I assess with 100% certainty that this fake scandal was contrived to coincide with the end of this Maguire's "service". Indeed, all of this time he has been acting as an agent of the Borg, only chucking this stinkbomb as his last, spiteful act. Contemptible.
    prawnik , 24 February 2020 at 10:46 AM
    Caity Johnstone has written a parody piece in which the intelligence community labels every candidate other than Buttigieg to be a Secret Russian Agent.
    PRC90 , 24 February 2020 at 07:17 PM
    Unless someone in the DNC or numerous affiliates can come up with an actual Russian, this kind of hoax will begin to be be seen as dated.

    However, with the Weinstein conviction, the MeToo movement will get new life and a wave of similar high profile pursuits will begin.

    Undoubtedly this will include one DJT, featuring accusers going back to the 1960's in a orchestrated 24/7 chorus of unproven horror that they hope will succeed where Mueller and Schiff et al have failed.

    Who knows, perhaps one accuser (two for corroboration) will even allege some vague Russian presence.

    Fred , 24 February 2020 at 08:12 PM
    PRC90,

    So a democratic megadoner is convicted of multiple accounts of sexual assault and surprise! Others in the moral cesspool that is Hollywood won't be brought to "justice", social or otherwise but we'll see Stormy Daniels 2.0. Except her lawyer's already in jail. The left better come up with something better than that.

    Jack , 24 February 2020 at 10:43 PM
    Fred,

    How about Epstein and his pals? That would be a good start. However nothing will happen on that since too many powerful people would likely be ensnared like Billy Clinton and a British prince.

    [Feb 24, 2020] US Intel Briefer Who Gave Overblown Russian Interference Assessment Has Reputation For Hyperbole

    This is not "the reputation for hyperbole". This is attempt to defend the interests of MIC, including the interests of intelligence agencies themselves in view of deteriorating financial position of the USA. And first of all the level of the current funding. Like was the case in 2016 elections, the intelligence agencies and first of all CIA should now be considered as the third party participating in the 2020 election which attempts to be the kingmaker. They are interested in continuing and intensifying the Cold War 2, as it secured funding for them and MIC (of this they are essential part)
    Notable quotes:
    "... The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN . ..."
    "... " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN ..."
    "... To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received. ..."
    "... No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason ..."
    "... Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui ..."
    Feb 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    The US intelligence community's top election security official who appears to have overstated Russian interference in the 2020 election has a history of hyperbole - described by the Wall Street Journal as "a reputation for being injudicious with her words."

    The official, Shelby Pierson, "appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month," according to CNN .

    The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected .

    The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with. But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump , the officials said.

    " The intelligence doesn't say that ," one senior national security official told CNN. "A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that. It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker." - CNN

    Pierson was reportedly peppered with questions from the House Intelligence Committee, which 'caused her to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected,' according to the report. CNN notes that one intelligence official said that her characterization was "misleading," while a national security official said she failed to provide the "nuance" required to put the US intelligence conclusions in proper context.

    To recap - Pierson told the House Intelligence Committee a lie , which was promptly leaked to the press - ostensibly by Democrats on the committee, and it's just now getting walked back with far less attention than the original 'bombshell' headline received.

    Sound familiar?

    No biggie... the media just ran with hysteria for 3 years as gospel accusing people of treason

    Well guess what? It turns out the media and the DNC were the ones working for Russia, executing their long standing goal to create chaos better than Russia could have ever dreamed of. https://t.co/PhrJiES9ui

    -- Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 24, 2020

    [Feb 23, 2020] The US Is World Leader In Bio-Weapons Research, Production, Use Against Mankind

    This is mostly fear mongering as an affective bioengineered virus will create a pandemic, but the truth is that Anthrax false flag attack after 9/11 was not an accident...
    Trump administration beahaves like a completely lawless gang (stealing Syrian oil is one example. Killing Soleimani is another ) , as for its behaviour on international arena, but I do not believe they go that far. Even for for such "ruptured" gangster as Pompeo
    Notable quotes:
    "... Consider that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be affected in such a scenario? ..."
    "... "In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ..."
    "... Additional notes: here , here , here , here , here and here . ..."
    Feb 23, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    ... ... ...

    Interestingly, in the past, U.S. universities and NGOs went to China specifically to do illegal biological experimentation, and this was so egregious to Chinese officials, that forcible removal of these people was the result. Harvard University, one of the major players in this scandal, stole the DNA samples of hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens, left China with those samples, and continued illegal bio-research in the U.S. It is thought that the U.S. military, which puts a completely different spin on the conversation, had commissioned the research in China at the time. This is more than suspicious.

    The U.S. has, according to this article at Global Research , had a massive biological warfare program since at least the early 1940s, but has used toxic agents against this country and others since the 1860s . This is no secret, regardless of the propaganda spread by the government and its partners in criminal bio-weapon research and production.

    As of 1999, the U.S. government had deployed its Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW) arsenal against the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Haitian boat people, and our neighbor Canada according to this article at Counter Punch . Of course, U.S. citizens have been used as guinea pigs many times as well, and exposed to toxic germ agents and deadly chemicals by government.

    Keep in mind that this is a short list, as the U.S. is well known for also using proxies to spread its toxic chemicals and germ agents, such as happened in Iraq and Syria. Since 1999 there have been continued incidences of several different viruses, most of which are presumed to be manmade , including the current Coronavirus that is affecting China today.

    There is also much evidence of the research and development of race-specific bio-warfare agents. This is very troubling. One would think, given the idiotic race arguments by post-modern Marxists, that this would consume the mainstream news, and any participants in these atrocious race-specific poisons would be outed at every level. That is not happening, but I believe it is due to obvious reasons, including government cover-up, hypocrisy at all levels, and leftist agenda driven objectives that would not gain ground with the exposure of this government-funded anti-race science.

    I will say that it is not just the U.S. that is developing and producing bio-warfare agents and viruses, but many developed countries around the globe do so as well. But the United States, as is the case in every area of war and killing, is by far the world leader in its inhuman desire to be able to kill entire populations through biological and chemical warfare means. Because these agents are extremely dangerous and uncontrollable, and can spread wildly, the risk to not only isolated populations, but also the entire world is evident. Consider that a deadly virus created by the U.S. and used against another country was found out and verified, and in retaliation, that country or others decided to strike back with other toxic agents against America. Where would this end, and over time, how many billions could be affected in such a scenario?

    All indications point to the fact that the most toxic, poisonous, and deadly viruses ever known are being created in labs around the world. In the U.S. think of Fort Detrick, Maryland, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, Horn Island, Mississippi, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, Vigo Ordinance Plant, Indiana, and many others. Think of the fascist partnerships between this government and the pharmaceutical industry. Think of the U.S. military installations positioned all around the globe. Nothing good can come from this, as it is not about finding cures for disease, or about discovering vaccines, but is done for one reason only, and that is for the purpose of bio-warfare for mass killing.

    The drive to find biological weapons that will sicken and kill millions at a time is not only a travesty, but is beyond evil. This power is held by the few, but the potential victims of this madness include everyone on earth. How can such insanity at this level be allowed to continue? If any issue could ever unite the masses, governments participating in biological and germ warfare, race-specific killing, and creating viruses with the potential to affect disease and death worldwide, should cause many to stand together against it. The first step is to expose that governments, the most likely culprit being the U.S. government, are planting these viruses purposely to cause great harm. Once that is proven, the unbelievable risk to all will be known, and then people everywhere should put their divisiveness aside, stand together, and stop this assault on mankind.

    "In vast laboratories in the Ministry of Peace, and in experimental stations, teams of experts are indefatigably at work searching for new and deadlier gases; or for soluble poisons capable of being produced in such quantities as to destroy the vegetation of whole continents; or for breeds of disease germs immunised against all possible antibodies." ~ George Orwell – 1984

    Additional notes: here , here , here , here , here and here .

    [Feb 23, 2020] Sick trash by PaulR

    Notable quotes:
    "... In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're trying to build a completely new society.' ..."
    "... And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their 'minimum level of human development'. ..."
    Feb 18, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

    I'd never heard of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) until today, even though it turns out that one of its members has the office next door to mine. Its website says that it seeks to respond to the challenge of East-West tensions by convening 'former and current officials and experts from a group of Euro-Atlantic states and the European union to test ideas and develop proposals for improving security in areas of existential common interest'. It hopes thereby to 'generate trust through dialogue.'

    It's hard to object to any of this, but its latest statement , entitled 'Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region', doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. The 'twelve steps' the EASLG proposes to improve security in Eastern Ukraine are generally pretty uninspiring, being largely of the 'set up a working group to explore' variety, or of such a vaguely aspirational nature as to be almost worthless (e.g. 'Advance reconstruction of Donbas An essential first step is to conduct a credible needs assessment for the Donbas region to inform a strategy for its social-economic recovery.' Sounds nice, but in reality doesn't amount to a hill of beans).

    For the most part, these proposals attempt to treat the symptoms of the war in Ukraine without addressing the root causes. In a sense, that's fine, as symptoms need treating, but it's sticking plaster when the patient needs some invasive surgery. At the end of its statement, though, the EASLG does go one step further with 'Step 12: Launch a new national dialogue about identity', saying:

    A new, inclusive national dialogue across Ukraine is desirable and could be launched as soon as possible. Efforts should be made to engage with perspectives from Ukraine's neighbors, especially Poland, Hungary, and Russia. This dialogue should address themes of history and national memory, language, identity, and minority experience. It should include tolerance and respect for ethnic and religious minorities in order to increase engagement, inclusiveness, and social cohesion.

    This is admirably trendy and woke, but in the Ukrainian context somewhat explosive, as it implicitly challenges the identity politics of the post-Maidan regime. Unsurprisingly, it's gone down like a lead balloon in Kiev. The notorious website Mirotvorets even went so far as to add former German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger to its blacklist of enemies of Ukraine for having had the temerity to sign the EASLG statement and thus 'taking part in Russia's propaganda events aimed against Ukraine.' Katherine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group commented on Twitter, 'As the idea of dialogue becomes more mainstream, backlash to the concept grows fiercer.' 'In Ukraine, prominent pro-Western politicians, civic activists, and media, have called Step 12 "a provocation" and "dangerous",' she added

    Quinn-Judge comes across as generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian narrative about the war in Donbass, endorsing the idea that it's largely a product of 'Russian aggression'. But she also recognizes that the war has an internal, social dimension which the Ukrainian government and its elite-level supporters refuse to acknowledge. Consequently, they also reject any sort of dialogue, either with Russia or with the rebels in Donbass. As Quinn-Judge notes in another Tweet:

    An advisor to one of Ukraine's most powerful pol[itician]s told us recently of his concern about talk of dialogue in international and domestic circles. 'We have all long ago agreed among ourselves. We need to return our territory, and then work with that sick – sick – population.'

    This isn't an isolated example. Quinn-Judge follows up with a couple more similar statements:

    Social resentments underpin some opposition to disengagement, for example. An activist in [government-controlled] Shchastye told me recently that she feared disengagement and the reopening of the bridge linking the isolated town to [rebel-held] Luhansk: 'I don't want all that trash coming over here.'

    In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're trying to build a completely new society.'

    And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their 'minimum level of human development'. You can fiddle with treating Donbass' symptoms as much as you like, ŕ la EASLG, but unless you tackle this fundamental problem, the disease will keep on ravaging the subject for a long time to come. In due course, I suggest, the only realistic cure will be to remove the patient entirely from the cause of infection.

    Mao Cheng Ji says: February 18, 2020 at 5:02 pm Yeah, but that's just their standard narrative.

    See here, for example:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/uNupUPjLdUI?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    And it's been there, either officially or beneath the surface, since forever. Since the Habsburgs, probably, when it was first introduced in Ruthenia.

    Guest says: February 21, 2020 at 5:27 am

    This person speaks so casually of genocide!!!

    It's disgusting that such people have been empowered and such ideas are mainstream.
    Calling people sick trash is the start on the road to genocide

    Mao Cheng Ji says: February 22, 2020 at 1:46 pm

    He's still there, working. Popular journalist and blogger.

    dewittbourchier says: February 18, 2020 at 6:01 pm
    All that you have described above is very sad, but not very surprising – which is itself very sad. I think Patrick Armstrong is right that a lot of the reason Ukraine is not and has never been a functional polity is because much if not most of the population cannot accept that the right side won WWII.
    Mikhail says: February 18, 2020 at 10:15 pm

    Hypocritically denounces the USSR, while seeking that entity's Communist created/inherited boundaries

    akarlin says: February 18, 2020 at 6:48 pm

    Contempt and loathing towards the Donbass is a pretty popular feeling amongst Ukrainian svidomy. E.g., one of the two regular pro-Ukrainian commenters on my blog.

    To his credit, he supports severing the Donbass from Ukraine (as one would a gangrenous limb – his metaphor) as opposed to trying to claw it back. Which is an internally consistent position.

    Mikhail says: February 18, 2020 at 10:13 pm

    Same guy who doesn't consider Yanukovych as having been overthrown under coup like circumstances, while downplaying Poland's past subjugation of Rus territory.

    Lyttenburgh says: February 19, 2020 at 8:18 pm

    In Part I and II we saw how much truth is there in Herr Karlin's claim of being a model of the rrrracially purrrre Rrrrrrrussian plus some personal views.

    Part III (this one) gives a peek into his cultural and upbringing limits, which "qualify" him as an expert of all things Russian, who speaks on behalf of the People and the Country.

    Exhibit "A"

    " I left when I was six, in 1994 , so I'm not really the best person to ask this question of – it should probably be directed to my parents, or even better, the Russian government at the time which had for all intents and purposes ceased paying academics their salaries.

    I went to California for higher education and because its beaches and mountains made for a nice change from the bleakness of Lancashire.

    I returned to Russia because if I like Putler so much, why don't I go back there? Okay, less flippancy. I am Russian, I do not feel like a foreigner here, I like living in Moscow, added bonus is that I get much higher quality of life for the buck than in California ."

    Exhibit "B"

    "I never went to school, don't have any experience with writing in Russian, and have been overexposed to Anglo culture , so yes, it's no surprise that my texts will sound strange."

    Vladimir says: February 20, 2020 at 8:46 am

    The Russian branch of Carnegie Endowment did a piece on this issue. It mostly fits your ideas, but the author suggests it was a compromise, short-term solution – what steps can be taken right now, without crossing red lines of either side – but compromise is unwelcome among both parties. The official Russian reaction was quite cold too.

    "Удаленные 12 шагов. Почему в Мюнхене испугались собственных предложений по Донбассу"
    https://carnegie.ru/commentary/81093

    Mikhail says: February 20, 2020 at 4:54 pm

    Upon a quick perusal of the website of the org at issue, Alexey Arbatov and Susan Eisenhower have some kind of affiliation with it, thus maybe explaining the compromise approach you mention.

    This matter brings to mind Trump saying one thing during his presidential bid – only to then bring in people in key positions who don't agree with what he campaigned on.

    In terms of credentials and name status, the likes of Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Cohen and Jim Jatras, are needed in Trump's admin for the purpose of having a more balanced foreign policy approach that conforms with US interests (not to be necessarily confused with what neocons and neolibs favor).

    Instead, Trump has been top heavy with geopolitical thinking opposites. He possibly thought that having them in would take some of the criticism away from him.

    The arguably ideal admin has both sides of an issue well represented, with the president intelligently deciding what's best.

    Guest says: February 21, 2020 at 5:23 am

    On the BBC and on other media there are films of Ukrainians attacking a bus with people evacuated from China. These people even wanted to burn down the hospital where the peoplew were taken (along with other unrelated patients)

    This is a sign of a degraded society – attacking people who may or may not be ill!!!

    Ukraine will eventually break up
    The nationalist agenda is just degrading the society.

    -The economy is failing
    -People who can, are leaving
    -The elected government has no control over the violent people who take to the streets

    It's clear Zelensky is a puppet no different to Poroshenko – this destroys the idea that democracy is a good thing.

    It's very sad that the EU and the Americans under Obama – empowered these decisive elements and then blame Russia.

    Crimea did the right thing leaving Ukraine – Donbass hopefully will follow.

    Lyttenburgh says: February 21, 2020 at 11:16 am

    "And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass"

    [ ]

    Only them?

    [ ]

    Yesterday marks yet another milestone on the Ukrainian glorious шлях перемог and long and arduous return to the Family of the European Nations. The Civil Society ™ of the Ukraine rose as one in the mighty CoronavirusMaidan, against the jackbooted goons of the crypto-Napoleon (and agent of Putin) Zelensky. Best people from Poltava oblast' (whose ancestors without doubt, welcomed Swedish Euro-integrators in 1709) and, most important of all, from the Best (Western) Ukrajina, who 6 years ago made the Revolution of Dignity in Kiev the reality and whom pan Poroshenko called the best part of the Nation, said their firm "Геть вiд Москви!"

    to their fellow Ukrainian citizens, evacuated from Wuhan province in China

    The Net is choke full of vivid, memorable videos, showing that 6 years after Maidan, the Ukraine now constitute a unified, эдiна та соборна country. You all, no doubt, already watched these clips, where a brave middle-aged gentleman from the Western Ukraine, racially pure Ukr, proves his mental acuity by deducing, that crypto-tyrant (and "не лох") Zelensky wants to settle evacuees in his pristine oblast out of vengeance, because the Best Ukrajina didn't vote for him during the election. Or a clip about a brave woman from Poltava oblast, suggesting to relocate the Trojan-horse "fellow countrymen" to Chernobol's Zone. Or even the witty comments and suggestions by the paragons of the Ukrainian Civil Society, " волонтэры ":


    Shy and conscientious members of the Ukrainian (national!) intelligentsia had their instincts aligned rrrrrright. When they learned about that their hospital will be the one receiving the evacuees from Wuhan, the entire medical personell of that Poltava oblast medical facility rose to their feet and sang "Shenya vmerla". Democracy and localism proved once again the strongest suit of the pro-European Ukraine, with Ternopol's oblast regional council voting to accept the official statement to the crypto-tyrant Zelensky, which calls attempts to place evacuees on their Holy land "an act of Genocide of the Ukrainian People" (c)

    Just the headlines .

    [ ]

    That's absolutely "normal", predictable reaction of the "racially pure Ukrainians" to their own fellow citizens. Now, Professor, are you insisting on seeking or even expecting "compromise" with them ? What to do, if after all these years, there is no such thing as the united Ukrainian political nation?

    Like Like Reply

    Lyttenburgh says: February 21, 2020 at 2:12 pm

    "Ukraine's democracy is flourishing like never before due to the tireless efforts of grassroots, pro-democracy, civil-society groups. Many Ukrainians say their country is now firmly set on an irreversible, pro-Western trajectory. Moreover, the country has also undertaken a top-to-bottom cultural, economic, and political divorce from its former Soviet overlord.

    Today, Ukraine is a democratic success story in the making, despite Russia's best efforts to the contrary."
    – Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal's foreign correspondent based in Ukraine

    International recognition of the fact:

    [Feb 22, 2020] Mike Bloomberg Is Putin's Agent

    Feb 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Peter , Feb 22 2020 10:27 utc | 4

    This should have been obvious for some time.

    The PUTIN's aim is to sow distrust among the US population. The USA, a peaceful civilized society with apparently no internal conflicts maintains a similar peaceful empire for the benefit of all humanity.
    The impersonate evil of the PUTIN has of course every intention to destroy the present state of tranquility and therefore aims to destruct the undisputed peaceful leader of this empire by sowing internal conflict.
    This is why from Sanders to Warren to Gabbard to Bloomberg to Trump everyone is on the PUTIN payroll or subconsciously exposed to some mind controlling rays he sends via satellite to the USA.
    The PUTIN is the invention by the Russian Federation after their successful evil attempt to evade the good intentions of the EMPIRE to embrace Russia in its sphere of peaceful tranquility.

    Bad PUTIN.


    Jen , Feb 22 2020 10:36 utc | 5

    I suppose when Jeff Bozo's Blog discovers that Putin is playing three-dimensional chess with himself using Bernie Sanders as the White Side and Mike Bloomberg as the Black Side, it will finally declare that to save the US from Russian meddling, the very notion and institution of regular elections, and the massive organisation, funding systems and networks, and marketing campaigns and promotions associated with the 4-year election cycle must finally be declared harmful to American interests and done away with. WaPo will finally advocate for a one-man police state. Democracy truly dies in the darkness of delirium and derangement. Thank you, WaPo.
    Harry law , Feb 22 2020 10:57 utc | 7
    This is hilarious, 'nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people' H L Mencken. But seriously, Putin does now have the power to decide US elections, he simply makes his preferred choice [now the obvious loser]one day before the election. You could not make this up.
    Timothy Hagios , Feb 22 2020 12:25 utc | 10
    Russia is 1984's Emmanuel Goldstein in the form of a country.
    Christoph , Feb 22 2020 12:54 utc | 14
    "The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections" WaPo, 2/21/20.

    This level if clinical delusion is reminiscent of the Führer's last days in the bunker.


    How about free passage to (swampy) Latin America?

    Brendan , Feb 22 2020 13:10 utc | 15
    I know, I know, it's a waste of time trying to ridicule the media when they're already doing that to themselves. Satire is definitely dead when the Washington Post reports about "two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow". WaPo's attempts to explain that the purpose of this bizarre behavior is "sowing division" makes it look even more incredible.
    bjd , Feb 22 2020 13:13 utc | 16
    The concept of democracy was invented by the Kremlin, to sow discord.
    b , Feb 22 2020 13:16 utc | 17
    Here is a candidate who gets it:

    Tulsi Gabbard: How Democrats' impeachment campaign helped Trump

    For years I have stressed the need for our leaders to make decisions based on thoughtfulness and foresight -- not just emotion, or what may "feel good" in a given moment. This is especially important in the area of foreign policy, as politicians' desire to "do something" too often overrides careful consideration of the unintended consequences of the actions they take. Time and time again, their poor judgment has led to worse outcomes in the countries where we recklessly intervene, and for our own country's national security.

    An egregious lack of foresight also led to this counterproductive impeachment of Trump.

    Those who wish to lead our country should have had the foresight to know that this result was inevitable. They need to understand that their decisions should not be dictated by what makes them temporarily feel good or look good, but rather by what will be good for the American people. Emotional gratification or political advantage should never determine one's votes or actions.

    jared , Feb 22 2020 14:02 utc | 25
    Perhaps the intelligence community would just tell us who we should vote for so as not to fall into Putins trap.
    gottlieb , Feb 22 2020 15:22 utc | 37
    Of course the 'sky is falling' Russia revelation/leak/false flag is part of the CIA's ongoing (failed) coup against Trump. But most importantly these revelations are meant to destroy the Bernie Sanders campaign as he gains an insurmountable lead and momentum. The desperate, debauched CIA stooge Democratic Party launches another salvo in its ongoing coup against Sanders. This is nothing to do with Russian interference of US elections, but the interference by Intelligence, working for the Money Power, to preserve the status quo of greed, and murder hope for change in its cradle.
    naiverealist , Feb 22 2020 15:23 utc | 38
    IMO the "Russia meddling" trope is just cover for the real meddlers (ReMs) in our elections. The ReMs don't bother with click bait ads, they use the most effective tool out there to influence voters, candidates, and deep state operatives: the US$. The ReMs give cash to candidates who prefer their policies, and if the candidate does toe the line on their policies, they give the money to their opponent. This is the real meddling, but we don't hear about it because any mention of it results in major shaming as "anti-*******" from the ReMs. The ReMs (even though they are supporting a foreign country) do not have to register as foreign agents in the US (very special treatment) due to specific legislation passed in previous years. The ReMs have bragged about their "support of" (really, buying of) state and federal level legislatures to the point of denying basic Constitutional rights and have been vehemently protected by those bought off people.
    This is the most effective fifth column, the principal criminal, not the Russkies.
    Copeland , Feb 22 2020 16:46 utc | 48
    Give them yellow cake and circuses. 24/7
    vk , Feb 22 2020 17:11 utc | 51

    Sanders on why the story of the briefing from the intelligence came out today

    Sanders on why the story of the briefing from the intelligence community he received a month ago came out today:

    "I'll let you guess. One day before the Nevada caucuses. Why do you think it came out? It was the Washington Post? Good friends."

    blues , Feb 22 2020 17:18 utc | 52
    Let's be honest with ourselves. We all know that American minds are extremely weak and fragile and Americans cannot be exposed to any informations which they are far too helpless to process correctly.

    We absolutely need to be protected from any ideas that might derail our defenceless little minds.

    Thank heaven that the kindly US Government is defending us from wrongful ideas that we cannot possibly handle ourselves.

    james , Feb 22 2020 18:22 utc | 59
    keep taking everything serious and sooner or later you are going to be seriously dead!
    corvo , Feb 22 2020 18:34 utc | 60
    Bit early for April Fool's, isn't it?

    But seriously, even if the notion that Bloomie were a Putin operative were true, I still wouldn't like Bloomie.

    Miss Lacy , Feb 22 2020 18:48 utc | 62
    I hate to break circe's bubble, but here's Saunders responding to a WaPoo trash article:

    "I don't care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president. My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020."

    Sorry dear. Russia did not use internet propaganda to sow division in 2016.... the Dims did it all by themselves. So Saunders is a.) delusional or b.) just another lying politician or c.) hoping the J. Bozo drops a check in the mail?

    Question: the WaPoo seems to have become the new National Inquirer, yes? Does J. Bozo really need the money?

    Norwegian , Feb 22 2020 19:12 utc | 66
    Posted by: Bemildred | Feb 22 2020 13:41 utc | 20
    The "social" is "social media" is in contrast to "professional" or "business" or "commercial" media, i.e. the MSM and other commercial media.

    I understand "social media" literally in the Orwellian sense, it is "social" media just like war is peace. The true meaning is "asocial media" which prevents real interaction, and under complete control by big brother, you can become a non-person at any moment.
    Nathan Mulcahy , Feb 22 2020 19:20 utc | 68
    The American "D"emocracy is a theater of the absurd - not sure if it is a tragedy or a comedy or a tragicomedy. But one thing I am absolutely sure about is the high level of intelligence of the Sheeple.
    karlof1 , Feb 22 2020 20:05 utc | 78
    Yesterday, Pepe Escobar made a similar entry on his Facebook page to which I replied as follows:

    "Why would Russia do that when Trump's doing such a good job of further ruining the USA and Bloomberg would do an even better job of it, whereas Sanders would actually improve the nation and make it a stronger competitor. 100% illogical and spastic!"

    One of his entries today deals with the Iranian election which saw the "Conservatives" gain ground, which in the circumstances was a likely result. And if you haven't yet, check out Pepe's article at Strategic Culture .

    michaelj72 , Feb 22 2020 20:18 utc | 81
    "... Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections..."

    hell, I think there's been sizeable skepticism about the validity of US elections since the Supreme Court pulled off a coup d'etat against Gore in 2000, and then went ahead again to load the dice in Citizens United to give it all away to the oligarchs and Ruling Class with their truck loads of money and dirty laundrying

    no 'russian assets' need to add anything to that pathetic track record of American 'democracy'.... and that's just from the past short 20 years

    I always thought the thing about 'sowing division in the US' was one of the Elites most hilarious and laughable memes - what we need is a satirist as great as Moliere

    Erelis , Feb 22 2020 20:54 utc | 86
    To quote: "Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections."

    A democracy without division, really dissent, is not a democracy. "Hey hey we must not have division over Wall Street or police abuse.....let's have harmony. No no no say no more or you create division."

    Want to get a prespective on American democracy? Ask African Americans and other minority groups (such as Hispanics and the wrong sort of European immigrants) what has been done to their right to vote and dissent both now (see Georgia) or in the past (see Jim Crow).

    Kadath , Feb 22 2020 20:58 utc | 87
    I said this back in 2016 when Russiagate started that it was a poisoned well that the Democrats and the Deep State/National Security establishment would never stop returning to. And here we are, within the space 72 hours the Democrats have accused Russia of "meddling" in the 2020 election by supporting Trump AND Sanders, so I take it that from now on whenever any candidate appears that might upset the establishment even a little bit, they will be accused of being Russian puppets.

    This gives the Democrat Party leadership yet another potential weapon to use against Bernie Sanders in the event of a brokered convention, they'll just bleat out "we can't nominate Bernie, the Russians tainted the process to support him". Trump at least can call the Democrats out on their B.S. and call them liars right to their faces, but poor Bernie wont have the courage to do that (at least from what I've seen so far). His own words about Russian "meddling" in 2016 will haunt him, he'll say that the Russians shouldn't have meddled but it won't have impacted his support, but they'll counter that the nomination process was tainted and the DNC has no choice but to discuss how to proceed with the nomination process. That's how they'll try to kill Bernie's candidacy, the "discussion" will just be a bunch of declarations, ultimatums and public commitments they will extract from Bernie to try and break Bernie from his base and either halt his movement's momentum or kill it outright.

    I don't know if it will work but the DNC has a history of doubling down against the people's favorite. If the DNC pursue this stratagem I imagine we'll see some talking heads show up in March pushing for a discussion among the candidates on how to respond to Russian meddling, maybe even some debate questions. Either way, Sander needs to come out swinging against whatever the DNC suggests (ideally he should put forth his own suggestion and steer the conversation down a path he choses). Rest assured whatever the DNC puts forth, the goal won't be to protect the electoral process it will be to bog down the nomination process with a dead horse debate in order to blunt Sander's momentum so that a brokered convention to pick someone else won't be such an obvious democratic betrayal.

    If the DNC succeeds in screwing Bernie (and more importantly Bernie's supporters) out of a presidential nomination for an election they could have won, It will be a paradigm shift in US internal politics, a second 9/11 that will radically alter how all elections within the US are perceived by the public forever. in the same way 9/11 normalized the concept of the Forever War within the US (also called "Generational War" for those who wish to obscure truth), a "Milwaukee Screw job 2020" will normalize the concept of a moribund political establishment within the DNC that will strangle even mild political reform movement conducted within the system itself. While this will preserve the political establishment for a time, the economic and political crises that created these movements will remain unresolved and having de-facto declared maintaining these crises official party policy by blocking reform efforts within the existing political system, these movements will become radicalized and we'll see return of radical movements similar to those of the 1970s (or 1900s). Eventually either the political system will be reformed or it will collapse, but this will take time (a generation perhaps more). At the very least, this period time and all of the people who lived during it will be robbed of their full political agency, a massive lose to US society and political sophistication. In the worst case, it will result in a political collapse of the US, which will entail a massive cost to the US's human, economic, political and international capital comparable to Russian in 1917

    S , Feb 22 2020 23:42 utc | 117
    The prospect of two rival campaigns both receiving help from Moscow appears to reflect what intelligence officials have previously described as Russia's broader interest in sowing division in the United States and uncertainty about the validity of American elections.

    (In Rachel Maddow's voice.) Sounds crazy, but what if that's the whole point? What if Russia is making all these nonsensical moves on purpose, knowing full well they'll be detected by the U.S. intelligence and reported in the press, thus hurting the credibility of the U.S. intelligence, as no sane individual will believe these allegations?

    [Feb 22, 2020] Trump Should Get Out of NATO Now, But Nicely by Ivan Eland

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to between $150 and $200 trillion. ..."
    Feb 21, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Bossing, bullying, and nickel-and-diming won't make for an easy divorce. Donald Trump at NATO Summit, Brussels, in 2018

    According to Politico , the American delegation to the illustrious Munich Security Conference -- the security counterpart to the elite World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland -- was apparently "dumbfounded" by the hostile reaction they received from European speakers, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier. Steinmeier even took aim at the Trump administration's hallowed "Make America Great Again" slogan, accusing the United States of "rejecting the idea of the international community." Steinmeier characterized Trump's position this way: "Every country should fend for itself and put its own interests over all others 'great again' -- even at the expense of neighbors and partners."

    Ironically, Steinmeier's acerbic comments seem to conclude that if the United States becomes uncomfortable with continuing to effectively subsidize the defense of wealthy European states, which have long been capable of being at least the first line of defense for themselves, it is inflicting suffering on its allies and doesn't even believe in the "international community." Steinmeier's grumbling is akin to that of an entitled young adult still living at home after being told by his parents to get a job.

    The NATO alliance was established to protect war-devastated Western European nations against a possible Soviet threat until they got on their feet economically again. Dwight Eisenhower even said that if American troops remained in Europe too long, NATO would have failed. Yet long after the European economic miracle -- amazing prosperity achieved during a robust recovery in the decade or so after the war -- and long after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO, instead of going away, has expanded its territory and mission. The American military remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than that of the United States. Meanwhile, Russia, the successor "threat" to the Soviet Union, has a GDP equivalent to that of Spain. The overextended United States also has a staggering national debt of $23 trillion and eye-popping unfunded government mandates at all levels that amount to between $150 and $200 trillion.

    One might conclude from this that Trump's policy of angrily haranguing and belittling his NATO allies into coughing up a few more dollars for their own defense is the right one. Trump crudely understands the problem but has come up with the wrong solution. The many Eurocentric analysts, who dominated the American foreign policy elite during the Cold War and are now trying to hang on to relevance, keep hyping the general Russia threat by excessively demonizing its president, Vladimir Putin, who is really just another tin-pot dictator.

    A third way is still possible, one that avoids both placating the hand-wringing Eurocentric establishment and the nickel-and-diming of NATO allies that Trump desires.

    The worst fear of the Eurocentrics is that Trump will, before leaving office, withdraw from the NATO alliance, much as he did with the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, the international agreement on climate change, and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. Yet this is the proper, though radical, approach. It needs to be done immediately, so that it can't be reversed by the next president. The problem is that Trump has been rude and obnoxious enough to the Europeans that the divorce might very well make Britain's exit from the European Union look like a walk in the park. The ideal would have been to have had a previously cordial relationship with Europe, followed by a U.S. statement that the European economic miracle has allowed them to withstand a stagnant Russia and they need to finally take primary responsibility for their own defense.

    This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to hedge against a rising China. Such a change is critical, and it remains to be seen whether it can be achieved.

    Ivan Eland is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty. His new book, War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic After Congressional Failure, was released in May 2019.


    joeo a day ago • edited

    "Trump Should Get Out Of NATO Now, But Nicely" is spot on. The Obama Administration pivot to the Pacific could have be continued in a cordial fashion but that is not the Donald way. The US needs to make a treaty with Russia and leave Europe with the possible exception of Ramstein AFB.
    Bjorn Andresen a day ago • edited
    "Vladimir Putin is a tin pot dictator"

    "Russia is stagnant"

    These goofy neocon statements won't buy you anything. Stop giving legitimacy to the establishment's false narrative, it won't make the foreign policy elites accept you, you can't oppose the elite and at the same time work within the confines of the paradigm they created. Not only are such statements untrue, it's self defeating.

    Selvar Bjorn Andresen a day ago • edited
    Is it really false to say that Russia is stagnant though? After all, Russia has a falling population (population peaked in the early 1990s), a relatively low life-expectancy, an economy that is smaller than that of Italy's in terms of nominal GDP, and a conventional military capability that is a mere shadow of what it once was in Soviet times. Other countries (China, the U.S. etc..) may have a low fertility rate as well, but China has a massive population to start with, and the U.S. can attract immigrants fairly well. Note: I am not saying that immigration is necessarily a good thing when it is used as a means of demographic replacement to make up for a low fertility rate, but it is one way to cope with the geopolitical and economic implications of a low birth rate, at least for a time.

    Certainly, Russia is not doing too badly by Third World standards, and,to be fair, I do think Putin has utilized a fundamentally weak geopolitical hand rather well. It's also pretty clear that Putin played a significant role in bringing Russia back from the brink economically and culturally following the degradation it suffered in the 1990s. For that matter, I think his popularity is likely genuine among many people in Russia, even if he is a dictator of sorts. Still, if you look at the fundamental, long-term economic, demographic, and military trends, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Russia is a declining power. Over a long enough time frame, it almost certainly is.

    Sid Finster Selvar a day ago
    Russia has not had a falling population for some time now.

    Economic statistics are based on official numbers, which ignore the gray market economy that a lot of Russian people live on.

    Selvar Sid Finster 21 hours ago
    Given the fact that Russia has not had an above replacement fertility rate since the fall of the USSR, and given that it's ability to attract immigrants is rather limited (how many third world immigrants would choose Russia, over, say, Germany?), I don't see how a falling population is not inevitable for Russia in the long term. This is especially a problem for Russia given the vastness of its eastern regions, as well as how few people live in those regions to begin with.

    A consistent theme of Pat Buchanan's columns about Russia is that-- given the vast population disparities involved--China is likely to start slowly colonizing Siberia at some point, at least in an implicit, economic sort of way. I do wonder if this is a likely outcome.

    kouroi Selvar a day ago
    Russia third world? A certain head needs to be pulled from a certain something, to put it bluntly.
    Selvar kouroi 21 hours ago • edited
    I said that it's doing well by Third World standards, not that it necessarily is itself a Third World nation. Historically, Russia was considered a Second World country, which makes sense.
    kouroi Selvar 4 hours ago
    Have a look at this second world country: https://halfreeman.wordpres...

    While the US pretends to be a first world country...

    Mandrake Selvar 3 hours ago
    Russia has an excellent education system, its medical services are good, it has a high literacy rate, it is white and Christian, with conservative values, and it has few gun massacres.

    Leaving NATO is a no-brainer. The US and Russia have a common foe - the Chicoms.

    Don Quijote a day ago
    The problem with disbanding NATO is that no one knows what will follow.
    Would Europe go back to the intra power politics of the early 20th Century? In which case the US will likely sucked into their next war.
    Or would the EU integrate it's defense and foreign policy and create a Federal Europe? And if they did, how long would it take Europe to be a peer competitor to the US?
    Sid Finster Don Quijote a day ago
    How many European countries have territorial claims on each other? Few to none.
    How many European countries are in competition for colonies? Few to none.
    Don Quijote Sid Finster a day ago
    You don't need territorial issues for war, the US had no territorial issues with Iraq nor Afghanistan in 2001, it didn't prevent the US from invading both countries.

    I can easily see something like social dumping starting a cascade that takes Europe to war. That is the main European fear about BREXIT.

    =marco01= Sid Finster a day ago
    Russia
    MPC =marco01= a day ago
    I think Russia is more worried about its southern flank than its western one in the long term especially once the US and its ambition is gone. Russia badly needs to get closer to Europe.
    ericsiverson MPC 8 minutes ago
    Russia is in Europe
    ericsiverson Don Quijote 10 minutes ago
    Germany will rule the E.U. just as they would have If Hitler had won the 2cd World war It will be national socialist which the Muslims will like .. The remaining Jews will have to leave or die
    SatirevFlesti a day ago
    NATO should have been mothballed after the fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. But the vested interests of the military-industrial-financial complex have kept it expanding, antagonizing Russia in its sphere of influence, seeking out new monsters (such as the unjust and illegal war on Serbia), and it mainly exists now to enrich arms producers and to support bureaucrats in Brussels with sinecures in their fancy headquarters building.
    Sceptical Gorilla a day ago
    >The American military remains in Europe to guarantee the security of nations that have a combined GDP greater than that of the United States

    I don't believe this is true anymore. The US passed the EU in nominal GDP in roughly 2018.

    K squared a day ago
    Trump nicely=hyper oxymoron
    Wally a day ago • edited
    As an anti-war lefty, I just love this destruction of the intelligence community and hope Trump really does abandon NATO... right before we drag him out of White House in shackles... or some such thing.

    It's curious the complaint about debt in this post... didn't everyone just agree to increase the defense budget last year... again?

    Personan0ngrata a day ago
    Trump Should Get Out of NATO Now, But Nicely

    Agreed.

    This would have allowed the United States rebuild its dissipated power by reducing government spending and debt and reallocating the remaining military forces to the Pacific to hedge against a rising China.

    Why must the US hedge against a rising China in the Pacific ?

    How is this a realistic plan of action?

    China's rise has been through voluntary economic endeavors with other nations not through force of arms. Asian issues must be solved via Asian nations engaging in dialectical dialogue not US government gun-boat diplomacy.

    The same logic that allows for a reduced US role in NATO (ie defending Europe) clearly shows that America's allies in the Pacific (eg Japan, S.Korea, Indonesia, etc) have more than recovered (eg Japan world's 3rd largest economy, S.Korea 12th largest, Indonesia 16th largest) from the devastation of WWII and the Korea War and are quite capable of defending themselves.

    To paraphrase George Washington - trade with all entangling alliances with none.

    https://www.investopedia.co...

    The US has been running trillion dollar yearly deficits for over a decade with an acknowledged 23 trillion dollar debt (as of 2020) along with hundreds of trillions of dollars in unfunded future liabilities and deteriorating national infrastructure in need of over 3 trillion dollars in upgrades.

    https://www.justfacts.com/n...

    https://www.forbes.com/site...

    https://www.maritime-execut...

    In order to meet these pressing issues the US government needs to stop garrisoning (ie empire) the world under the tissue paper thin veneer of providing global stability and security (of which it can not even provide in Baltimore Md 50 miles from DC) and return it's myopic/megalomaniacal gaze to America.

    kouroi a day ago
    The US doesn't want outside Europe and will be pushed out kicking and screaming. Of course the Poles will cry bloody murder... Never a smart polity...
    Brigadier V Mahalingam 19 hours ago
    I don't think Trump is really interested in leaving NATO. US has a stable & a dependable market in Europe. US' presence in Europe prevents China & Russia spreading their wings there. It will also assist US in containing these major powers along side its efforts in South China Sea & the Info-Pacific. Internationally US gets the support of 27 Countries in all international fora. To my mind, the very reason why US continually keeps projecting Russia as an enemy is to ensure that the European countries remain tied to US.

    Even if US is unwilling to let go Europe from the alliance, it is time EU abandons US & takes responsibility for itself. Europe has the potential to become an important & a powerful pole in a Multipolar world.

    peter mcloughlin 14 hours ago
    Russia presents more of a danger today than during the height of the Cold War: then the Kremlin had a proper buffer zone, today it has not. There is the existential threat: the reason nations to war.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory...
    Rossbach an hour ago
    While I agree that NATO is now irrelevant and a significant waste of US tax dollars, shifting that expenditure to fight China might be an even bigger mistake. The US should withdraw its military forces from the Western Pacific for the same reason we should leave NATO. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines should be made responsible for making their own accommodations with China.

    [Feb 21, 2020] Why Both Republicans And Democrats Want Russia To Become The Enemy Of Choice by Philip Giraldi

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here." ..."
    "... Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke." ..."
    "... On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible. ..."
    "... Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. ..."
    "... It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. ..."
    "... Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves. ..."
    "... What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets ..."
    "... It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy. ..."
    "... The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian ..."
    Feb 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    One of the more interesting aspects of the nauseating impeachment trial in the Senate was the repeated vilification of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.

    To hate Russia has become dogma on both sides of the political aisle, in part because no politician has really wanted to confront the lesson of the 2016 election, which was that most Americans think that the federal government is basically incompetent and staffed by career politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell who should return back home and get real jobs .

    Worse still, it is useless, and much like the one trick pony the only thing it can do is steal money from the taxpayers and waste it on various types of self-gratification that only politicians can appreciate. That means that the United States is engaged is fighting multiple wars against make-believe enemies while the country's infrastructure rots and a host of officially certified grievance groups control the public space.

    It sure doesn't look like Kansas anymore.

    The fact that opinion polls in Europe suggest that many Europeans would rather have Vladimir Putin than their own hopelessly corrupt leaders is suggestive. One can buy a whole range of favorable t-shirts featuring Vladimir Putin on Ebay , also suggesting that most Americans find the official Russophobia narrative both mysterious and faintly amusing. They may not really be into the expressed desire of the huddled masses in D.C. to go to war to bring true U.S. style democracy to the un-enlightened.

    One also must wonder if the Democrats are reading the tea leaves correctly. If they think that a slogan like "Honest Joe Biden will keep us safe from Moscow" will be a winner in 2020 they might again be missing the bigger picture. Since the focus on Trump's decidedly erratic behavior will inevitably die down after the impeachment trial is completed, the Democrats will have to come up with something compelling if they really want to win the presidency and it sure won't be the largely fictionalized Russian threat.

    Nevertheless, someone should tell Congressman Adam Schiff, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, to shut up as he is becoming an international embarrassment. His "closing arguments" speeches last week were respectively two-and-a-half hours and ninety minutes long and were inevitably praised by the mainstream media as "magisterial," "powerful," and "impressive." The Washington Post 's resident Zionist extremist Jennifer Rubin labeled it "a grand slam" while legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called it "dazzling." Gail Collins of the New York Times dubbed it "a great job" and added that Schiff is now "a rock star." Daily Beast enthused that the remarks "will go down in history " and progressive activist Ryan Knight called it "a closing statement for the ages." Hollywood was also on board with actress Debra Messing tweeting "I am in tears. Thank you Chairman Schiff for fighting for our country."

    Actually, a better adjective would have been "scary" and not merely due to its elaboration of the alleged high crimes and misdemeanors committed by President Trump, much of which was undeniably true even if not necessarily impeachable. It was scary because it was a warmongers speech, full of allusions to Russia, to Moscow's "interference" in 2016, and to the ridiculous proposition that if Trump were to be defeated in 2020 he might not concede and Russia could even intervene militarily in the United States in support of its puppet.

    Schiff insisted that Trump must be removed now to "assure the integrity" of the 2020 election. He elaborated somewhat ambiguously that "The president's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff also unleashed one of the most time honored but completely lame excuses for going to war, claiming that military assistance to Ukraine that had been delayed by Trump was essential for U.S. national security. He said "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here."

    Schiff, a lawyer who has never had to put his life on the line for anything and whose son sports a MOSSAD t-shirt, is one of those sunshine soldiers who finds it quite acceptable if someone else does the dying. Journalist Max Blumenthal observed that "Liberals used to mock Bush supporters when they used this jingoistic line during the war on Iraq. Now they deploy it to justify an imperialist proxy war against a nuclear power." Aaron Mate at The Nation added that "For all the talk about Russia undermining faith in U.S. elections, how about Russiagaters like Schiff fear-mongering w/ hysterics like this? Let's assume Ukraine did what Trump wanted: announce a probe of Burisma. Would that delegitimize a 2020 U.S. election? This is a joke."

    Over at Antiwar Daniel Lazare explains how the Wednesday speech was "a fear-mongering, sword-rattling harangue that will not only raise tensions with Russia for no good reason, but sends a chilling message to [Democratic Party] dissidents at home that if they deviate from Russiagate orthodoxy by one iota, they'll be driven from the fold."

    The orthodoxy that Lazare was writing about includes the established Nancy Pelosi/Chuck Schumer narrative that Russia invaded "poor innocent Ukraine" in 2014, that it interfered in the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that it is currently trying to smear Joe Biden. One might add to that the growing consensus that Russia can and will interfere again in 2020 to help Trump. Absent from the narrative is the part how the U.S. intervened in Ukraine first to remove its government and the fact that there is something very unsavory about Joe Biden's son taking a high-paying sinecure board position from a notably corrupt Ukrainian oligarch while his father was Vice President and allegedly directing U.S. assistance to a Ukrainian anti-corruption effort.

    On Wednesday, Schiff maintained that "Russia is not a threat to Eastern Europe alone. Ukraine has become the de facto proving ground for just the types of hybrid warfare that the twenty-first century will become defined by: cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, efforts to undermine the legitimacy of state institutions, whether that is voting systems or financial markets. The Kremlin showed boldly in 2016 that with the malign skills it honed in Ukraine, they would not stay in Ukraine. Instead, Russia employed them here to attack our institutions, and they will do so again." Not surprisingly, if one substitutes the "United States" for "Russia" and "Kremlin" and changes "Ukraine" to Iran or Venezuela, the Schiff comment actually becomes much more credible.

    The compulsion on the part of the Democrats to bring down Trump to avoid having to deal with their own failings has brought about a shift in their established foreign policy, placing the neocons and their friends back in charge. For Schiff, who has enthusiastically supported every failed American military effort since 9/11, today's Russia is the Soviet Union reborn, and don't you forget it pardner! Newsweek is meanwhile reporting that the U.S. military is reading the tea leaves and is gearing up to fight the Russians. Per Schiff, Trump must be stopped as he is part of a grand Russian conspiracy to overthrow everything the United States stands for. If the Kremlin is not stopped now, it's first major step, per Schiff, will be to "remake the map of Europe by dint of military force."

    Donald Trump's erratic rule has certainly dismayed many of his former supporters, but the Democratic Party is offering nothing but another helping of George W. Bush/Barack Obama establishment war against the world. We Americans have had enough of that for the past nineteen years. Trump may indeed deserve to be removed based on his actions, but the argument that it is essential to do so because of Russia lurking is complete nonsense. Pretty scary that the apparent chief promoter of that point of view is someone who actually has power in the government, one Adam Schiff, head of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.


    Chain Man , 10 hours ago link

    If the USA doesn't have a bogey man to be afraid of, the USA might worry more and to insist on fixing the problems within the Nation.

    So many of our politicians are guilty of allowing un constitutional on going act like the removal of Due Process of law for some people and the on going bailout of Global Markets with the US Dollar. The Patriot act and FISA Courts should have been gone.

    J Frank Parnell , 11 hours ago link

    I never saw the problem with Russians. They practice the same religion as I do and are mostly the same color...

    Sid Finch , 10 hours ago link

    Agreed. He seems as about as close as a leader can get to genuinely liking his country and people. It seems the ones here only give a **** about carbon, Central and South Americans, and cutting off my kids genitalia.

    Archeofuturist , 11 hours ago link

    Well let see.... Who has a historical beef with Russia and controls both parties. I wonder?

    globalintelhub , 11 hours ago link

    It is scary, but what else can Schiff say? They have no credible arguments against Trump, or for their own party. They are a bunch of lying scumbags that will kill, cheat, steal, mislead, carpet-bag and anything else unethical to achieve their sleazy goals. When Trump wins in a landslide in 2020, they will claim it's because the Russians 'fixed' the election, and the Democratic party will break into pieces arguing about how they failed and what they did wrong. See www.splittingpennies.com

    Alice-the-dog , 11 hours ago link

    Since the US Sociopaths In Charge have totally Effed up the nation, and a significant portion of the world, they have to have SOMEBODY to blame. They certainly won't take the blame they deserve themselves.

    John Hansen , 10 hours ago link

    Don't leave out Israel, they aren't the American peoples friend either.

    motiveunclear , 13 hours ago link

    There used to be this thing we don't hear used much anymore called "diplomacy" and another useful thing in international politics called "tact".

    https://skulltripper.com/2020/01/18/statesmanship/

    44magnum , 12 hours ago link

    What the ZOG wants the ZOG gets

    toady , 13 hours ago link

    McCarthyism II. Will the US be able put down a second "red scare"? Tune in next week. Same bat time, same bat channel.

    sillycat , 13 hours ago link

    lots of words and no answer to the title question. Giraldi does not see the deep ideological problems: Russia is not trying to diversify into a PoC country, they do not worship gays and may be the only white people nation with sustaining birth rate. The US will go to war there is no way to let this continue.

    hispanicLoser , 13 hours ago link

    The level of Russia hate coming out of the dems is so much greater than that coming out of repubs that one can safely ignore this retarded article.

    Jeffersonian Liberal , 12 hours ago link

    True. But their hatred is pretended hatred. It is a form of projection.

    Dan The Man , 13 hours ago link

    Its our own fault.

    The smart ppl are doing a lousy job of informing the dumb ones about accepted policy like "America Always Needs An Enemy". Smart ones understand that, and see the bigger game because of it.

    We fight the dumb ones who believe Russian boogeyman crap, instead of helping them understand they are being misled on who the enemy really is. The dumb ones then fight back and further entrench that brainwashing.

    vasilievich , 13 hours ago link

    I'm trying to imagine the Russian Army marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. But first, across the Atlantic Ocean.

    ombon , 13 hours ago link

    It is appropriate to recall the words of Joseph Goebbels: "Give me the media, and I will make a herd of pigs from any nation," and pigs are easy to drive to the slaughterhouse. Only Russia can really resist such a situation in the world. Therefore, she is the enemy.

    Dan The Man , 13 hours ago link

    Coming Soon... Why the Gullibles Will Believe Anything

    south40_dreams , 14 hours ago link

    ....and the many thieves are gulping at the money spigot.....time to shut that sucker OFF

    whatisthat , 14 hours ago link

    I would observe there is evidence the corrupt establishment has done more damage to the US than any other country could ever imagine...

    Chain Man , 15 hours ago link

    The Centrist Democrats and Republicans want to paint the old school God and Country Conservatives Equality and Justice for the USA (Nationalist) into being Russian. How dare we expect enforcement of the Laws on the books against them. They want to be deemed Royalty with all the Elitist Rights.

    The old rally call about Russia was always Communist Russia but, they don't do that anymore? Why ? They love their Communist China wage slaves. The Centrist love Communist labor in the name of profits . Human rights be damned it's all about the Global Elitist to them now.

    [Feb 21, 2020] US Jewish Finanical Oligarchy is the most anti-russian group in the US according to various polls, so there is nothing "surprising" in that.

    Edited for clarity
    Feb 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Passer by , Feb 21 2020 0:11 utc | 77
    >>his foreign policies are still too aggressive

    >>Where please is Putin "authoritarian"? When has Putin "exploited paranoia and intolerance of minorities"?

    Oh please b.

    UUS Jewish Finanical Oligarchyare the most anti-russian group in the US according to various polls, so there is nothing "surprising" in that.

    Israeli Oligarchy have better relations with Russia.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 20, 2020] Zombie Senator McCarthy is now employed by NYT: NYT Secret Sources Claim Russia Backing Trump Re-Election

    They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing ~Taleyrand
    Feb 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Clearly the only way Trump can win, right?

    It's Putin again, right?

    Moments after the Times report was published, CNN immediately picked it up for their dozens of viewers.

    And of course, the hot-takes:

    This story doesn't say how Russia is supposedly doing this https://t.co/6IiamPtSPI

    -- Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) February 20, 2020

    This story claims that it had five (5!) people criminally leaking alleged content from a classified briefing. And why not, since no one gets prosecuted for these crimes. Still, we have a serious problem with our supposedly professional "intelligence" and "oversight" communities. https://t.co/zuAdwXpU2L

    -- Mollie (@MZHemingway) February 20, 2020

    Until heads roll and hoaxers are sent to prison, the seditious Russian collusion hoaxers will never stop. They will lie and leak and fabricate evidence, whatever it takes, to prevent the American people from taking charge of their own government. https://t.co/wijJ07QKOO

    -- Sean Davis (@seanmdav) February 20, 2020

    [Feb 19, 2020] During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a neoliberal coup d' tat) changed sides and betrayed the working class

    Highly recommended!
    This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a "university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by Michael Lind
    Notable quotes:
    "... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
    Feb 19, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

    likbez , February 19, 2020 12:31 pm

    Does not matter.

    It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments about farmers and metal workers.

    BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.

    During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.

    So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.

    The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.

    So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost immigrants and outsourced workforce.

    The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a decent job, and this is by design.

    Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.

    By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI.

    See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by Michael Lind.

    One of his quotes:

    The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist, but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.

    [Feb 19, 2020] On Michael Lind's "The New Class War" by Gregor Baszak

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
    "... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
    "... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
    "... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
    "... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
    "... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
    "... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
    "... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
    "... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
    "... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
    Jan 08, 2020 | lareviewofbooks.org

    A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen Moore told an audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the shock was palpable" in the room.

    The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.

    To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite , leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of guru for a " smarter Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.

    Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.

    The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."

    To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration.

    The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson, and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy, metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.

    What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages.

    This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up.

    But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself.

    Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.

    Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table? "The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke, authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest its underlings revolt.

    Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,

    American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises.

    Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.

    The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.

    In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."

    Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order" of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes.

    A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other again in war.

    Gregor Baszak is a PhD candidate in English at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His Twitter handle is @gregorbas1.

    Stourley Kracklite 20 days ago • edited ,

    Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
    The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the reckoning being too great.

    [Feb 19, 2020] One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone call. Not their phony quid pro quo.

    Feb 19, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    D , 16 February 2020 at 01:06 PM

    One bonfire that refuses to die and flamed up again today - Crowdstrike and the media's total refusal to even mention its name, which was the really critical part of the Ukrainian phone call. Not their phony quid pro quo.

    All Democrat candidates need to questioned about Crowdstrike, since it led to two failed major Democrat-led actions against President Trump - The Mueller investigation and the Democrat impeachment.

    Following article underscores what Larry Johnson has been reporting for years:

    https://thenationalsentinel.com/2020/02/15/crowdstrike-claim-that-russia-hacked-dnc-server-remains-at-center-of-2016-spygate-scandal-hoax/

    [Feb 19, 2020] Dr. Kelly may not have committed suicide.

    Feb 19, 2020 | www.unz.com

    JohnnyWalker123 , says: Show Comment February 18, 2020 at 7:58 am GMT

    @Ron Unz

    Damning new evidence that Dr Kelly DIDN'T commit suicide: The disturbing flaws in the official government story surrounding the death of Blair's chemical weapons expert https://t.co/izNiYtE8yI

    -- JmRoyle #GTTO #WASPI (@MyArrse) February 13, 2020

    Dr. Kelly may not have committed suicide.

    [Feb 18, 2020] The West "Weeps" for What It Has Sowed by Stormy

    Feb 16, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
    At the Munich Security Conference the U.S. and its allies had no idea of how to handle China, a problem of their greed and stupidity. The West is divided, confused. What to do about Huawei? Really, what to do with China?

    So when Mike Pompeo proclaimed "we are winning," the largely European audience was silent and worried in what sense "we" existed longer.
    In the meantime, Europe, including the U.K, finds itself in a mincer between the U.S. and China

    Unfortunately for us. China has followed the U.S. playbook and has outplayed the West, especially the U.S.

    Walter Rostow of the Johnson administration, an avid anti-communist, wrote the playbook: How can an undeveloped nation take its place among the leaders of the world.

    The answer : Industrialize as rapidly as possible. Do whatever it takes. China did just that.

    In its five year plans, China acknowledged its debt to Rostow and started to industrialize. While I have described this process many years ago, I again outline it briefly here.

    First : China entered the W.T.O. Bill Clinton and Congress were accommodating and instrumental:

    Last fall, as all of you know, the United States signed an agreement to bring China into the W.T.O, on terms that will open its markets to American products and investments.
    Bill Clinton speaking before Congress, March 9, 1998

    Second : China offered dirt cheap labor, labor that had no effective right to bargain
    Third : China did not require a company to obey any environmental regulations.
    Fourth : China often offered a ten-year grace period without any taxation. If there were taxes they were less than those on its own indigenous firms.
    Fifth : China manipulated its currency, making products cheaper to make but getting higher profits in the West.

    The net resul t: Massive trade imbalance in favor of China. CEOs and their henchmen made enormous profits. Devastated American workers were told to go to school, to work harder, to make themselves invaluable to their companies. A cruel joke.

    In droves, Western companies outsourced to China, emptying one factory after another. Anything that could be outsourced was outsourced. China, of course, was not the sole beneficiary of U.S. foolishness. India, Mexico, Vietnam wherever environmental standards were non-existent, wherever workers had no effective rights these were the third world countries the U.S. used. The health and safety of third world workers was of no concern. They were many–and they were expendable.

    U.S. companies were so profitable that special arrangements were made to repatriate those profits back to the states: pennies on the dollar. Many billionaires should really be thanking China.

    Americans were considered only consumers/ The more they consumed, the richer the rich became. Credit was made easy. George Bush's answer to 911 was: Go out and shop.+

    Between The Financial Modernization Act of 1999 and Free trade insanity, the working class of American faced the crash of 2008.

    China became the factory of the world, not through automation, but through dirt cheap labor. China poisoned its atmosphere and polluted its water. Face masks were everywhere. Nonetheless, China had become undeniable economic power, challenging the U.S.

    At the same time, China educated great numbers of engineers, inventors, and scientists. Huwaii became the problem really, Huwaii is just an emblem of it.

    The U.S. in its greed had became lazy. It poured money into weapons. The U.S. decided to build a space force. U.S. bullied countries with foolish sanctions if those countries did not make their billionaire class more profitable. Sanctions instead of competition became last gasp, the last grasp at profit. Flabby and greedy, the U.S.is no longer competitive. It has become just a bully, a threat to everyone.

    Trump, of course, played both sides of the problem. He railed against the outsourcing, but has done little to correct it, giving instead massive tax breaks to the wealthy, gutting environmental regulations laying waste to everything he touches. Pelosi and Schumer pretend to care, but they have nothing to offer. Like Trump, they worry about China. Like Trump, they have no answer, except for more wars and more sanctions.

    Hillary and Bill should take a bow. They began this debacle. Once things were made in the U.S.A. Go to any Walmart store and read the label: Made in China.

    Pelosi and the free trade Democrats should take a bow as should all the Republicans. All of them should hold hands, give each other a quick hug and smile. They and their friends are rich.

    To China belongs the future.


    Terry , February 16, 2020 8:27 pm

    Economics 101 says trade benefits all participants. The problem is not China but the United States. The oligarchs have sucked up all the benefits of trade and have bought the government to keep the good times going. Obama played along unlike FDR with the result that the oligarchs came out stronger than ever while everyone else had a second rate rather than a third rate health care system which Trump and the GOP are struggling to return to a third rate system. You can blame China or the "laziness " of Americans, but the real problem is the moneyed class who do not give a crap about the country or its citizens but only how to hang onto their privileged existence. I hate to even think it but I do not see this thing ending peacefully.

    MARK LOHR , February 16, 2020 8:27 pm

    And in turn funding China's considerable, unabated, and ongoing military expansion.
    The screws are turning; the noose tightening.
    That Western governments of all leanings have not counter-vailed for many decades now is a tale of enormous short-sightedness and cultural hubris.

    davebarnes , February 16, 2020 9:24 pm

    Didn't I read the same thing about Japan 20+ years ago?

    MARK LOHR , February 16, 2020 10:50 pm

    Yes. And to be sure, China faces all the limits inherent to a totalitarian system. However, unlike Japan, they have remilitarized and have demonstrated expansionist goals – artificial island military outposts, Belt and Road, etc.
    Besides stealing/extorting etc our IP.

    doug higgins , February 17, 2020 1:00 am

    Mark,
    Where do you get your information? China has one military base outside its borders. The U.S. has over 800. China does not pour its money into a military budge; the U.S. does.

    Try the actual facts, for a change.

    likbez , February 17, 2020 9:34 am

    To China belongs the future.

    I think it is too early to write down the USA. Historically the USA proved to be highly adaptable society (look at the New Deal). And I think that still there is a chance that it might be capable of jumping the sinking ship of neoliberalism. Although I have problems with Sanders's economic program, Sanders's victory might be instrumental for that change.

    China adopted neoliberalism, much like the USA. It was just lucky to be on the receiving end of the outflow of the capital from the USA. It has a more competent leadership and avoided the fate of the USSR for which the attempt to the adoption of neoliberalism ( aka Perestroika ) proved to be fatal.

    I suspect that the main problem for China is that Neoliberalism, as a social system, is incompatible with the rule of the Communist Party.

    Fundamentally what China has now is a variation of the Soviet "New Economic Policy" (NEP) invented by Bolsheviks after the Civil War in Russia, and while providing a rapid economic development, China has all the problems that are known for this policy.

    One is the endemic corruption of state officials due to the inability of capital to rise above a certain level of political influence and systematic attempts to buy this influence.

    That necessitates periodic campaigns against corruption and purges/jailing of officials, which does not solve the fundamental problem which is systemic.

    The other problem is that the Communist Party is such mode degrades into something like amorphous "holding company" staff for the country (managing state tier in the two tie economy -- state capitalism at the top; neoliberalism at the middle and the bottom)

    Which necessitates the rule of a strong leader, the Father of the Nation, who is capable to conduct purges and hold the Party together by suppressing the appetite of local Party functionaries using brutal repressions. But the Party functionaries understand that they no longer conduct Marxist policies, and that undermines morale. That they are essentially renegades, and that creates a huge stimulus for "make money fast" behavior and illicit self-enrichment.

    Which paradoxically necessitate the hostility with the USA as the mean to cement the Party and suppress the dissent. So not only the USA neocons and MIC are interested in China, China, China (and/or Russia, Russia, Russia) bogeyman.

    That also creates for Chinese senior Communist Party leadership an incentive at some point to implement "Stalin-style solution" to the problems with New Economic Policy.

    So it looks like Neo-McCarthyism in the USA has a long and prosperous future, as both sides are interested in its continuation 🙂

    BTW another example of NEP as a policy was Tito Yugoslavia, which no longer exists.

    Yet another example was Gorbachov's "Perestroika," which logically led to the dissolution of the USSR. With the subjective factor of the total incompetence of Gorbachov as a leader -- with some analogies as for this level of incompetence with Trump.

    As well as general "simplification," and degeneration of Politburo similar to what we observe with the USA Congress now: the USSR in the 1980th has become a gerontocracy.

    But the major factor was that the top KGB officials and several members of Politburo, including Gorbachov, became turncoats and changed sides attempting to change the system to neoliberalism, which was at the time on the assent; Russia always picks the worst possible time for the social change 😉

    While neoliberalism is definitely in decline and its ideology is discredited, I still think there are fundamental problems in tis interaction with the Communist Party rule, that might eventually cause the social crisis for China.

    But only time will tell

    BTW Professor Stephen Cohen books contain very interesting information about NEP, Russia adoption of neoliberalism (and related dissolution of the USSR) and Russia social development in general

    [Feb 16, 2020] Presidential Election Politics are Damaging U.S. Foreign Policy by Robert E. Hunter

    Actions of Trump are dictated by his handlers. He is just a marionette.
    Notable quotes:
    "... wealth on tap. ..."
    "... There's more than an echo of McCartthism in this -- policies are championed to further the business and ideological interests of powerful individuals that don't necessarily reflect the priorities and interests of the country as a whole. People, often those who really should know better, then bandwaggon on those policies, not only to avoid being labeled unpatriotic but to also prove that they're just as or even more patriotic than the people originally promulgating them. We've seen this time and again, probably the most egregious recent example being the miasma of lies that were used to invade Iraq. Its a mindset that might appear to work but I believe that its ultimately a road to nowhere. ..."
    Feb 05, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org

    During every presidential election cycle, pundits argue that foreign policy will play a decisive role. Every time -- at least in my experience of 14 election cycles, nine in campaigns -- they have been proved wrong. This year will almost surely be no different.

    On the hustings, presidential candidates rarely get questions from voters on foreign policy. However, during the televised debates , journalist-questioners looking to make news quiz candidates on what they might do in thus-and-so circumstance, although they can't possibly know until faced in the Oval Office with real-world choices.

    Election Campaign Damage: Israel and Palestine

    By contrast, presidential campaigns often have a serious impact on U.S. national security interests. This year, three foreign policy issues tightly linked to U.S. domestic politics stand out. First, last week, Trump joined with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House to launch the " deal of the century " on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The deal is so one-sided as to be risible and is " dead on arrival." It's good politics for Trump with U.S. constituencies that are strongly pro-Israel, though with less impact with American Jews (most of whom are almost certain to vote for the Democratic nominee) than with many American evangelicals.

    But does it matter that, with Trump's proposal, the United States has abandoned any pretense of being an " honest broker" in the Middle East? To be sure, keen observers rightly note that most Arab governments give no more than ritual support to the Palestinian cause. Many have joined Israel in seeing Iran as their common enemy, and the Palestinians be damned.

    But most Arab leaders still must look over their shoulders: can they be sure that their populations will forget about the Palestinians' decades-long perception of humiliation by Israel, the United States, and most Arab leaders? Thus, to guard against giving a hostage to fortune, both the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIG) have formally rejected the Trump plan.

    Still, a third Palestinian Intifada (or "uprising") has so far not started. But these are early days. In any event, U.S. chances of promoting stability in the region have been seriously damaged.

    Damage: Iran

    More consequential is the standoff between the Trump administration and Iran ' s clerical leadership, with the U.S. being egged on by regional partners. Trump probably does not want an open war with Iran. But heightened tensions raise doubts that either Trump or the Iranians can control the pattern of escalation/de-escalation. Little would be needed to spark a major conflict, even by accident. After the United States assassinated Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, Iran responded only by launching pin-prick missile attacks against two Iraqi airbases used by the U.S. military, with advanced warning to keep from killing Americans. Trump -- and the world -- might not be so lucky next time.

    It takes strong nerves to bet that the Trump administration ' s " maximum pressure" strategy against Iran will remain controlled , much less that Iran will accede to U.S. demands before negotiations even begin. Meanwhile, following Trump ' s amazing folly two years ago of withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which effectively trammeled any chance that Iran could get nuclear weapons for at least a decade, Iran is now ramping up its nuclear activities. Given that Trump has pledged that " Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," at some point a " red line" can get crossed, not just in politics-driven perceptions but in reality. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo still has on the table 12 demands that Iran must meet before any negotiations can begin. No country will accept unconditional surrender as the opening bid for talking.

    Several of the Democratic candidates for president, while deeply concerned about Iran's behavior, oppose the Trump-Pompeo approach, with all of the risks of open conflict. Amid deep unease on Capitol Hill, the Democratic-controlled House has voted to repeal the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), originally the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq, and to prevent funding of military action against Iran without congressional authorization. (Yet neither House bill has much chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate.) But these concerns could be swept aside if an incident in the Persian Gulf region led to Americans getting killed, provoking a national outcry. So long as Trump favors confrontation with Iran over any consideration of compromise or conciliation, the dangers will continue. "Hair trigger" continues to be an apt metaphor.

    Damage: The Democrats on Russia

    It's not just the White House that is doing serious damage to U.S. interests abroad during this year's election campaign. Of even greater consequence (absent a new Middle East war) is the U.S. relationship with Russia. It's currently unthinkable that Washington will try to move beyond the status quo, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin were prepared to do so. Even before Trump was inaugurated, many Democrats began calling for his impeachment . Leading Democrats laid Hillary Clinton ' s defeat at the feet of Russian interference in the U.S. election -- a claim that stretched credulity past the breaking point. Further, as Democrats looked for grounds to impeach Trump (or at least terminally to reduce his reelection chances), the " Russia factor" was the best cudgel available. Charges included the notion that " Putin has something on Trump," which presumes he would sell out the nation ' s security for a mess of pottage.

    All this domestic politicking ignores a geopolitical fact: while the Soviet Union lost the Cold War and, for some time thereafter, Russia could be dismissed, it was always certain that it would again become a significant power, at least in Europe. Thus, even before the Berlin Wall fell, President George H. W. Bush proposed creating a " Europe whole and free" and at peace. Bill Clinton built on what Bush began. Both understood that a renascent Russia could embrace revanchism, and for several years their efforts seemed to have a chance of succeeding.

    Then the effort went off the rails. Putin took power in Russia, which made cooperation with the West difficult if not impossible. He worked to consolidate his domestic position, in part by alleging that the West was " disrespecting" Russia and trying to encircle it. For its part, the U.S. played into the Putin narrative by abandoning the Bush-Clinton vision of taking legitimate Russian interests into account in fashioning European security arrangements. The breaking point came in 2014, when Russia seized Crimea and sent " little green men" to fight in some other parts of Ukraine. The West necessarily responded, with economic sanctions and NATO's buildup of " trip wire" forces in Central Europe.

    But despite the ensuing standoff, the critical requirement remains: the United States has to acknowledge Russia's inevitable rise as a major power while also impressing on Putin the need to trim his ambitions, if he is to avoid a new era of Russian isolation. There is also serious business that the two countries need to pursue, including strategic arms control, the Middle East (especially Iran), and climate change. Despite deep disagreements, including over Ukraine and parts of Central Europe, the U.S. needs to engage in serious discussions with Russia, which means the renewal of diplomacy which has been in the deep freeze for years.

    All of this has been put in pawn by the role that the "Russia factor" has been permitted to play in American presidential politics, especially by Democrats. Longer-term U.S. interests are suffering, along with those of the European allies and Middle East partners. The task has been made even more difficult by those U.S. politicians, think tanks , and journalists who prefer to resurrect the term "cold war" rather than clearly examining the nation's strategic needs because of the blinkers imposed by domestic politics. Open discussion about alternatives in dealing with Russia is thus stifled, at serious cost to the United States and others.

    In all three of these areas, the U.S. is paying a high price in terms of its national interests to the games political leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, are playing. Great efforts will be needed to dig out of this mess, beginning with U.S. willingness to do so. Leaders elsewhere must also be prepared to join in -- far from a sure thing! Unfortunately, there is currently little hope that, at least in the three critical areas discussed above, pursuit of U.S. interests abroad will prevail over today's parochial domestic politics. David G. Horsman You apparently do not appreciate these sociopaths live for this crap. It keeps their juices flowing. Cackling Killary may yet get on Stop and Frisk your Bloomer's ticket and be VP. For a price of course.
    This is a fantasy. Once fascism gets established it is nearly impossible to stop it if history teaches us anything.
    Pseudo-religious talk about Karma is very reminiscent of the decent Christians comforting themselves that all those badies will be punished in hell for an eternity. IE. Because they won't be in this life.
    It's a way of coping with total defeat after 50 years of neoliberalcon supremacy and proto fascism. After a 100 year war on labour.

    It's already over. What do think this is? France 🇫🇷 ?

    I don't fight fascism because I believe we will win. It's because they are fascist. And we know who has all the guns. Gezzah Potts How many human beings have now died as a result of the draconian sanctions unleashed on the Venezuelan people by this rogue terrorist state?
    I also wonder how the people of Detroit are faring considering 33.4% live below the poverty line, or in Cleveland where 35% live in poverty.
    And yet Trump brags of defending 'American liberty' (oxymoron) by spending $2.2 trillion dollars in maintaining the hegemony of this debauched Empire.
    Yet, in the land of the free (another oxymoron) vast swathes of people live in poverty – or live in their cars, or in the burgeoning tent cities.
    How's the water in Flint? Is it still undrinkable?
    As if any of the creatures in Washington care about any of this. Anything to maintain control over much of the Planet. Tim Jenkins And with the highest incarcerated prison population and highest record in private prison profits in California, most recent, it seems the solution to corporate 'societal' wealth is to have 50,000 homeless on the streets in L.A. , just 'hanging' around, the corner . . .

    wealth on tap.

    (datsa' rap trap 😉 ) 5 0 Reply Feb 16, 2020 9:24 AM Gezzah Potts Gezzah Potts Just watched John Pilger's searing documentary 'The Dirty War On The NHS' which included segments on the wondrously caring and compassionate US 'health system' in places like Chicago and such quaint notions as 'patient dumping' where, to further save costs, and make more billions $$$$ – patients are evicted from hospitals early and dumped at homeless shelters.
    My god, the barbarians are not just at the gate. They're already inside the building.
    These completely dehumanised psychopathic neoliberal ideologues who only care about money and profits.
    More and more for us and all you useless eaters can just fuck off and die.
    That's the mentality. It's so sick.
    No, that wasn't a pun. It is truly sick how warped society has become. Seamus Padraig

    Despite the turmoil Trump has experienced since 2016, it has been his karmic responsibility to grow from those challenges, to use each obstacle as a path to align with a higher vibration and become a more conscious person, fully aware of his global responsibility to humanity – that has not appeared to have happened.

    What appears to have happened is that Trump finally caved in to the Deep State, and that's why things are going better for him. I am starting to suspect we may see a war against Iran in Term II.

    Pelosi and the Dems have also created 'bad' karma with their own abuse of power; they too will reap the results of their own behavior.

    What they're gonna reap is more Trump after next November! Martin Usher There's more than an echo of McCartthism in this -- policies are championed to further the business and ideological interests of powerful individuals that don't necessarily reflect the priorities and interests of the country as a whole. People, often those who really should know better, then bandwaggon on those policies, not only to avoid being labeled unpatriotic but to also prove that they're just as or even more patriotic than the people originally promulgating them. We've seen this time and again, probably the most egregious recent example being the miasma of lies that were used to invade Iraq. Its a mindset that might appear to work but I believe that its ultimately a road to nowhere.

    I'm less concerned about the current emphasis on military spending than I would have been in the past because I sincerely doubt the ability of the US to carry through on these plans. The writing's been on the wall for some time and they can certainly spend the money but the chronic shortage of engineering talent, the systematic shortchanging of education and our steady erosion of manufacturing knowhow will limit our ability to turn political wishful thinking into reality. Sure, we'll still be able to produce boutique products, eye-wateringly expensive munitions that we can use to intimidate people who can't shoot back, but we're already in an era where serious cost overruns and performance deficiencies are the rule rather than the exception. This problem has been brewing for a generation or more and it will take a generation or more to fix it. Unfortunately our politicians are still living in the reflected glory of past empires, they seem to be unable to recognize that WW2 was 75 years ago, so I expect we'll stumble along business as usual alienating more and more people until all we have left are those we can buy with our increasingly useless dollars.

    [Feb 16, 2020] Looking at various indices like median household income and average wage, it seems as if living standards in Russia are substantially below western European levels and even slightly below central Europe

    Feb 16, 2020 | www.quora.com

    Likbez,

    Looking at various indices like median household income and average wage, it seems as if living standards in Russia are substantially below western European levels and even slightly below central Europe. (Estonia and Poland are consistently slightly higher, Hungary often a bit lower.) Compared to China, going by the same sources and others, Russian wages are roughly twice as high as China's

    That creates separatist movements within the country, including Islamist movements in Muslim-dominated regions.

    So their posture is strictly defensive, and probably is not much more than a mild defensive reaction to "Full-spectrum Dominance" doctrine and the aggressive foreign policy conducted by the USA neocons (which totally dominate NSC and the State Department, as we saw from Ukrainegate testimonies)

    The USA coup d'état in Ukraine actually have a blowback for the USA -- it neutralized influence and political status of Russia neoliberal fifth column (neoliberal compradors), and if not Putin (who is paradoxically a pro-Western neoliberal; although of "national neoliberalism" flavor similar to Trumpism ) some of them probably would be now hanging from the lamp posts. They are really hated by population after hardships, comparable with WWII hardships, imposed on ordinary Russian during Western-enforced neoliberalization under marionette Yeltsin government and attempt to grab Russian resources for pennies on a dollar. "Marshall plan" for Russia instead of economic rape would be a much better policy.

    I think Obama-Nuland plot to turn Ukraine into the USA vassal state was yet another very dangerous move, which hurts the USA national security and greatly increased chances of military confrontation with Russia (aka mutual annihilation)

    It was worse then a crime, it was a blunder. And now the USA needs to support this vassal with money we do not have.

    The role of NSC in militarizing the USA foreign policy is such that it neutralizes any impulses of any US administration (if we assume they exist) to improve relations with Russia.

    Neoliberal Dems now is a second war party which bet on neo-McCarthyism to weaken Trump. They went into the complete status of psychosis in this area. I view it as a psychotic reaction to the first signs of the collapse of the USA-centered global neoliberal empire (which will happen anyway independently of Russian moves)

    That's actually a very dangerous situation indeed, and I am really afraid that the person who will replace Putin will not have Putin steel nerves, diplomatic talent, and the affinity with the West. Then what ? another Sarajevo and another war?

    With warmongering "raptured" crazies like Mike, "we killed up to 200 Russians" Pompeo, the situation can really become explosive like before WWI. Again, after Putin leaves the political scene, the Sarajevo incident is easy to stage, especially with such incompetent marionette of the military-industrial complex like Trump at the helm.

    I believe antagonizing Russia was a reckless, very damaging to the USA interest move, the move initiated by Clinton administration and supported by all subsequent administration as weakening and possibly dismembering Russia is one of the key aspect of Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine. . And we will pay a huge price for this policy.

    See also Professor Stephen Cohen books on the subject.

    Barkley Rosser February 16, 2020 9:19 pm

    JimH,

    Why do you pose this as antagonizing either Russsia or Iran? They are somewhat allied, so in fact antagonizing Iran as we are doing also antagonizes Russia.

    Likbez,

    The relative economic position of Russia in terms of median income is no different today than it was 30 years ago before Yeltsin, except for the rise of China. It was behind the European nations to its west, both those that were under its domination and those that were not, and it still is. So no big deal.

    And somehow you have this fantasy that if it were not for Obama-Nuland, Ukrainians would just loooove to be under Russian domination. f you think this, you ser both foolish and very ignorant.

    likbez February 16, 2020 10:30 pm

    And somehow you have this fantasy that if it were not for Obama-Nuland, Ukrainians would just loooove to be under Russian domination. f you think this, you ser both foolish and very ignorant.

    I might well be foolish and ignorant (I am far from being the specialist in the region), but I suspect Ukrainians do prefer the exchange rate ~8.5 hrivnas to a dollar (before the coup) to the current 25 hrivnas to a dollar.

    Especially taking into account stagnant salaries and actual parity of prices in dollars for many types of food (especially meat), industrial products, and services between the USA and Ukraine.

    I recently talked with one Ukrainian woman who told me that the "bribe" (unofficial payments due to low salaries for doctors and nurses in state clinics) for the child delivery was $1000 in Kiev in 2014 and she gave birth exactly at the time when hrivna jumped from 8.5 to over 20 per dollar. That was a tragedy for her and her family.

    And please remember that the average SS pension in Ukraine is around 1500 hrivna a month (~ $60). So to me, it is completely unclear how pensioners can survive at all while the government is buying super expensive American weapons "to defend the country from Russian aggression."

    I would strongly recommend you to read the recent Consortium news story https://consortiumnews.com/2020/02/14/understanding-the-ukraine-story/

    [Feb 16, 2020] Imperialism and Liberation in the Middle East Feb 14, 2020 Written by P l Steigan, translated by Terje Maloy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
    "... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
    "... How ligitimate is that? ..."
    Feb 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.

    When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"

    How should one analyze this?

    Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based, ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.

    There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world. But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the specific conditions in the individual country and region.

    Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of what the peoples themselves have wanted.

    During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that had strong popular support at the time.

    King Abdallah I of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics .

    In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called the Arab Federation . All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.

    Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration , which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

    But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites for success or failure?

    The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power relations between them

    Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of the era of imperialism:

    The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

    But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.

    After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as Lenin states :

    The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?"

    The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not once, but twice.

    Versailles and Yalta

    The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor treaties.

    Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)

    This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:

    At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.

    Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as "a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.

    The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union fell

    In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers. The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.

    If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void. Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the fear of empty space.

    And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.

    Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål Steigan, 1999

    "Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)

    When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty space.

    This laid the foundation for the American Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria.

    The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.

    So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism. The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.

    The results of two terrible wars are again up for grabs

    World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are talking about this order of magnitude.

    The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below 100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.

    Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer "the void". Donald Trump recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8 trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.

    "The Rebellion against Sykes-Picot"

    In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for these boundaries to be revised now?

    In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning Iraq.

    Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.

    It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater game.

    This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.

    Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.

    Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.

    The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003, helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that was their tool in Iraq.

    Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States. And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .

    And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil. What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".

    As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27 percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.

    Preparations for a New World War

    Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area, which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.

    There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.

    The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.

    And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about 100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it. The Kurdish question is not worth that much.

    This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company. The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.

    It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and internal self rule.

    All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)

    Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be developed.

    And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.

    The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to be seen.

    This article is Creative Commons 4.0. Pål Steigan is a Norwegian veteran journalist and activist, presently editor of the independent news site Steigan.no . Translated by Terje Maloy. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: 20th Century , historical perspectives , latest Tagged with: Croatia , Egypt , historical perspectives , imperialism , Israel , Jordan , Lenin , Middle East , Pal Steigan , Palestine , russia , Saudi Arabia , Stepan Bandera , Terje Maloy , ukraine , WWII can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

    OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

    Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

    George Mc ,

    Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/16/fran-unsworth-bbc-election-coverge-licence-fee

    The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage

    No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What more could they do?

    Dungroanin ,

    Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae- phobe.

    The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.

    Ready?

    'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann and his colleagues:

    "His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."

    Got that – AUGUST?

    Dungroanin ,


    The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.

    Dungroanin ,

    Author(s)
    Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner

    Signatories
    Arthur James Balfour

    Recipient
    Walter Rothschild

    Dungroanin ,

    'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of a Jewish state. '

    Dungroanin ,

    'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:

    Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '

    Dungroanin ,

    'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'

    Dungroanin ,

    The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.

    According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be imagined."

    And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman [Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"

    Dungroanin ,

    Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:

    'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of what they, too, regarded as their homeland.

    After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America."

    This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM, daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'

    Dungroanin ,

    Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:

    'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'

    Dungroanin ,

    The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter, even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their "best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

    Dungroanin ,

    There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.

    George Mc ,

    the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.

    If this is true then we are all doomed.

    Dungroanin ,

    Not if we are aware of it George.

    Dungroanin ,

    Ok a summary fom Brittanica:

    'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts

    The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however, said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).

    The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial possessions in India.

    The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

    In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.

    Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.'

    Dungroanin ,

    But what about the timing?

    Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.

    'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914. For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains in the Levant and the Middle East.

    The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal, Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.

    In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '

    Dungroanin ,

    The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a miasma of blatant lies.

    IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :

    Can we follow the money?

    When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
    How much money did it lend &
    to whom?

    When was the first world war started?

    When did US declare war?

    When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?

    What happened in Russia at the same time?

    And in Mesopotamia?

    How did it end?

    How did it fail to end?

    What happened to the contract?

    Etc.

    I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.

    Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient tracks.

    Dungroanin ,

    'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.

    7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
    The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza

    9 November Letter published in Times.

    Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"

    End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price, was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this, Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.

    11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '

    So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?

    George Mc ,

    No.

    Dungroanin ,

    🤣

    Dungroanin ,

    Ok on the back stretch:

    https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_formative_years

    The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers' acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.

    President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.

    The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.

    On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
    ..

    The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.

    World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as on the Federal Reserve.

    War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves, and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing share of world trade.

    Dungroanin ,

    So the denouement :

    It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost the US banks.

    However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story is widely publicised.

    Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson (another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
    -- --

    When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes, because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism). Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards who are responsible for all our current malaises.

    Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!

    😉

    George Mc ,

    Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called it). The question is: What do we do about it?

    Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No irony intended.)

    Dungroanin ,

    George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.

    I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD – that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on Earth.

    I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it. That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.

    I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis of morality.

    I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived without the literal grassroots!
    ..

    As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references – please give a link.

    -- -

    As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the verity of the facts which I have presented above?

    Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.

    George Mc ,

    The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:

    https://www.larsschall.com/2012/06/10/the-business-as-usual-behind-the-slaughter/

    The statement itself is this:

    Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming oratory.

    This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews, Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very seriously, I think.

    Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical flavour there.

    I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.

    milosevic ,

    images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":

    .content-wrap-spp img {

    filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);

    }

    Open ,

    This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them clearly?
    (any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)

    Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.

    Open ,

    Look at the language used by the americans:

    On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria , encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .

    So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land. Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.

    This language needs to be known more widely.

    Open ,

    The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being pushed under wrap.

    What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?

    Joe ,

    Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably in the wider world, too.

    Open ,

    Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates) the planet.

    In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.

    * Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.

    Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to spread Chaos and Disorder.

    Antonym ,

    Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior (arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
    Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .

    Open ,

    "srael's 1947 creation"

    Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.

    How ligitimate is that?

    Antonym ,

    Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.

    How ligitimate is that?

    Open ,

    "Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."

    Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.

    Maggie ,

    Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
    Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate.
    https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
    and where does our Aid money go?

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
    But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
    Shame on you .

    To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to understand how this corrupt system is conducted.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.

    paul ,

    Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."

    Antonym ,

    Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like before.
    Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.

    George Mc ,

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

    Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.

    Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have babies!

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!

    paul ,

    Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot ideology', Antsie.

    Dungroanin ,

    Pathetic.
    'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's culture.'
    From the Groaniad

    How many members? How many by denomination?

    As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.

    History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.

    Capricornia Man ,

    The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power. Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.

    Rhys Jaggar ,

    Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.

    You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.

    If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without sensibility.

    Maggie ,

    A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
    That way all the Zionists would be barred.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.

    paul ,

    Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
    She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from the Board of Deputies.
    Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.

    Dungroanin ,

    BoD's??? Another random organisation!

    Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get elected? How can they be fired?

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.

    lundiel ,

    Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.

    Maggie ,

    I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last time.
    They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
    I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
    What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?

    tonyopmoc ,

    Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who has banned me again.

    It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.

    "Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."

    Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.

    She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.

    We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.

    We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.

    Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.

    Far better than Canestan.

    Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.

    Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.

    Tony

    Loverat ,

    Hey Tony

    Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere have entertained me for many years.

    Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.

    paul ,

    Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.

    Dungroanin ,

    Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
    Also,
    On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving 8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.

    binra ,

    Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be killed'.
    This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy of possession and control.

    One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY – and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you torment beyond the grave.

    Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted meanings.

    The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole – is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
    But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying – we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives us.

    The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little that we have.

    Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a hole.
    Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing and being.

    This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability – but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.

    If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.

    Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing. Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.

    I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.

    The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus make it real – and remain truth.

    Judgement divides to rule.
    Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
    One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and the other as the will of true desire revealed.

    The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in the world.
    The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully defended narrative identity.

    In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth, and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.

    paul ,

    If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
    The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
    You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
    Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.

    paul ,

    George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.

    At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.

    They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America, Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united, Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at peace.

    When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated to serve outside interests.

    So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt, which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should anybody else?

    paul ,

    And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
    1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the creation of Israel.
    At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3 years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200 year disaster for the region. How? Why?
    Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.

    One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang separately.
    But I wouldn't hold your breath.
    There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's, to name but a few.
    Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
    You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and drop their trousers.
    Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
    Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?

    Maggie ,

    "1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the creation of Israel.
    At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3 years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200 year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
    Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/_2LEgowbzSc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGz6nrWTsEI

    And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.

    Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically opposed to the idea of democracy .

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy, acts alone.

    Gall ,

    I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single living thing breathing.

    No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!

    paul ,

    Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.

    Gall ,

    Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.

    Loverat ,

    My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a few others.

    Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.

    The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds should be enough motivation for any normal person.
    The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in their back garden.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.

    milosevic ,

    I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and puppet regimes.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the hands of the Evil Brain Dead.

    BigB ,

    I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?

    No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance. Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said: following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.

    The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called 'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating. Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform: the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the 'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic gestures in transference of our own responsibility.

    'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old, same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.

    #NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our every enaction including speech-enactivism.

    Gall ,

    I'm sure Thomas Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin are smiling upon you my child from their very special place in hell.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Charles Darwin? What on Earth are you on about?

    Gall ,

    Ever heard of social Darwinism? This is how the elite justify genocide and theft of resources. It is one of the basics of Neoliberalism.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Darwin had NOTHING to do with 'social Darwinism'. It's like blaming Jesus for the KKK.

    Gall ,

    Uh huh:

    "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
    ― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

    BigB ,

    Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.

    I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is it? 😉

    Gall ,

    The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.

    That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to pollute unhampered.

    George Mc ,

    I despair.

    Well that's what you do.

    Dungroanin ,

    The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??

    Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them, nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
    Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?

    Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!

    Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!

    Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck poison spreading flies.

    normal wisdom ,

    so much disrespect here hare here.

    these takfiri these giants these beards are hero

    of the oded yinon plan

    they raped murdered and stole
    dustified atomised the syriana so
    is rael can become real

    the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow

    the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
    already

    the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio steppe

    tonight back to back i watch reality
    fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
    i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
    every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk

    shirley you can sea more that

    my life already

    Francis Lee ,

    Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist, Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.

    1. Control of technology.

    2. Access to natural resources.

    3. Finance.

    4. Global media.

    5. The means of mass destruction.

    Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life and death struggle for humanity.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).

    A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
    from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr Soros.

    British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.

    However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10 million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates, and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.

    BigB ,

    Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?

    When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this. China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.

    When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.

    Gall ,

    Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and get back to a multipolar world.

    Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.

    BigB ,

    Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally 'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.

    I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

    Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.

    There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.

    #NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance, human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and Chinese etc.

    Gall ,

    They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.

    Gall ,

    The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't stop.

    Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except maybe for a pretty blue bow.

    Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.

    lundiel ,

    Very well presented. Excellent article.

    Gall ,

    Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan. Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented Soviet Union.

    The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.

    Frank ,

    The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.

    Lots and lots of dead Americans.

    Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.

    Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.

    Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service" squirm in literal pain at the words.

    Dungroanin ,

    They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of Kinetic energy missiles.

    Their low yield nuke is their response.

    The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in Syria!

    I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.

    And they can pay their taxes in full.

    The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the Empire is dead.

    Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.

    wardropper ,

    Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of bankers to which we would be beholden.
    That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
    Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our invaluable contribution to human evolution.
    It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.

    Gall ,

    All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or barter and the bankers will eventually starve.

    Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.

    Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.

    After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out paper again.

    wardropper ,

    My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing. How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.

    Gall ,

    This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on the production of others through what is called "unearned income".

    wardropper ,

    I agree. But how to stop it?

    Gall ,

    Ignore the bastards instead. Just go off the grid.

    wardropper ,

    I can't deny the wisdom in that.

    Dungroanin ,

    The Red Shield ancient silk road trader and slaving company employees are only a family as say the Vatican is a family

    wardropper ,

    I know, but "only a family" with the wealth to buy whole nations
    I find that very unsettling, to say the least.

    Dungroanin ,

    Indeed but there is always hope as the poet saw – THEY are the few, we are many.

    Gall ,

    Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.

    Antonym ,

    Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing to the Jewish superiority myth.

    Ken ,

    They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That 9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if you're not sure of this.

    Antonym ,

    Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
    The CIA/FBI failure explained.

    The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
    Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .

    5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.

    Ken ,

    "5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"

    Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.

    The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.

    Gall ,

    Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?

    Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.

    Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are your problem!"?

    A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but their arrogant stupidity,

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.

    Gall ,

    They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as well.

    Ken ,

    @Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in 9/11.

    Gall ,

    Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state:
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/

    Ken ,

    Thanks for that article. Were I ever able to get it in front of my estranged friend, it would make his head explode and kill him. Baldwin does seem to nail it. Chuck for president! I came across this rather intersting piece on 9/11 while at VT for your article.
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/10/9-11-the-bottom-line-an-open-letter-to-all-researchers/

    Gall ,

    Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some excellent research based on facts not fantasy.

    As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.

    binra ,

    It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate development across of broad spectrum of leverages?

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.

    normal wisdom ,

    what jews?
    i do not see any jews
    just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
    a kaballa talmudick race trick
    a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
    jew is just the cover
    init

    [Feb 15, 2020] Many People In NATO Countries Say No To Supporting A NATO Ally In Military Conflict With Russia

    Feb 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Many People In NATO Countries Say "No" To Supporting A NATO Ally In Military Conflict With Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 02/15/2020 - 07:00 Authored by Adam Dick via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    NATO is marketed as providing each member nation with the benefit that the other member nations are committed to coming to its aid militarily in the event of an attack by another nation, especially Russia .

    However, Pew Research Center poll results released Sunday indicate that the majority or plurality of people in 11 of 16 NATO countries where individuals were questioned oppose their respective governments meeting this commitment, at least if the military adversary were Russia.

    These poll results indicate that serious thought should be given to disbanding NATO , an organization with a primary objective that appears to be at odds with public opinion in many NATO countries.

    When asked if their respective countries' governments should use military force to defend a NATO ally country neighboring Russia with which "Russia got into a serious military conflict," people living in the 16 NATO countries tended to answer in the negative.

    "No" was the answer for the majority of polled individuals in eight countries -- France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Turkey.

    In three more NATO countries -- the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland -- a plurality rejected military intervention.

    Only in five countries -- the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Lithuania -- did more people (a majority in each case) support such military intervention than reject it.

    [Feb 14, 2020] Damage: The Democrats on Russia

    Full spectrum Dominance doctrine leaves no space for Russia. It needs to become a vassal or disappear in timi, dependents of the West statelests.
    Feb 05, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org

    Extracted from Presidential Election Politics are Damaging U.S. Foreign Policy Written by
    Robert E. Hunter

    It's not just the White House that is doing serious damage to U.S. interests abroad during this year's election campaign. Of even greater consequence (absent a new Middle East war) is the U.S. relationship with Russia. It's currently unthinkable that Washington will try to move beyond the status quo, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin were prepared to do so. Even before Trump was inaugurated, many Democrats began calling for his impeachment . Leading Democrats laid Hillary Clinton ' s defeat at the feet of Russian interference in the U.S. election -- a claim that stretched credulity past the breaking point. Further, as Democrats looked for grounds to impeach Trump (or at least terminally to reduce his reelection chances), the " Russia factor" was the best cudgel available. Charges included the notion that " Putin has something on Trump," which presumes he would sell out the nation ' s security for a mess of pottage.

    All this domestic politicking ignores a geopolitical fact: while the Soviet Union lost the Cold War and, for some time thereafter, Russia could be dismissed, it was always certain that it would again become a significant power, at least in Europe. Thus, even before the Berlin Wall fell, President George H. W. Bush proposed creating a " Europe whole and free" and at peace. Bill Clinton built on what Bush began. Both understood that a renascent Russia could embrace revanchism, and for several years their efforts seemed to have a chance of succeeding.

    Then the effort went off the rails. Putin took power in Russia, which made cooperation with the West difficult if not impossible. He worked to consolidate his domestic position, in part by alleging that the West was " disrespecting" Russia and trying to encircle it. For its part, the U.S. played into the Putin narrative by abandoning the Bush-Clinton vision of taking legitimate Russian interests into account in fashioning European security arrangements. The breaking point came in 2014, when Russia seized Crimea and sent " little green men" to fight in some other parts of Ukraine. The West necessarily responded, with economic sanctions and NATO's buildup of " trip wire" forces in Central Europe.

    But despite the ensuing standoff, the critical requirement remains: the United States has to acknowledge Russia's inevitable rise as a major power while also impressing on Putin the need to trim his ambitions, if he is to avoid a new era of Russian isolation. There is also serious business that the two countries need to pursue, including strategic arms control, the Middle East (especially Iran), and climate change. Despite deep disagreements, including over Ukraine and parts of Central Europe, the U.S. needs to engage in serious discussions with Russia, which means the renewal of diplomacy which has been in the deep freeze for years.

    All of this has been put in pawn by the role that the "Russia factor" has been permitted to play in American presidential politics, especially by Democrats. Longer-term U.S. interests are suffering, along with those of the European allies and Middle East partners. The task has been made even more difficult by those U.S. politicians, think tanks , and journalists who prefer to resurrect the term "cold war" rather than clearly examining the nation's strategic needs because of the blinkers imposed by domestic politics. Open discussion about alternatives in dealing with Russia is thus stifled, at serious cost to the United States and others.

    In all three of these areas, the U.S. is paying a high price in terms of its national interests to the games political leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, are playing. Great efforts will be needed to dig out of this mess, beginning with U.S. willingness to do so. Leaders elsewhere must also be prepared to join in -- far from a sure thing! Unfortunately, there is currently little hope that, at least in the three critical areas discussed above, pursuit of U.S. interests abroad will prevail over today's parochial domestic politics.

    [Feb 08, 2020] I want to float a theory about Bernie, Chris Mathews and Russiagate. caucus99percent

    Feb 08, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

    caucus99percent free-range politics, organic community

    I want to float a theory about Bernie, Chris Mathews and Russiagate.

    entrepreneur on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 4:42pm Chris Mathews' conflating democratic socialism with communism under a dictator demonstrates a rabid hatred of policies that help average Americans. It also demonstrates that he is an idiot, but that is beside the point. Let's assume for second that his radical pants pooping hysteria against a strong public safety net, healthcare and higher education is a fear shared by many of the 1% and their surrogates. Although most aren't as vocal about it as Chris Mathews, I am confident that his blind abhorrence for any program or politician who helps the 99% is common in the DNC and their billionaire donors.

    Now let's go back to the 2016 primary. Remember, President Hillary was a sure thing in 2016 and she would certainly be the nominee again in 2020. So Bernie wouldn't have a chance to implement any of his policies for at least 8 years, if ever. But when Trump won that all changed. Even with Hillary and her surrogates lying and cheating their asses off, and utilizing all of her media and deep state connections, she still barely beat Bernie, and ultimately lost to Trump.

    It was at that point, when she lost to Trump, that the establishment had to suspect that Bernie would be back. Because they had thrown everything they had at him in 2016 and he damn near won anyway, against all odds. Even though they botched 2016, they learned something important for 2020. They learned that there was a public appetite for Bernie's policies, and that he could possibly win without taking big donor money. They also learned that people weren't buying the policies that the DNC is selling. Which is a huge problem since their big donors won't allow them to sell anything else.

    So immediately after their loss to Trump the neo-liberals assembled all of their brightest rocket surgeons to concoct a way to shut down Bernie before he would become a problem in 2020. So how do you smear a guy like Bernie? Regular smears like sex scandals or corruption allegations would not stick to a guy like Bernie. They would have to go after his polices. "Hey! Why not smear his policies as communist?" They reasoned. The problem with that approach in 2016 is that the word communism doesn't really evoke fear like it once did. In order to be successful they would need to incite anti-Russian hysteria. And so Russiagate was hatched. Once they thought about it they realized that they could blame all kinds of shit on the Russians, and at the same time avoid accountability for their own incompetence.

    Russiagate :
    * Demonizes Russia, lays groundwork for future smears of Bernie's policies as communist.
    * Blames Russia for Hillary's loss so she doesn't have to admit that she is a failure.
    * Removes need to re-examine neo-liberal policies, which makes billionaire donors happy.
    * Fosters cold-war mentality which makes the MIC billionaire donors and deep state happy.
    * Provides a scapegoat for election irregularities if DNC is investigated by Trump DOJ.

    This is speculation, of course. But Russiagate was pulled out of someone's ass. And I am just trying to cobble together a reasonable theory about whose ass and why. After watching Chris Mathews blubber and pee his pants because he's afraid if Bernie becomes president that Fidel Castro's ghost will take a shit in his mouth while he's sleeping, it makes sense to me that Russiagate may have been inspired by a deep-seated fear of Bernie's policies, and an attempt to smear them before they take root for 2020.

    Raggedy Ann on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 4:56pm
    It seems to me

    Russiagate was invented as soon as Herr Drumpf was elected as an effort to oust him for colluding with Russia and cheating her heinous out of the election. When that didn't work, the deep state went back to work and concocted the impeachment move. That failed, too. They are 0-2. Will they try again? Maybe - if they want to ensure he gets a second term and deny Bernie.

    entrepreneur on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 4:59pm
    Definitely possible. And most commonly accepted.

    @Raggedy Ann

    Russiagate was invented as soon as Herr Drumpf was elected as an effort to oust him for colluding with Russia and cheating her heinous out of the election. When that didn't work, the deep state went back to work and concocted the impeachment move. That failed, too. They are 0-2. Will they try again? Maybe - if they want to ensure he gets a second term and deny Bernie.

    Raggedy Ann on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 5:22pm
    WOW!

    @entrepreneur
    I thought I was the only person who came up with that!

    #1

    Bisbonian on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 7:18pm
    It makes good since,

    @Raggedy Ann . Good observation.

    #1.1
    I thought I was the only person who came up with that!

    brae-70 on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 5:03pm
    That's an apt description

    of what Matthews is doing: "radical pants pooping hysteria". As opposed, say, to moderate pants pooping hysteria.

    Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:40pm
    Enough is enough.

    @brae-70
    In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection Chis Matthews' "Scare the Bejeezus Out of His Core Boomer Audience' plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party MSNBC to immediately begin a recanvass of Chris Matthews' brain .

    of what Matthews is doing: "radical pants pooping hysteria". As opposed, say, to moderate pants pooping hysteria.

    WoodsDweller on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 5:25pm
    Russia == Communism ==

    Russia == Communism == Socialism only works for old folks. Communist Russia has been gone for a generation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union the propaganda machine shifted to Moslem Terrorists. A whole generation has grown up not remotely fussed about socialism. Young voters prefer "socialism" to "capitalism".
    So for this to work at all it has to be directed at the 65+ voters. So far they've been supporting Biden, but that may not last much longer. They won't sit out the election. They'll maybe be undecided for a while, but will come home to New Dealer Bernie.

    janis b on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 7:54pm
    I wonder, WD

    @WoodsDweller

    So for this to work at all it has to be directed at the 65+ voters. So far they've been supporting Biden, but that may not last much longer. They won't sit out the election. They'll maybe be undecided for a while, but will come home to New Dealer Bernie.

    Judging from my conversations with my 91 year-old mom, she and her friends have transitioned from Biden to Bloomberg, and she refuses to consider Sanders. When I ask her why she is so averse to Sanders she says, "I just don't like him, period, and I can't explain why"! So I just shut up, knowing it would be a waste of breath.

    Russia == Communism == Socialism only works for old folks. Communist Russia has been gone for a generation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union the propaganda machine shifted to Moslem Terrorists. A whole generation has grown up not remotely fussed about socialism. Young voters prefer "socialism" to "capitalism".
    So for this to work at all it has to be directed at the 65+ voters. So far they've been supporting Biden, but that may not last much longer. They won't sit out the election. They'll maybe be undecided for a while, but will come home to New Dealer Bernie.

    chuckutzman on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 5:32pm
    One of my major disappointments with Bernie was when

    he signed up for Russia, Russia, Russia. I can't decide if he is dumb or just lacks the balls to do this job.

    entrepreneur on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 5:43pm
    I am very disappointed about that also. Hypothetically, if

    he saw the anti-capitalist smears coming (he's been doing this a long time) maybe he didn't want to do anything to play into that trap.

    @chuckutzman

    he signed up for Russia, Russia, Russia. I can't decide if he is dumb or just lacks the balls to do this job.

    Pricknick on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 6:35pm
    That's the reason

    @chuckutzman
    I have refused to support him monetarily this time.

    he signed up for Russia, Russia, Russia. I can't decide if he is dumb or just lacks the balls to do this job.

    on the cusp on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 6:50pm
    Me, too.

    @Pricknick He had agreed to support Hillary, and he honored his commitment. That was initially my reason for non-support. I might have been convinced to throw money at his campaign, until he started on the Russia Cold War bs.
    Russian interference was never proven, and I lived through the Cold War doing nuclear bomb drills. Not only is it endangering the globe, it is a horrible fear to instill in little kids who have to cope with the fear of their family being vaporized.
    We have enough global fear over climate change. Do we really need to foist another existential threat on everyone?

    #4
    I have refused to support him monetarily this time.

    janis b on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 7:56pm
    Maybe?

    @Pricknick

    you could just give 2/3 or 3/4 of a donation, to cover the other things you support Sanders for ; ).

    #4
    I have refused to support him monetarily this time.

    Pricknick on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:26pm
    Sorry

    @janis b
    but no.
    The russia bullshit was propagated by a loser he worked so hard to support.
    He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he wins if he does?
    Unless he stands up to those that wish him bad, he will never prevail.
    I like Bernie.

    #4.2

    you could just give 2/3 or 3/4 of a donation, to cover the other things you support Sanders for ; ).

    janis b on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:55pm
    I know you like him

    @Pricknick

    He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he wins if he does?

    I think if the answers to those questions were more clear Sanders might be more forthright. I support being sincere regardless of outcomes in most cases, because I think ultimately it is the basis for genuine understanding. But for Sanders it is critical to 'pick his fights', an approach that seems to apply even more to politics (unfortunately) than relationships.

    #4.2.2
    but no.
    The russia bullshit was propagated by a loser he worked so hard to support.
    He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he wins if he does?
    Unless he stands up to those that wish him bad, he will never prevail.
    I like Bernie.

    Pricknick on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 9:08pm
    That's the issue.

    @janis b

    But for Sanders it is critical to 'pick his fights'

    He needs to stop picking and fight all the time.
    He's in the bully pulpit and he needs to show it.
    He has it in him.

    #4.2.2.1

    He knows this but most americans don't. He's in a conundrum. How many tinfoils will he lose if he calls it out? How many clear thinkers will he wins if he does?

    I think if the answers to those questions were more clear Sanders might be more forthright. I support being sincere regardless of outcomes in most cases, because I think ultimately it is the basis for genuine understanding. But for Sanders it is critical to 'pick his fights', an approach that seems to apply even more to politics (unfortunately) than relationships.

    janis b on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 9:16pm
    I understand where you're coming from.

    @Pricknick

    But, as long as bullying is the strategy I lose a sense of comfortable.

    He needs to stop picking and fight all the time.
    He's in the bully pulpit and he needs to show it.
    He has it in him.

    #4.2.2.1.1

    But for Sanders it is critical to 'pick his fights'

    He needs to stop picking and fight all the time.
    He's in the bully pulpit and he needs to show it.
    He has it in him.

    snoopydawg on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 9:28pm
    I won't give him a pass because Russia Gate is

    @janis b

    bogus. There is no reason anyone should be parroting the new Cold War propaganda. This only leads to one thing. We have already put mini nukes on submarines. Russia responded by launching a new plane that can carry nukes. This has no happy ending.

    #4.2.2.1.1.1

    But, as long as bullying is the strategy I lose a sense of comfortable.

    He needs to stop picking and fight all the time.
    He's in the bully pulpit and he needs to show it.
    He has it in him.

    The Voice In th... on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 7:53pm
    He's not dumb

    @chuckutzman
    Sadly, that leaves the alternative.

    he signed up for Russia, Russia, Russia. I can't decide if he is dumb or just lacks the balls to do this job.

    Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:07pm
    Hillary...

    was pushing the anti Russia narrative all through the Fall of 2016, in one debate explicitly calling Trump ' Putin's puppet '.

    The narrative was initially weaponized against Trump. Only later did they try it on Bernie.

    Dr. John Carpenter on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:09pm
    Definitely part of the plan

    @Not Henry Kissinger I'm pretty sure the leaked emails Wikileaks got have an outline of the RUSSIA plan. Restarting the Cold War was always the goal (or rather oil and pipelines were the actual goal.)

    was pushing the anti Russia narrative all through the Fall of 2016, in one debate explicitly calling Trump ' Putin's puppet '.

    The narrative was initially weaponized against Trump. Only later did they try it on Bernie.

    entrepreneur on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:48pm
    Ok. Interesting. So the timing wouldn't work then.

    @Not Henry Kissinger

    was pushing the anti Russia narrative all through the Fall of 2016, in one debate explicitly calling Trump ' Putin's puppet '.

    The narrative was initially weaponized against Trump. Only later did they try it on Bernie.

    Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 9:01pm
    Right...

    @entrepreneur @entrepreneur

    but the thing to remember here is that Russiagate is a multi-headed beast that can be used to further a lot of different agendas. So it's not JUST about Trump or Bernie or McConnell or any other single person.

    It's about weaponizing Russiagate against ALL Deep State opponents.

    Bernie's just one of many projects.

    #5

    snoopydawg on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:17pm
    I read that Obama's crew cooked up Russia Russia

    in the chance Trump lost but wouldn't accept the results. If he made a stink about losing then Obama would've accused him of working with Russia. This was at the start of this 3 year long crap show so I don't know if I can find the article on it.

    Joe posted a link in the EBs that talks about how both parties are in on on the scam because the new Cold War is great business for defense companies and their profits will make their way into congress hands. And is what the space force is about too. Containing Russia and China and making lots of money that will of course have to come from social programs. Yippee.

    The Voice In th... on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:57pm
    Lots of luck containing China

    @snoopydawg
    They have a stranglehold on our economy. The only thing we produce is weapons and about half of our vehicles. In fact, CHINA produces ROM's for our weapons!

    in the chance Trump lost but wouldn't accept the results. If he made a stink about losing then Obama would've accused him of working with Russia. This was at the start of this 3 year long crap show so I don't know if I can find the article on it.

    Joe posted a link in the EBs that talks about how both parties are in on on the scam because the new Cold War is great business for defense companies and their profits will make their way into congress hands. And is what the space force is about too. Containing Russia and China and making lots of money that will of course have to come from social programs. Yippee.

    entrepreneur on Sat, 02/08/2020 - 8:59pm
    Yep. We outsourced all of our electronics production. No

    national security issues there. {snark}
    @The Voice In the Wilderness

    #6
    They have a stranglehold on our economy. The only thing we produce is weapons and about half of our vehicles. In fact, CHINA produces ROM's for our weapons!

    [Feb 08, 2020] Its the same people, the same Empire fanboys

    Feb 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    William Gruff , Feb 8 2020 19:58 utc | 18

    ITT: Empire fanbois trying to hype the impact of their "team's" latest weapon.

    It is the same people and motivation behind the loud assertions that America killed "thousands and thousands of Russians!" when bombing in Dier ez-Zor. Just masturbatory wishcasting.

    [Feb 08, 2020] Pushing Russia out of the circle of friends of the United States (and Russia has never been an enemy of the United States, who knows the history of relations between the United States and Russia, knows what I'm talking about) can only double suckers and boobies

    Feb 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Helg Saracen , 3 hours ago link

    My favorite phrase - Americans are suckers and boobies. Pushing Russia out of the circle of friends of the United States (and Russia has never been an enemy of the United States, who knows the history of relations between the United States and Russia, knows what I'm talking about) can only double suckers and boobies. In general, the ship "Russia" finally sailed from the US coast. It's a pity.

    [Feb 07, 2020] Russia, Russia, Russia

    Feb 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Likklemore , Feb 6 2020 17:48 utc | 32

    Kudos b.

    Demrats gave Trump the best week of his presidency.

    Sadly, this is an example of not letting go.

    US Senate Panel Finds No Evidence of Alleged Russian Interference in 2016 Vote
    LINK


    The Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report released on Thursday that again it saw no evidence of alleged Russian interference changing any votes or manipulating voting machines in the 2016 US presidential election.

    "The Committee has seen no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated", the Intelligence Committee said in its report into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.[.]

    found no evidence but Russia, Russia, Russia the bogeyman. Will someone remind D.C. of U.S. interference in, and overthrow of elected governments in countries around the world?

    karlof1 , Feb 6 2020 19:04 utc | 55

    Several online items worth reading. First is Giraldi's "Why Both Republicans and Democrats Want Russia to Become the Enemy of Choice" , which refers to the D-Party Establishment with Sanders not getting any mention.

    Then there're several items at Common Dreams , the first having an excellent vid featuring Krystal Ball of The Hill reporting how the election was rigged . It also links to an important Twitter thread by Naomi Klein . I found this message perhaps the most important part:

    "If we honestly believe we are building a movement, not just an electoral campaign, then the relationships we forge, and the political education we do along the way, is never wasted. It's all part of building power, which we badly need no matter what happens. Nothing is wasted."

    There's more on Iowa, but IMO this new info on DNC Chair Perez's corruption needs to be exposed--IMO, Bloomberg is now the DNC's man despite the favors bestowed on Buttigieg.

    [Feb 04, 2020] Democrats concluded some time ago that the only viable strategy for removing Trump requires demonization of Russia as our enemy

    Feb 04, 2020 | www.thenation.com

    Michael Robertson says: February 3, 2020 at 3:39 pm

    Democrats concluded some time ago that the only viable strategy for removing Trump requires demonization of Russia as our enemy. And Ukraine as our ally. No one questions how this came to be, or demands any real reporting about Ukraine. It's a black hole, and we are expected to simply accept the framing of the Dems. Those who question it are accused of being brainwashed by RT, or of secretly loving Mr. Trump. And they are simply befuddled by accusations of neo-McCarthyism.

    Clark Shanahan says: February 3, 2020 at 8:03 pm

    As the professor warns us, we have gone through some very backwards times:
    "Speaker Nancy Pelosi is connecting the dots -- "all roads lead to Putin," she says -- and making the argument that Trump's pressure campaign on Ukraine was not an isolated incident but part of a troubling bond with the Russian president reaching back to special counsel Robert Mueller's findings on the 2016 election.

    "This has been going on for 2 1/2 years," Pelosi said Friday.

    "This isn't about Ukraine," she explained a day earlier. "'It's about Russia. Who benefited by our withholding of that military assistance? Russia.""
    (AP Dec 6, Lisa Mascaro/Mary Clare Jalonick)
    Schiff has claimed that the Evil Vlad wakes up every morning, plotting to destroy our virginal democracy because the US makes Russia look shabby.. He happens to receive a lot of funding from the arms industry.
    Nadler equated Russian meddling to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor..

    If these three actually believe their own spin, heaven help us.
    It truly is obscene.
    The Battle of Stalingrad ended February 2, 1943.
    Listening to our Russophobes, it seems the wrong people won that war. It is so ugly.

    Clark Shanahan says: February 3, 2020 at 8:21 pm

    on topic:

    https://thegrayzone.com/2020/02/03/huffpost-uk-editor-censorship-dsma-russia-jess-brammar/

    [Feb 03, 2020] Fake interference, real Israel firms with deep ties to Israeli intelligence

    Feb 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Likklemore , Feb 2 2020 17:16 utc | 8

    Russia, China and Iran are already being blamed for using tech to undermine the 2020 election. Yet, the very technologies they are allegedly using were created by a web of companies with deep ties to Israeli intelligence.

    Manufacturing Fear with a click "Bring down nations to their knees"

    [Feb 02, 2020] Russiagate Regrets Why Washington Remains Focused on the Wrong Foreign Influence by Lyle J. Goldstein

    Jan 28, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

    ... ... ...

    The farce has claimed all kinds of convictions, but hardly any related to the actual case at hand. In fact, the Washington Post , a paper that has done much to whip up Russiagate hysteria, actually conducted a thorough analysis of the so-called Russian social media campaign and concluded, "there's no evidence that [Russians] did any particularly sophisticated targeting." Rather, Occam's Razor-type reasoning implies that Russian "trolls," like most other entities active on the web, were simply looking for clicks in order to make a buck from advertisers. In a sign that the Washington Post might not be completely oblivious to journalistic ethics, one of their reporters has surprisingly started a systematic effort to review the journalistic excesses of the last few years related to Russiagate. The New York Times has not attempted any similar soul-searching as regards the Russiagate hysteria regrettably, but had itself to admit that when it comes to "meddling in elections . . . we do it too."

    As someone who is occasionally forced to tread water in the Beltway swamp, I would also be very eager to see a certain draining of foreign influence from the American political process. But, at this point, I am at least as concerned with Bahrain influence , British influence , Chinese influence , German influence , Indian influence , Israeli influence , Japanese influence , Nigerian influence , Norwegian influence , Pakistani influence , Polish influence , Philippine influence , Saudi influence , South Korean influence , Taiwan influence , Turkish influence , Ukrainian influence , UAE influence , Vietnamese influence , etc. Sorry, President Putin, you are likely not even in the top twenty foreign powers currently manipulating the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, but Russiagate sure has made for an entertaining drama.

    As for those various espionage escapades, well, when the Hollywood blockbuster film Argo captured "Best Film" back in 2012, that moment seemed to crystallize a new and glorious era for America's intelligence agencies. Are our spies amazing or what -- not just creative -- but low-budget and good looking too? Perhaps now is the time for Hollywood to pick up another CIA script with Iran: the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953? That event, as much as any other, forms the essential backdrop for today's ominous developments in the Persian Gulf.

    Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also speaks Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute (RMSI) at Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. government.

    [Feb 01, 2020] Has The FBI Been Lying About Seth Rich by Craig Murray

    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue? ..."
    Authored by Craig Murray,

    A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been continuously lying , including giving false testimony in court, in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on Seth Rich. The FBI has previously given affidavits that it has no records regarding Seth Rich.

    A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have "Seth Rich" as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.

    Before I analyze these particular emails, I should make plain that they are not the major point. The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich, and these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him. What other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold about Rich, that were not fortuitously picked up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals?

    To look at the documents themselves, they have to be read from the bottom up, and they consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI (WF in the telegrams) into which Strzok was copied in, and which he ultimately forwarded on to the lawyer Lisa Page.

    The opening email, at the bottom, dated 10 August 2016 at 10.32am, precisely just one month after the murder of Seth Rich, is from the media handling department of the Washington Field Office. It references Wikileaks' offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich, and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. The media handlers are asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case. The unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative. The redacted individual officer is "not aware of any specific involvement" by the FBI in the Seth Rich case. But his next sentence is completely redacted. Why?

    It appears that "adding" references a new person added in to the list. This appears to have not worked, and probably the same person (precisely same length of deleted name) then tries again, with "adding for real" and blames the technology – "stupid Samsung". The interesting point here is that the person added appears not to be in the FBI – a new redacted addressee does indeed appear, and unlike all the others does not have an FBI suffix after their deleted email address. So who are they?

    (This section on "adding" was updated after commenters offered a better explanation than my original one. See first comments below).

    The fourth email, at 1pm on Wednesday August 10, 2016, is much the most interesting. It is ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office, but it is from somebody using a different classified email system with a very different time and date format than the others. It is apparently from somebody more senior, as the reply to it is "will do". And every single word of this instruction has been blanked. The final email, saying that "I squashed this with ..", is from a new person again, with the shortest name. That phrase may only have meant I denied this to a journalist, or it may have been reporting an operational command given.

    As the final act in this drama, Strzok then sent the whole thread on to the lawyer, which is why we now have it. Why?

    It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the official narrative. The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not looking at the Rich case. But in that case, the FBI would have been delighted to publish it unredacted. (The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the FOIA under which deletion was made. In almost every case they are one or other category of invasion of privacy).

    And if it just all said "Assange is talking nonsense. Seth Rich is nothing to do with the FBI" then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer?

    It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer, because that is the only reason we have seen it, as a result of an FOI(A) request for the correspondence between those two.

    Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?

    We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says "well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect". If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their "investigation" was entirely agenda driven from the start.

    In June 2016 a vast cache of the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. On 10 July 2016 an employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive, in an alleged street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen. Not to investigate the possibility of a link between the two incidents would be grossly negligent. It is worth adding that, contrary to a propaganda barrage, Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington DC and by no means a murder hotspot. It is also worth noting that not only is there no suspect in Seth Rich's murder, there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the killer. Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off.

    I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical whataboutery:

    Firstly, it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications. This is perfectly natural. The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is extraordinary; to reject the cognitive dissonance of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very natural. In the case of David Kelly, of Seth Rich, and of Wille Macrae, we see families reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions. Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed, with the prior relationship between the family and the deceased subject to other strains (I am not referencing the Rich case here).

    You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite tack and are prepared to take on the authorities in the search for justice, of which Commander Robert Green, son of Hilda Murrell, is a worthy example.

    (As an interesting aside, I just checked his name in the Wikipedia article on Hilda, which I discovered describes Tam Dalyell "hounding" Margaret Thatcher over the Belgrano and the fact that ship was steaming away from the Falklands when destroyed with massive loss of life as a "second conspiracy theory", the first of course being the murder of Hilda Murrell. Wikipedia really has become a cesspool.)

    We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. Seth Rich's parents, David Kelly's wife, Willie Macrae's brother have all been deployed by the media and the powers behind them to this effect, among many other examples. This is an emotionally powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry.

    Secondly, I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger, who brought his evidence and blog to my attention, or Judicial Watch, who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents. I am interested in the evidence presented both that the FBI lied, and in the documents themselves. Those who obtained the documents may, for all I know, be dedicated otter baiters or believe in stealing ice cream from children. I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular case, not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work. I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties.

    * * *

    Unlike his adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig's blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to keep Craig's blog going are gratefully received .


    Smi1ey , 19 minutes ago link

    It's weird how everybody except the Mockingbird Media knows.

    Ed Butowsky on the ongoing Seth Rich controversy

    JasperEllings , 32 minutes ago link

    " We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. "

    Yeah. We see that all the time on ID Network ... whenever a family member wants authorities to stop investigating their "loved one's" death, it usually means they're protecting the guilty party. But the cases are solved by good cops who ignore the family and do what's right.

    Investigating and prosecuting murders is not all about the family. It's also about finding and removing murderers from society so they can't hurt anyone else.

    Vesta , 37 minutes ago link

    Craig is the former UK diplomat who says he picked up the thumb drive from the leaker. Craig has since deleted that post from his blog.

    Lord Raglan , 1 hour ago link

    And neither Mueller nor any other government official ever bothered to interview Julian Assange even though he agreed to do so. That Mueller didn't but took CrowdStrike's word for the fact that so-called "Russians" hacked the DNC computer and then gave it to Wikileaks tells you about all you need to know. Mueller knew who likely did it but didn't want to make it part of his Report or let it be made public. Meanwhile the Russia Collusion Hoax marched on, got a life of its own and is allowed to continue in its various forms like the impeachment of a Donald Trump.

    Smi1ey , 1 hour ago link

    Seymour Hersh says they have documents.

    What I know comes off an FBI report.

    - Seymour Hersh

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYzB96_EK7s

    hardmedicine , 30 minutes ago link

    "Is it true that the hidden metadata contained within the FIRST WikiLeaks DNC files batch clearly shows sequential time stamps (on each file copied) proving that a very high speed transfer rate took place that could only be done with direct internal access to a DNC computer on the network (i.g., a USB thumb drive or NAS drive plugged directly into a local PC or a LAN network jack within the building) as opposed to the much slower file transfer rate that would be recorded in the metadata if Russia or other hackers had remotely accessed a DNC computer or local DNC network via a remote WAN/Internet connection (to transfer those files from the outside)? Another rumor that needs to be put to rest is a SECOND batch of files may exist (that is almost identical to the FIRST batch), except it includes some fake Russian breadcrumb "fingerprints" that may have been added to support the "Russian's hacked it" story that was circulated within the intelligence agencies and leaked out to the media. IDK, true or false? "

    synopsis of the real whistleblower Bill Binney, ex-NSA Technical director who has had his life ruined because he published this info.

    [Feb 01, 2020] The clash of civilizations doctrine makes sense both to Americans and Europeans, but in different ways.

    Feb 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    vk , Feb 1 2020 17:27 utc | 113

    I perfectly understand why Westerners still love capitalism (and will continue to do so for the forseeable future): capitalism represents (and will forever represent) the first and only time in human history the so-called western culture became universal and the center of humanity. In fact, I would be surprised if the opposite case was true.

    The clash of civilizations doctrine makes sense both to Americans and Europeans, but in different ways.

    For the Americans, it creates a legitimizing narrative for the masses to draw capitalist Russia to its sphere of influence, divide Eurasia again and then essentially kill two birds with one stone: the destruction of China and socialism.

    For the Europeans, it creates a narrative where Europe, somehow, reborns from the ashes and make a spectacular comeback to the center stage of the imperialist game. That is the case because it fantasizes about some kind of western culture solidarity where the USA, by magic, begins to treat Europe as equals, and not as vassals (because they have "the same culture"). The USA then self-dissolves in order for a "Westernia" to rise in the North Atlantic, with a foothold in the Pacific thanks to Australia. Socialism in the form of Western European welfare state will be allowed to exist because what matters is not capitalism vs socialism, but western culture vs eastern culture. USA and Western Europe then make amends, and fuse together in a Western Paradise (Eden).

    I must say, this is a very inventive - even ingenious doctrine. Shame the Europeans waste their creativity with such useless garbage.

    P.S.: nobody was complaining on "being raped" when it was the First World countries benefitting from globalization during the "golden age of capitalism" (post-war miracle). The narrative was completely different: the Third World was the uncivilized and corrupt monkeys, who were being blessed by the charity of the First World, and should be forever thankful for that. It's not funny when you're on the receiving end, it seems.

    [Feb 01, 2020] Elites Have Destroyed A Possible US-Russia Alliance To Contain China

    Feb 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

    There's no need to rehash the sordid politics of the U.S.-Russia relationship since 2014. That relationship became collateral damage to gross corruption in Ukraine.

    The U.S. and its allies, especially the UK under globalists like David Cameron, wanted to peel off Ukraine from the Russian orbit and make it part of the EU and eventually NATO.

    From Russia's perspective, this was unacceptable. It may be true that most Americans cannot find Ukraine on a map, but a simple glance at a map reveals that much of Ukraine lies East of Moscow.

    Putting Ukraine in a Western alliance such as NATO would create a crescent stretching from Luhansk in the South through Poland in the West and back around to Estonia in the North. There are almost no natural obstacles between that arc and Moscow; it's mostly open steppe.

    Completion of this "NATO Crescent" would leave Moscow open to invasion in ways that Napoleon and Hitler could only dream. Of course, this situation was and is unacceptable to Moscow.

    Ukraine itself is culturally divided along geographic lines. The Eastern and Southern provinces (Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea and Dnipro) are ethnically Russian, follow the Orthodox Church and the Patriarch of Moscow, and welcome commercial relations with Russia.

    The Western provinces (Kiev, Lviv) are Slavic, adhere to the Catholic Church and the Pope in Rome, and look to the EU and U.S. for investment and aid.

    Prior to 2014, an uneasy truce existed between Washington and Moscow that allowed a pro-Russian President while at the same time permitting increasing contact with the EU. Then the U.S. and UK overreached by allowing the CIA and MI6 to foment a "color revolution" in Kiev called the "Euromaidan Revolution."

    Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych resigned and fled to Moscow. Pro-EU protestors took over the government and signed an EU Association Agreement.

    In response, Putin annexed Crimea and declared it part of Russia. He also infiltrated Donetsk and Luhansk and helped establish de facto pro-Russian regional governments. The U.S. and EU responded with harsh economic sanctions on Russia.

    Ukraine has been in turmoil (with increasing corruption) ever since. U.S.-Russia relations have been ice-cold, exactly as the globalists intended.

    The U.S- induced fiasco in Ukraine not only upset U.S.-Russia relations, it derailed a cozy money laundering operation involving Ukrainian oligarchs and Democratic politicians. The Obama administration flooded Ukraine with non-lethal financial assistance.

    This aid was amplified by a four-year, $17.5 billion loan program to Ukraine from the IMF, approved in March 2015. Interestingly, this loan program was pushed by Obama at a time when Ukraine did not meet the IMF's usual borrowing criteria.

    Some of this money was used for intended purposes, some was skimmed by the oligarchs, and the rest was recycled to Democratic politicians in the form of consulting contracts, advisory fees, director's fees, contributions to foundations and NGOs and other channels.

    Hunter Biden and the Clinton Foundations were major recipients of this corrupt recycling. Other beneficiaries included George Soros-backed "open society" organizations, which further directed the money to progressive left-wing groups in the U.S.

    This cozy wheel-of-fortune was threatened when Donald Trump became president. Trump genuinely desired improved relations with Russia and was not on the receiving end of laundered aid to Ukraine.

    Hillary Clinton was supposed to continue the Obama policies, but she failed in the general election. Trump was a threat to everything the globalists, Democrats and pro-NATO elites had constructed in the 2010s.

    The globalists wanted China and the U.S. to team up against Russia. Trump understood correctly that China was the main enemy and therefore a closer union between the U.S. and Russia was essential.

    The elites' efforts to derail Trump gave rise to the "Russia collusion" hoax. While no one disputes that Russia sought to sow confusion in the U.S. election in 2016, that's something the Russians and their Soviet predecessors had been doing since 1917. By itself, little harm was done.

    Yet, the elites seized on this to concoct a story of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The real collusion was among Democrats, Ukrainians and Russians to discredit Trump.

    It took the Robert Mueller investigation two years finally to conclude there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. By then, the damage was done. It was politically toxic for Trump to reach out to the Russians. That would be spun by the media as more evidence of "collusion."

    Russian President Vladimir Putin (l.) has recently named a new Prime Minister, Mikhail Mishustin (r.). This is part of a complex government reorganization designed to extend Putin's rule beyond existing term limits. This is a setback for democracy, but may be a plus for the economy because it adds stability and continuity to Putin's programs.

    This whirl of false charges, cover-ups, and deep state sabotage finally led to Trump's impeachment on December 18, 2019.

    Fortunately, the Senate impeachment trial may soon be behind us with Trump's exoneration in hand (although new impeachment charges and false accusations cannot be ruled out).

    Is the stage finally set for improved U.S.-Russia relations, relief from U.S. sanctions, and a significant increase in U.S. direct foreign investment in Russia?

    Right now, my models are telling us that Russia is one of the most attractive targets for foreign investment in the world. Just because U.S. policymakers missed the boat does not mean that investors must do the same.

    Russia is often denigrated by Wall Street analysts and mainstream economists who know little about the country. Russia is the world's largest country by area and has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons of any country in the world.

    It has the world's 11th largest economy at over $1.6 trillion in annual GDP, ahead of South Korea, Spain and Australia and not far behind Canada, Brazil and Italy.

    It also is the world's third largest producer of oil and related liquids, with output of 11.4 million barrels per day, about 11% of the world's total. The U.S. (17.8 million b/d), Saudi Arabia (12.4 million b/d) and Russia combine to provide 41% of the world's liquid fuels. The latter two countries effectively control the world's oil price by agreeing on output quotas.

    Russia has almost no external dollar-denominated debt and has a debt-to-GDP ratio of only 13.50% (the comparable ratio for the United States is 106%).

    In short, Russia is too big and too powerful to ignore despite the derogatory and uninformed claims of globalists. Importantly, Russia is emerging from the oil price shock of 2014-2016 and is in a solid recovery.

    The stage is now set for significant economic expansion as illustrated in the chart below from Moody's Analytics:

    This graphic analysis from Moody's Analytics divides major economies into categories of Recovery, Expansion, Slowdown and Recession. Economies revolve clockwise through these four phases. The U.S. is in a Slowdown phase with some risk of Recession. Russia is in the Recovery phase heading toward Expansion. The Russian situation is the most attractive for investors because it offers cheap entry points with high returns as the Expansion phase begins.

    Russia has also gone to great lengths to insulate itself from U.S. economic sanctions. Their reserves have recovered to the $500 billion level that existed before the 2014 oil price collapse with one important difference. The dollar component of reserves has shrunk substantially while the gold component has increased to over 20%.

    With the recent surge in gold prices, Russia's reserves get a significant boost (when expressed in dollars) because of the higher dollar value of the gold reserves. Gold cannot be hacked, frozen or seized, as is the case with digital dollar assets.

    Russia's fortunes have been improving not only because of low debt and higher gold prices but also because of higher oil prices. The country is poised for a strong expansion, even if U.S. hostility caused by the Democrats continues.

    If Trump regains his footing after impeachment and wins a second term (which I expect), investors can expect warmer relations with Russia and an even more powerful Russian economic expansion than the one already underway. Tags

    [Jan 30, 2020] DNC In Disarray After Chairman's Secret Golden Parachute Revealed

    Jan 30, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    DNC In Disarray After Chairman's Secret Golden Parachute Revealed by Tyler Durden Thu, 01/30/2020 - 17:20 0 SHARES The perpetually broke , deck-stacking DNC has been thrown into disarray just days before the Iowa caucus after Buzzfeed revealed that a cadre of top officials at the Democratic National Committee approved, then concealed a 'generous exit package for the party chair, Tom Perez, and two top lieutenants,' which has left Democrats 'confounded over the weekend by the optics and timing of the decision on the eve of the presidential primary."

    The proposal, put forward as an official DNC resolution during a meeting of the party's budget and finance committee last Friday, would have arranged for Perez and two of his top deputies, CEO Seema Nanda and deputy CEO Sam Cornale, to each receive a lump-sum bonus equaling four months' salary within two weeks of the time they eventually leave their roles .

    Senior DNC officers, including members of Perez's own executive committee, learned of the compensation package after its approval, through the rumor mill, setting off a furious exchange of emails and texts over the weekend to determine what had been proposed, and by whom . - Buzzfeed

    And while four-months salary might be more of a 'bronze parachute', Perez rejected the "extra compensation" package for himself and his two lieutenants in an email to officials .

    Perez says he will serve through the end of the 2020 election, while all three officials have denied having any prior knowledge of, or involvement in the pay package resolution .

    "One-hundred percent of our resources are going towards beating Donald Trump," said DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa, who added "DNC leadership will not accept any extra compensation recommended by the budget committee, which didn't operate at the direction of DNC leadership. The resolution was crafted by the budget committee and did not involve the Chair, CEO, or Deputy CEO."

    Taking the fall for the resolution are two members of the DNC's budget and finance committee - Daniel Halpern and Chris Korge, who described it as the first step in a "smooth transition" for Perez.

    Halperin, an anti-minimum wage lobbyist , was appointed by Perez in 2017. He previously chaired Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed's 2009 moyoral campaign, and was a trustee for Barack Obama's 2008 inaugural committee.

    Chris Korge is a Florida attorney hired in May of 2019. He was one of the top fundraisers for Andrew Gillum, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and served as the co-chairman for the Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004.

    For years, the 64-year-old attorney, developer and one-time county hall lobbyist has been an important fundraiser for Democrats. He has raised millions for both Hillary and Bill Clinton, served as national co-chairman for Kerry Edwards Victory in 2004 and this year was co-chairman of Miami's unsuccessful bid to bring the Democratic convention to South Florida next summer. - Miami Herald

    According to Buzzfeed , Halpern and Korge both said the resolution was above-board and a common business practice.

    The resolution, which only applies to the 2021 transition, states that the outgoing chair, CEO, and deputy CEO will help facilitate donor and "stakeholder" relations, and convey "institutional knowledge" to the next chair, but is less specific about the requirements of the transition than the details of the compensation package: a lump sum of four months' pay, paid within two weeks, unless either Perez, Nanda, or Cornale is terminated for "gross misconduct."

    On Tuesday, Halpern said the resolution was meant to serve only as a "nonbinding" starting point to ensure "continuity" between Perez's tenure and the next party chair . - Buzzfeed

    Top Democrats within the DNC's leadership speaking on condition of anonymity said that they were shocked to learn of the compensation package on the eve of a presidential primary , amid a massive fundraising defecit .

    "I think it is completely short-sighted and really stupid," said one senior official.

    The package would have paid Perez around $69,000, Nanda around $61,000, and Cornale $39,000.


    Wakesetter , 5 minutes ago link

    Money must be tight if $70K is a issue. The internal polling for the DNC is a train wreck. Panic.

    NeitherStirredNorShaken , 6 minutes ago link

    The infighting is indicative of the ongoing DNC implosion. These parties, like the entire world's governments, were terminated long ago. NOBODY wants or needs the fake drama bullsh*t. If it's not on one side or the other it's on both to distract everybody. Like the ongoing fake impeachment fraud. Chump was finished day one on the job. And even if not certainly the public conspiring with both parties to commit sedition and treason after Parkland ensured it.

    pHObuk0wrEHob71Suwr2 , 16 minutes ago link

    Tom Perez - member of the Obama Transition Project's Agency Review Working Group responsible for the justice, health and human services, veterans affairs, and housing and urban development agencies. He is Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation under Governor Martin O'Malley.

    He worked in a variety of civil rights positions at the Department of Justice, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno.

    He also served as Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Donna Shalala, and as Special Counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy. From 2001 until 2007, he was Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law, and is an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington School of Public Health.

    Walter Melon , 17 minutes ago link

    Golden parachutes for a few years' work.

    Even if it is only 4 months, apparently his annual salary of $276,000 wasn't enough for him to save up anything.

    All meals paid for, all suits paid for, all transportation paid for ...

    5fingerdiscount , 20 minutes ago link

    $69 grand?

    That's not even a parachute.

    That's like jumping into the air and landing on the ground.

    [Jan 30, 2020] FBI Lied to a Federal Court Regarding Seth Rich by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Jan 30, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    FBI Lied to a Federal Court Regarding Seth Rich by Larry C Johnson Larry Johnson-5x7

    Thanks to Judicial Watch, a new batch of emails have surfaced that put the FBI in a whole lot of trouble with at least two Federal Judges. Attorney Ty Clevenger made repeated FOIA requests to the FBI for all emails and communications dealing with Seth Rich and his murder. The FBI denied they had any such communications. Whoops! There are now five emails and one text message that show that denial is not true. Let's dig into the details.

    The FBI, in the person of David Hardy, affirmed in an affidavit that there were no responsive records. Hardy is the Section Chief of the Record/Information Dissemination Section ("RIDS"), Information Management Division ("IMD"),1 Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), in Winchester, Virginia. Here are the relevant portions of his first affidavit:

    On September 30, 2017, by electronic submission via the OIP online portal, Plaintiff submitted an administrative appeal of the FBI's September 19, 2017 determination. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged the FBI limited its search to the Central Records System("CRS") for main file records. Additionally, Plaintiff noted that any responsive records likely would be found in emails, hard copy documents, and other files in the FBI's Washington Field Office; therefore, the FBI should be directed to conduct a thorough search, to include emails and other records in the Washington Field Office. . . .

    (9) By letter executed on November 9, 2017, OIP advised Plaintiff it affirmed the FBI's determination. OIP further advised Plaintiff that to the extent his request sought access to records that would either confirm or deny an individual's placement on any government watch list, the FBI properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of any such records because their existence is protected from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). . . .

    (19) CRS Search and Results. In response to Plaintiff's request dated September 1, 2017, RIDS conducted an index search of the CRS for responsive main and reference file records employing the UNI application of ACS. The FBI searched the subject's name, "Seth Conrad Rich," in order to identify files responsive to Plaintiff's request and subject to the FOIA. The FBI's searches included a three-way phonetic breakdown5 of the subject's name. These searches
    located no main or reference records responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request.

    (20) Subsequently, the FBI conducted additional searches of the CRS via the UNI application of ACS and a Sentinel index search for both main and reference file records. The FBI used the same search terms it used in its original searches as described supra. This new search also resulted in no main or reference file records being located responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request. . . .

    (25) The FBI conducted an adequate and reasonable search for records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA request; however, no records were located. First given its comprehensive nature and scope, the CRS is the principle records system searched by RIDS, to locate information responsive to most FOIA/Privacy Act requests, as the CRS is where the FBI indexes information about individuals, organizations, and events for future retrieval. See , 14, supra. Second, the CRS is the FBI recordkeeping system where investigative records responsive to this request would reasonably be found. Given Plaintiffs request sought information about an individual subject, Seth Conrad Rich, who was murdered in the District of Columbia on or about July 10, 2016, such information would reasonably be expected to be located in the CRS via the index search methodology. Finally, the office likely to conduct or assist in such an investigation -- WFO -- confirmed that it did not open an investigation or provide investigative or technical assistance into the murder of Seth Conrad Rich, as the matter was under investigation by the MPD, who declined the FBI's assistance.

    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that ibits A - E attached hereto are true and correct copies.

    Well, guess what? Just as Ty Clevenger anticipated, the relevant emails were in the Washington Field Office. To make matters worse, some of these emails were sent to FBI Headquarters. David Hardy either is incompetent or he has lied. There is no middle ground. In either case, his submission was not true.

    Here are the emails (I transcribed them and put them in chronological order to facilitate your ability to read them and understand what is being communicated).

    10:32 am -- Message sent from FBI's Washington Field Office Public Affairs officer to at least three other Washington Field Office FBI Agents. In addition, there are three other blacked out areas in the addressee field, which appear to be the names of persons who do not work at the Washington Field Office.

    I hope you are well. I heard from the front office that you are covering for BLANK this week. Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested during an overseas interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich, was a Wikileaks source and may have been killed because he leaked the DNC e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileaks is offering $20,000 for information regarding the death of Seth Rich last month. Based on this news, we anticipate additional press coverage on this matter. I hear that you are in a class today; however, when you have a moment can you give me a call to discuss what involvement the FBI has in the investigation.

    12:53 pm -- Message replying to the 10:32 am message, sent from FBI Washington Field Office with at least four other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message. There also are two other blacked out addresses, which may indicate personnel not in the Washington Field Office.

    Adding BLANK (a name to the addressee list). I am aware of this reporting from earlier this week, but not any involvement in any related case. BLANKED OUT.

    12:54 pm -- Message sent from FBI Washington Field Office with at least four other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message. There also are two other blacked out addresses, which may indicate personnel not in the Washington Field Office.

    Adding BLANK for real. Stupid Samsung. (Apparently the author of this message failed in the preceding message.)

    1:00 pm -- Message replying to the 12:54 pm message, sent from FBI Washington Field Office with five other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message.

    Hi. (THE REST OF THE MESSAGE IS BLANKED OUT.)

    1:25 pm -- Message replying to the 1:00 pm message, sent from FBI Washington Field Office with five other Washington Field Office FBI Agents addressed on the message. Plus, two other BLANKED out addressees not identified.

    Thanks BLANK will do.

    7:09 pm -- Message from FBI Washington Field Office to Jonathan Moffat and Peter Strzok of the FBI's Criminal Division and two other BLANKED out addressees.

    FYSA (For Your Situational Awareness). I squashed this with BLANK

    7:49 pm Text message from Peter Strzok to Lisa Page forwarding her this email chain.

    The initial response to the query from the Public Affairs Office of the Washington Field Office is telling. The Agent could have responded very simply--The FBI was not involved in any facet of the Seth Rich investigation. This was a local matter handled by the DC Police.

    But that is not how the Agent responded. And then he took the step of adding in people at FBI Headquarters. How do we know this? The message from the Washington Field Office at 7:09 pm was sent to the Criminal Division to Agents Moffat and Strzok.

    Ty Clevenger now has ample ammunition to return to court and insist that the FBI be required to identify all agents involved in these email chains and to discuss what they knew about the Seth Rich case. David Hardy declared under the penalty of perjury that there were no such emails. I doubt that the two judges involved in the relevant cases on this matter will be happy to learn that the FBI stonewalled a valid FOIA request and a

    Stay tuned.

    Below is the copy of the email chain. You need to read from bottom to top.

    Seth Rich Email Chain Complete

    Posted at 08:32 AM in Larry Johnson | Permalink

    Reblog (0) Comments Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post. Sid Finster I will be shocked if the judge does anything about it beyond a slap on the wrist an an admonition not to get caught again.

    Posted by: Sid Finster | 29 January 2020 at 10:07 AM Vig Explain, would you? Maybe I didn't read carefully enough.

    Strictly it had to be handled by DC police, nevertheless the FBI was made aware of it-- and should have taken over at that point?--and somewhere up the chronology ladder Peter Strzok got envolved, not quite the way he should have though, instead he only forwarded the latest mail to his "interior lover". Suggesting??? Peter Strzok as man in charge my have stopped the FBI from taking over?

    Posted by: Vig | 29 January 2020 at 12:18 PM james thanks larry.. what are the chances seth rich was an intel asset?

    Posted by: james | 29 January 2020 at 12:23 PM Larry Johnson Very unlikely that he was an intel asset.

    Posted by: Larry Johnson | 29 January 2020 at 12:38 PM David Habakkuk Sid Finster,

    I think it is premature to prejudge the question of how successful the FBI will be in heading off the attempts of Ty Clevenger and Ed Butowsky to penetrate the wall of silence which has been erected around the involvement of that organisation in covering up the truth about Seth Rich's murder, and his involvement in leaking the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks.'

    It is also material here that other parts of the cover-up may be running into trouble.

    Further indications that contingency plans to use Steele as a 'patsy' were made early on, and are now being implemented, come in an extraordinary article published in the latest edition of the 'Sunday Times' by the paper's Political Editor, Tim Shipman.

    Important parts of this were reproduced in a piece by Daniel Chaitin in the 'Washington Examiner', headlined 'Top British spy report: "Strong possibility' that anti-Trump dossier was completely fabricated", which links to the original article.

    (See https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/top-british-spy-report-strong-possibility-that-anti-trump-dossier-was-completely-fabricated .)

    The original is, unfortunately, behind a paywall – but can be obtained if one is prepared to take the trouble to sign up for the free allowance allowed by the papers.

    In fact, much more interesting than the fact that a well-known British writer about spies, Rupert Allason, aka 'Nigel West', who is clearly a conduit for elements in our security services, has been brought in in support of the strategy of making Steele the 'patsy', are paragraphs that make a claim which Chaitin does not appear to notice. These read:

    'In November (2016 – DH], the FBI began checking out Steele and his sources. The inspector- general found that former colleagues described Steele as demonstrating "poor judgment" by "pursuing people with political risk but no intel value".

    'More worryingly, they worked out that most of Steele's information came from a "primary sub-source", identified by American media as a Belarus-born businessman, Sergei Millian. The FBI interviewed Millian three times, in January, March and May 2017.

    'He told the FBI that he was an unwitting source and much of what he had told Steele was "just talk", "word of mouth and hearsay" or conversations "had with friends over beers". The claims about Trump cavorting with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton were "rumour and speculation" or said "in jest". The inspector- general's report says Millian "made statements indicating that Steele misstated or exaggerated" what he had told him and that his reports were far more "conclusive" than was justified.'

    As it happens, while I have seen Millian referred to as a source for the dossier attributed to Steele, I have – so far at least – not seen him identified with the supposed 'Primary Sub-source.'

    A critical question is whether the 'Sunday Times' is right in claiming that the person whom the FBI are reported by Inspector-General Horowitz as interviewing in January, March and May 2017, in a version which that figure's report accepts, was in fact Millian.

    What Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch have to say in the apologia they published last November under the title 'Crime in Progress', following their attempt to claim that there was serious sourcing for the 'golden showers' claim, seems worth bringing into the picture:

    'Steele said that one of his collectors was among the finest he had ever worked with, an individual known to U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. Neither Simpson nor Fritsch was told the name of this source, nor the source's precise whereabouts, but Steele shared enough about the person's background and access that they believed the information they planned to pass along was credible.'

    The suggestion seems clear that this was the 'Primary Sub-source.'

    Anyone who did the most basic research into Millian would very rapidly realise that the notion that he could have the kind of 'background and access' making the claims made in the dossier attributed to Steele 'credible' was laughable.

    A rather obvious hypothesis, I think, was that the 'Primary Sub-source' was actually – to hark back to the title of a book and film about a classic British disinformation operation – 'The Man Who Never Was.'

    The actual truth, I think, is likely to have been well-summarised by Lee Smith in the opening paragraphs of his review of the Simpson/Fritsch book, which is headlined 'A crime still in progress':

    'Crime in Progress is, inadvertently, the cruelest book ever written about the American media. Its authors, Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, are the two former Wall Street Journal reporters who founded the DC-based consultancy Fusion GPS. In 2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign paid them to use their former media colleagues to push a conspiracy theory smearing her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. The crime is still in progress.

    'To help top-notch journalists market the fantasy that one of the world's most familiar faces was a secret Russian spy, Fusion GPS co-ordinated with the FBI to forge a series of "intelligence reports". They attributed these lurid memos to a down-on-his-luck Brit, a former spy named Christopher Steele.'

    (See https://spectator.us/crime-progress-russiagate-whistleblowers/ )

    My only reservation about this is that I do not think that Steele was 'down-on-his-luck', until he found that his partners in the 'crime still in progress' were planning to wriggle out of their own responsibility by making him the 'patsy', or 'fall guy.'

    To give intelligence credibility to a farrago which, as Smith suggests, is likely to have been cooked up in Fusion GPS, with the assistance of criminal elements in the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence apparatus, it was helpful to bring in an old confederate of both, Steele.

    (One could also then appeal to that curious snobbery that often makes Americans take seriously precisely the kind of 'Brit' to whom they should give a very wide berth!)

    This, ironically, created a situation where those criminal elements could then suggest that their only fault was in being credulous about claims made by a British intelligence officer whom it was suggested past experience gave them reason to trust.

    A natural way of developing this strategy would be to find someone like Millian, and use him to buttress the central claims that the dossier 1. was actually produced by Steele, and 2. that it had actual sources, rather than being largely fabricated. (As so often, the W.C. Fields principle applies: 'Never give a sucker an even break.')

    It seems clear that Horowitz has been prepared to go along with this strategy, and that a very large number of 'suckers' among those on the other side of the fence from Simpson and Fritsch have fallen for it, hook, line and sinker. (It might be invidious to name names.)

    The likely reason why all this happened, of course, is that a succession of events – the discovery that material from the DNC had been leaked and was going to be published by 'WikiLeaks', the identification of Seth Rich as the figure responsible, and then his murder – produced an urgent need for a cover-up.

    Inevitably, given the shortage of time, this was imperfect, and gave hostages to fortune.

    It is clear that Clevenger and Butowsky have, and probably will continue to have, difficulties in getting judges to follow the evidence where it leads.

    However, the former is a first-class 'ferret', and I think it is premature to rule out the possibility that some of the people who are adjudicating these cases may decide that they do not want to continue to cover up a 'crime still in progress.'

    As it happens, Clevenger has written to John Durham, Richard Donague, and also Michael Horowitz, announcing that he wishes to file a criminal complaint in relation to the materials which Larry has discussed.

    (An account with relevant links is given in a new post entitled 'We now have unequivocal proof that the FBI is hiding records about Seth Rich' on Clevenger's 'Lawflog' blog, subtitled 'Because some people just need a good flogging.'

    See http://lawflog.com/?p=2282 .)

    I would strongly recommend anyone seriously interested in seeing the truth about these matters exposed, and the conspiracy against the Constitution defeated, to sign up for alerts from Clevenger's blog.

    Posted by: David Habakkuk | 29 January 2020 at 12:51 PM scott s. In fairness to the FBI, they didn't say there were no emails, they said they used a search of CRS and that didn't identify any emails. It isn't clear to me from what was provided in this post whether the search would have included records from the WFO.

    Posted by: scott s. | 29 January 2020 at 12:54 PM David Habakkuk Larry and Pat,

    I posted quite a long response to 'Sid Finster', which has gone into spam.

    Have been reading both the Simpson/Fritsch apologia, and also the book-length version of Heidi Blake's attempt at 'escapology' on behalf of 'BuzzFeed.'

    Both drive a point home: one simply cannot take on trust anything these people say.

    This also includes material like the Bruce Ohr 302s. I know think that these were crafted, between him, Pientka, Strzok et al, as part of contingency plans to make Steele the 'patsy' if the attempt to 'escalate' with the conspiracy against the Trump failed.

    Posted by: David Habakkuk | 29 January 2020 at 01:00 PM Diana Croissant The sorry fact is this: Out here in places like my town in flyover country, I could mention Seth Rich and no one would have the slightest idea who he was and why he should get justice--or at least that the truth about his life and death should be told.

    Does he have family fighting for the truth about his death? Are there investigative reporters on the story?

    Posted by: Diana Croissant | 29 January 2020 at 05:41 PM turcopolier Diana Croissant

    Should we be silent about this?

    Posted by: turcopolier | 29 January 2020 at 05:45 PM oldman22 David H et al
    Re Christoper Steele, allow me to refresh your recollection with this piece from 3 years ago by John Helmer (too much detail to quote or attempt to summarize).
    http://johnhelmer.net/when-going-to-bed-with-dogs-is-news-getting-up-with-fleas-is-a-scoop-heres-the-one-about-trumps-bed-putins-bed/print/

    Posted by: oldman22 | 29 January 2020 at 10:56 PM English Outsider
    Oldman22 -The article states - "Steele, who quit MI6 in 2009, never told his former bosses, what he was up to."

    I believe this judgement would now be revised, if one can trust newspaper articles detailing an earlier meeting with Sir Richard Dearlove that have since come out.

    Posted by: English Outsider | 30 January 2020 at 05:25 AM Sid Finster @David Habbakuk: I hope that you are right.


    However, I have a little experience with how these things go down in the real world. I genuinely hope that this experience will prove misleading.

    Posted by: Sid Finster | 30 January 2020 at 10:42 AM Flavius The omni-present Strzok/Page.
    The DNC computer hack strikes me as another faux investigation identical in that regard to the Clinton e-mail investigation - half measures abounding. The question is why? The brief e-mail exchange between WFO and FBIHQ makes it perfectly clear that if the field investigators had not already taken an interest on following up on Rich as an obvious lead they certainly should have. It appears to me that they had not since the initial inquiry came down from the Public Affairs Office and seems somewhat less than urgent.
    My question is why wasn't the FBI all over this obvious lead if they wanted to get to the actual bottom of the DNC hack?

    Posted by: Flavius | 30 January 2020 at 11:40 AM

    [Jan 30, 2020] Putin is nothing if not a pragmatist. A nationalist as well. See where Russia was when he began his first term as President and where it is now which is even more impressive when resistance from the US and 'friends' is taken into account.

    Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Bubbles , Jan 30 2020 15:32 utc | 27

    Posted by: paul | Jan 30 2020 13:49 utc | 12

    Putin is nothing if not a pragmatist. A nationalist as well. See where Russia was when he began his first term as President and where it is now which is even more impressive when resistance from the US and 'friends' is taken into account.

    Being pragmatic doesn't always satisfy everyone. He doesn't have the same political system as the US and Western Democracies either, so there's that. I think a large part of his appeal to those who see him objectively is his attempts to be a broker rather than a hot head reactionary and that would apply to the nasties in Israel. Capt Obvious says Israel isn't a standalone problem.


    Hoarsewhisperer , Jan 30 2020 15:57 utc | 30

    Putin and Netanyahu's relationship is too close for comfort.
    Posted by: SharonM | Jan 30 2020 13:01 utc | 6

    Name one national leader to whom Putin displays a lack of respect?
    He's not a big-mouthed AmeriKKKan or a sleazy Pom. It's Russian (and Chinese) policy to keep the door to the path of diplomacy open at all times.

    I'm surprised that everyone is pretending not to notice that Trump hasn't finished helping the "Israelis" to outsmart themselves. He's made several of their criminally psychotic dreams come true and they've lapped them up without any apparent reservations about the legal and moral ramifications.
    He'll keep 'giving' them increasingly ridiculous concessions because he's probably as curious as everyone else to discover if there's a practical limit to the quality and quantity of asinine bullshit the "Israelis" will believe.

    moe , Jan 30 2020 18:33 utc | 71
    Extremely informative article about Putin - concentrating on his leadership style and his character: https://russialist.org/sharon-tennison-shake-up-in-the-kremlin-putin-selects-a-new-leader.
    AntiSpin , Jan 30 2020 20:01 utc | 88
    @ moe | Jan 30 2020 18:33 utc | 71

    Thank you for the informative article by Sharon Tennison, about Putin.

    Those who find it interesting and/or informative will also be interested in this much earlier, much more detailed article that she wrote six years ago, about her initial and considerable interactions with him when he was a civil-servant bureaucrat in St Petersbug in the 90s.
    http://www.russiaotherpointsofview.com/2014/04/russia-report-putin-.html

    I wholeheartedly recommend this linked article (along with the one from Moe, above), and am sure that anyone reading it will find it informative and a very helpful tool with regard to understanding Putin's actions in today's world.

    Ian2 , Jan 30 2020 21:21 utc | 104
    @88 & 102:

    I believe this Russia Report: Putin [2014] is what AntiSpin was referring to.

    AntiSpin , Jan 31 2020 1:02 utc | 136
    @ Ian2 | Jan 30 2020 21:06 utc | 102
    "FYI. Dead link. Goes to Center for Citizen Initiatives."

    Rats!

    Thanks for the heads up -- the article is here now:
    https://russiaotherpointsofview.typepad.com/russia_other_points_of_vi/2014/04/russia-report-putin-.html

    Sharon Tennison's rather in-depth account of the Vladimir Putin that she knew and dealt with when he was a civil-servant bureaucrat in St Petersburg in the 90s will shed a lot of light on the actions of today's Putin.

    Well worth reading!

    [Jan 30, 2020] The Fate of the China-Russia Alliance by Lyle J. Goldstein

    Jan 30, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

    The first alteration in the global balance of power enabled by Russia-China cooperation took place during the 1950s, of course. In that period, the PRC went from being a military "basket case," with no defense industry to speak of, to possessing a reasonably modern force within a span of just a decade. That super-energized process was inspired by the hard school of war against a vastly better-armed opponent in the bloody Korean conflict, as is well known. But the massive progress in Chinese military capabilities also could not have taken place without enormous Soviet assistance. With respect to naval-related arms transfers, Moscow had already given ten torpedo boats and eighty-three aircraft by the beginning of 1953, according to the scholarly journal. The process accelerated during 1953–55 with a total of eight-one additional vessels transferred (amounting to 27,234 tons) and 148 aircraft. Among these ships were four destroyers, four frigates, and thirteen submarines.

    Additionally, the Russians provided the Chinese with more than five hundred torpedoes and over fifteen hundred sea mines, as well as coastal artillery pieces, radar and communications equipment. A third batch of naval transfers was comprised of sixty-three vessels and seventy-eight aircraft. Added to these very substantial allocations, five Chinese shipyards apparently produced another 116 naval vessels, relying heavily on advisors, designs and technology purchased from the USSR, during the period up until 1957. Finally, several transfers agreed to in early 1959 "caused China's Navy to enter into the missile age." Notably, these transfers included the R-11 , a primitive submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and also the P-15 , one of the earliest anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). Yes, these are the earliest progenitors of today's JL-3 and YJ-12 missiles that now present quite credible threats.

    In keeping with the presently jovial mood surrounding current Russia-China relations, very little is said in this Chinese article regarding the Sino-Soviet conflict that brought the two Eurasian giants to the brink of war in the late 1960s. The authors imply that the break was really between the two respective Communist parties, rather than between the two navies, but it is noted that the Kremlin's stated objective to form a "joint fleet" was viewed in China as an encroachment on Chinese sovereignty. Nevertheless, this substantial military cooperation between Moscow and Beijing during the 1950s is evaluated in this Chinese appraisal to have had "major historical impact [重要历史作用]." These authors contend that it "effectively decreased the threat of American imperialism [有效抵制美帝国主义的军事威胁]. They additionally conclude regarding this period: "The achievements of building up the Chinese Navy cannot be separated from the assistance of Soviet experts [中国海军建设的成绩是与苏联专家的帮助分不开的]."

    For a long time, "Soviet revisionists" were not given such favorable treatment by Chinese scholars, but now evidently the "east wind" is blowing once more. If the USSR very substantially helped boost PRC military prospects during the 1950s, this paper by two Chinese naval analysts argues cogently that a similarly ambitious and fateful program of Russia-China military cooperation has had an analogous effect, starting in 1991. When seen in aggregate, the numbers are indeed quite impressive. Russia has sold China, according to this Chinese accounting, more than five hundred military aircraft, including Su-27, Su-30, Su-35, and Il-76 variants. Almost as significant, Russia provided China with more than two hundred Mi-171 helicopters. Just as these pivotal purchases launched China's air and land forces into a new era, so the Chinese acquisition of four Sovremeny destroyers, along with twelve Kilo -class submarines helped to provide the PLA Navy with the technological wherewithal to enter the twenty-first century on a robust footing. That shortlist here, moreover, does not even catalog other vital systems transferred, such as advanced air defense systems, which have formed a bedrock of Chinese purchases from Russia.

    Citing a Russian source, these Chinese authors claim that China spent $13 billion on Russian weapons between 2000–05. That amounts to a decently hefty sum of cash, especially by rather penurious post-Soviet standards. In fact, this raft of deals was not only intended to rescue the PLA from obsolescence but simultaneously aimed to "resolve . . . the survival and development problems [解决 . . . 生存和发展问题]"of the post-Soviet Russian military-industrial complex too. Just as important as these technical transfers, however, have been the human capital investments in cooperation. Here, this study points out that two thousand intermediate and high-level Chinese officers have already graduated from Russian military academies. The upper ranks of the PLA Navy, in particular, are said to be full of these graduates, as reported in this study. Perhaps most critically for the future of the Chinese armed forces, cooperation with Russia has entailed "in particular, promoting the development of domestic weapons development levels and concepts. [尤其带动了国内武器研制水平和理念的提升]." Take, for example, the YJ-18 ASCM, which seems to be superior to any U.S. variants, is a derivative of the Russian SSN-27 missile and is now becoming pervasive throughout the Chinese fleet, with both surface and sub-launched variants.

    For all the major results on the regional balance of power wrought by these two major periods of Russian-Chinese security collaboration, however, there are very real reasons to doubt that such a partnership will truly alter global politics. After all, the Chinese analysis points out that arms sales from Russia to China have declined substantially from the peak in 2005. Joint military exercises, moreover, are now quite regular, but they actually do not seem to exhibit a bellicose trend toward larger and larger demonstrations of military might. These tendencies may reflect new confidence in Beijing regarding its own abilities to produce advanced weapons, of course, but also might reflect a certain degree of restraint -- a realization that too close a Russia-China military alignment could provide ample fuel for a new Cold War that might be in the offing.

    Still, American defense analysts must evaluate the possible results of a significantly closer Russia-China security relationship, whether it is formalized into an actual "alliance" or not. China and Russia currently have numerous joint development projects underway, including both a large commercial airliner, as well as a heavy-lift helicopter. In the future, will cooperative endeavors encompass frigates and VSTOL fighters, or nuclear submarines and stealth bombers, or even aircraft carriers? Will Moscow and Beijing begin to launch joint exercises of a large scale that have major strategic implications in highly sensitive areas? Are third countries, such as Iran, set for "junior associate" status in the so-called "quasi-alliance? And will China and Russia strive to coordinate strategic initiatives to bring about common favorable strategic circumstances in the coming decades?

    Such a future is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. The combination of Russian weapons design genius with Chinese organizational and production prowess could be formidable, indeed. That will be another reason for states comprising the West to now exercise restraint, embrace multi-polarity, and seek to avoid a return to the 1950s "with Chinese characteristics."

    Lyle J. Goldstein is Associate Professor at the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

    [Jan 29, 2020] For the last three years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Jan 29, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    Charlotte Russe ,

    Trump doesn't have a thing to fear he's been a huge asset to the security state, whose Russiagate theatrics provided mainstream media news with just enough bullshit to distract the public, so that Trump could never be aggressively attacked from the Left. For the last three years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia. Meanwhile, this enabled Trump to successfully pass a slew of reactionary legislation and fasttrack numerous lifetime appointments to the federal court without barely a whimper from the phony Dems. In fact, the Democrats unanimously voted for Trump's military budget. The same idiot they called unhinged was given the power to start WWIII.

    No matter how much liberals complain–the wealthy are happy with the status quo and the right-wing Evangelicals are as pleased as punch. However, there's quite a large number of disaffected Trump voters looking at Tulsi, but could eventually come Bernie's way. Especially, if Tulsi endorses Bernie. This discontented bunch includes the working-poor, the indebted young, and all the folks who are not doing economically well under Trump's fabulous stock market. It especially includes the military families who were promised an end to the miserable foreign interventions. Bernie, has some appeal to these folks. His platform certainly resonates with all those who can barely pay their health insurance
    premiums, and whose salary is NOT nearly considered a living wage. But Bernie could win hands-down and steal Trump's base, if he only had the courage to UNAPOLOGETICALLY speak out against US imperialism and connect all the dots explaining how the security state plundered the treasury for decades f–king over the working-class.

    [Jan 29, 2020] How The U.S. Regime And Its Allies Enforce Their Smears And Their Other Lies by Eric Zuesse

    Notable quotes:
    "... the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive, truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not. ..."
    "... (The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political lies are heavily partisan.) ..."
    "... The great then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012, "Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. ..."
    "... Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government ( Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from? ..."
    "... This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel switched instead to pure global conquest -- über -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism has come to mean über-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika. ..."
    Jan 29, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Without enforced suppression of truth, there would be no way that the U.S. and its allied regimes could continue hiding the lies that were behind their invasions of Iraq in 2003 , and of Syria since 2012 , and their coup against Ukraine in 2014 , and also of their takeovers and attempted takeovers of other countries that had refused to be bullied by the U.S. regime into complying with its obsessive anti-Russian demands -- America's subterranean continuation of the Cold War, even after Russia had quit the Cold War in 1991 .

    All of the lies are still being propounded by the U.S. regime and remain fully enforced by suppression of the truth about these matters.

    That's being done in all news-media except a few of the non -mainstream ones.

    So: this is about an actual Western samizdat - the West's equivalent to the former Soviet Union's systematic, and equally pervasive, truth-suppression, to fool the public into thinking that the Government represents them, no matter how much it does not.

    (The chief trick in this regard is to fool them into thinking that since there is more than one political party, one of them will be "good," even though the fact may actually be that each of the parties represents simply a different faction of a psychopathically evil aristocracy. After all: each party lied and supported invading Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, and Syria constantly; and no party acknowledges that the 2014 regime-change in Ukraine was a U.S. coup instead of a domestic Ukrainian democratic revolution. On such important matters, they all lie, and in basically the same ways. These lies are bipartisan, even though most of the other political lies are heavily partisan.)

    Right now, Julian Assange is rotting to death inside Britain's equivalent to the U.S. regime's Guantanamo Bay prison, which is Belmarsh Prison, in London. As the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia's article on Belmarsh Prison retrospectively admits, "Between 2001 and 2002, Belmarsh Prison was used to detain a number of people indefinitely without charge or trial under the provisions of the Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, leading it to be called the 'British version of Guantanamo Bay'." However, only because of the case of Julian Assange is it now publicly known that this characterization of that prison is -- at least for him -- equally true today . And Assange is, indeed, being held there "indefinitely without charge or trial," even after his having previously been held in various other forms of confinement, ever since at least 12 April 2012, when -- being then 'temporarily' under house-arrest in Norfolk England, while awaiting trial on a manufactured rape-charge against him which was reluctantly abandoned by the Government only when the alleged victim refused to testify against him -- Assange broadcast an interview for RT, Russian Television, an interview of the head of Lebanon's Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

    The U.S.-and-allied regimes' billionaires-owned-and-controlled 'news'-media condemned Assange for this interview, because it enabled whomever still had an open mind, amongst the Western public, to hear from one of those billionares' destruction-targets (Nasrallah), and for Assange's doing this on the TV-news network of the main country that America's billionaires are especially trying to conquer, which is (and since 26 July 1945 has consistently been ) Russia.

    The great then-independent investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald headlined about that interview, at Salon on 18 April 2012, "Attacks on RT and Assange reveal much about the critics: Those who pretend to engage in adversarial journalism will invariably hate those who actually do it." How true that was, and unfortunately still is! And Assange himself is the best example of it. Greenwald wrote:

    Let's examine the unstated premises at work here. There is apparently a rule that says it's perfectly OK for a journalist to work for a media outlet owned and controlled by a weapons manufacturer (GE/NBC/MSNBC), or by the U.S. and British governments (BBC/Stars & Stripes/Voice of America), or by Rupert Murdoch and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (Wall St. Journal/Fox News), or by a banking corporation with long-standing ties to right-wing governments (Politico), or by for-profit corporations whose profits depend upon staying in the good graces of the U.S. government ( Kaplan/The Washington Post ), or by loyalists to one of the two major political parties (National Review/TPM/countless others), but it's an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government. Where did that rule come from?

    But from 'temporary' house-arrest there, Assange was allowed asylum by Ecuador's progressive President Rafael Correa on 20 June 2012 , to stay in London's Ecuadoran Embassy, so as not to be seized by the UK regime to be sent to prison and probable death-without-trial in the U.S. To Correa's shock, it turned out that Correa's successor, Vice President Lenin Moreno, was actually a U.S. agent, who promptly forced Assange out of the Embassy, into Belmarsh prison, to die there or else become extradited to die in a U.S. prison, also without trial.

    And, for what, then, is Assange being imprisoned, and perhaps murdered? He divulged government secrets that should never even have been secrets! He raised the blanket of lies, which covers over these actually dictatorial clandestine international operations. He exposed these evil imperialistic operations, which are hidden behind (and under) that blanket of imperialists' lies. For this, he is being martyred -- a martyr for democracy, where there is no actual democracy (but only those lies).

    Here is an example:

    On December 29th, I headlined "Further Proof: U.S., UK, & France Committed War-Crime on 14 April 2018" and reported highlights of the latest Wikileaks document-dumps regarding a U.S.-UK-French operation to cover-up (via their control over the OPCW) their having committed an international war-crime when they had fired 105 missiles against Syria on 14 April 2018, which was done allegedly to punish Syria for having perpetrated a gas-attack in Douma seven days before -- except that there hadn't been any such gas-attack, but the OPCW simply lied and said that there might have been one, and that the Syrian Government might have done it! That's playing the public for suckers.

    Back on 3 November 2019, Fox News bannered "Fox News Poll: Bipartisan majorities want some U.S. troops to stay in Syria" and reported that when citing ISIS as America's enemy that must be defeated, 69% of U.S. respondents wanted U.S. troops to stay in Syria. But when did ISIS ever constitute a threat to U.S. national security? And under what international law is any U.S. soldier, who is inside Syria, anything other than an invader there? The answer, to both of these questions, is obviously "never" and "none." But if you are an investor in Lockheed Martin, don't you want Americans to be suckers about both ? And, so, they are . People such as Julian Assange don't want the public anywhere to be lied-to. Anyone who is in the propaganda-business -- serving companies such as Lockheed Martin -- wants the public to be suckers.

    This is the way the free market actually works. It works by lying, and in such a country the Government serves the people who have the money, and not the people who don't. The people who don't have the money are supposed to be lied-to. And, so, they are. But this is not democracy.

    Democracy, in fact, is impossible if the public are predominantly deceived.

    If the public are predominantly deceived, then the people who do the deceiving will be the dictators there. And if a country has dictators, then it's no democracy. In a totally free market, only the people with the most money will have any freedom at all; everyone else will be merely their suckers, who are fooled by the professionals at doing that -- lying.

    The super-rich enforce their smears, and their other lies, by hiring people to do this.

    When Barack Obama said that "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" - so that each other nation is "dispensable" - he was merely exemplifying the view that only the most powerful is indispensable, and that therefore everyone else is dispensable. Of course, this is the way that he, and Donald Trump, both have governed in the U.S. And Americans overwhelmingly endorse this viewpoint . They're fooled by both parties, because both parties serve only their respective billionaires -- and billionaires are above the law; they are the law, in America and its allied regimes. That's the way it is.

    This is the American gospel, and it is called "capitalism." Oddly, after Russia switched to capitalism in 1991, the American gospel switched instead to pure global conquest -- über -imperialism -- and the American public didn't even blink. So: nowadays, capitalism has come to mean über-imperialism. That's today's American gospel. Adolf Hitler would be smiling, upon today's Amerika.

    And as far as whistleblowers -- such as Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, and other champions of honesty and of democracy -- are concerned: Americans agree with the billionaires, who detest and destroy such whistleblowers. Champions of democracy are shunned here, where PR reigns and real journalism is almost non-existent.

    [Jan 28, 2020] Previously considered lost Seth Rich-related emails have been uncovered. These emails weren't just from anybody. These emails were between FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia Collusion Hoax

    Jan 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    hooligan2009 , 39 seconds ago link

    remember seth rich!

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/breaking-exclusive-christopher-wrays-fbi-caught-in-another-lie-and-cover-up-fbi-emails-on-seth-rich-uncovered/

    "Today, January 27, 2020, we have a stunning update ==>>

    After previously claiming no FBI records could be found related to Seth Rich, emails have been uncovered. These emails weren't just from anybody. These emails were between FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two most corrupt individuals involved in the Russia Collusion Hoax.

    In a set of emails released by Judicial Watch on January 22, 2020, provided by a FOIA request on Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, two pages on emails refer to Seth Rich:"

    https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/JW-v-DOJ-Strzok-Page-Prod-16-00154.pdf

    [Jan 27, 2020] American Pravda Mossad Assassinations by Ron Unz

    Jan 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

    From the Peace of Westphalia to the Law of the Jungle

    The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of enormous moment.

    Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded. Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's elderly Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the presidency in the 2021 elections.

    The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq's Baghdad international airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations originally suggested by the American government.

    Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same topic. Later that same week, America's national newspaper of record allocated more than one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.

    But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "a terrorist organization," drawing widespread criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of classifying a major branch of Iran's armed forces as "terrorists." Gen. Soleimani was a top commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal figleaf for his assassination in broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.

    But consider that Congress has been considering legislation declaring Russia an official state sponsor of terrorism , and Stephen Cohen, the eminent Russia scholar, has argued that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has been so massively demonized by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, numerous agitated pundits have denounced Putin as "the new Hitler," and some prominent figures have even called for his overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking a public campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could quickly annihilate the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that the current danger of global nuclear war may exceed that which we faced during the days of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss such concerns?

    Even if we focus solely upon Gen. Solemaini's killing and entirely disregard its dangerous implications, there seem few modern precedents for the official public assassination of a top-ranking political figure by the forces of another major country. In groping for past examples, the only ones that come to mind occurred almost three generations ago during World War II, when Czech agents assisted by the Allies assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in 1941 and the US military later shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in 1943. But these events occurred in the heat of a brutal global war, and the Allied leadership hardly portrayed them as official government assassinations. Historian David Irving reveals that when one of Adolf Hitler's aides suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate Soviet leaders in that same conflict, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade such practices as obvious violations of the laws of war.

    The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the leadership of another.

    A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for most of a generation, but I don't recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.

    The bloody Wars of Religion of previous centuries did see their share of assassination schemes. For example, I think that Philip II of Spain supposedly encouraged various plots to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England on grounds that she was a murderous heretic, and their repeated failure helped persuade him to launch the ill-fated Spanish Armada; but being a pious Catholic, he probably would have balked at using the ruse of peace-negotiations to lure Elizabeth to her doom. In any event, that was more than four centuries ago, so America has now placed itself in rather uncharted waters.

    Different peoples possess different political traditions, and this may play a major role in influencing the behavior of the countries they establish. Bolivia and Paraguay were created in the early 18th century as shards from the decaying Spanish Empire, and according to Wikipedia they have experienced nearly three dozen successful coups in their history, the bulk of these prior to 1950, while Mexico has had a half-dozen. By contrast, the U.S. and Canada were founded as Anglo-Saxon settler colonies, and neither history records even a failed attempt.

    During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged by the British as rebels. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin's blade, nor that King George III ever considered such an underhanded means of attack. During the first century and more of our nation's history, nearly all our presidents and other top political leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln's death being one of the very few that come to mind.

    At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination plots against Cuba's Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents -- Gerald R. Ford , Jimmy Carter , and Ronald Reagan -- issued successive Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US government.

    Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere window-dressing, a March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M. Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:

    One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.

    Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but

    Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.

    We don't call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are "targeted killings," most often performed by drone strike, and they have become America's go-to weapon in the war on terror.

    The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, had raised his own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become "a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure."

    Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a very disturbing trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its use to only the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile "terrorists" hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same such killings to the many hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy of death.

    Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq and was enormously influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would loosely describe as "Left Neocon."

    But while reviewing a history of Israel's own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might be following along that same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top Iranian leader demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.

    "Rise and Kill First" ORDER IT NOW

    The book being reviewed was Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman, a weighty study of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, together with its sister agencies. The author devoted six years of research to the project, which was based upon a thousand personal interviews and access to some official documents previously unavailable. As suggested by the title, his primary focus was Israel's long history of assassinations, and across his 750 pages and thousand-odd source references he recounts the details of an enormous number of such incidents.

    That sort of topic is obviously fraught with controversy, but Bergman's volume carries glowing cover-blurbs from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors on espionage matters, and the official cooperation he received is indicated by similar endorsements from both a former Mossad chief and Ehud Barak, a past Prime Minister of Israel who himself had once led assassination squads. Over the last couple of decades, former CIA officer Robert Baer has become one of our most prominent authors in this same field, and he praises the book as "hands down" the best he has ever read on intelligence, Israel, or the Middle East. The reviews across our elite media were equally laudatory.

    Although I had seen some discussions of the book when it appeared, I only got around to reading it a few months ago. And while I was deeply impressed by the thorough and meticulous journalism, I found the pages rather grim and depressing reading, with their endless accounts of Israeli agents killing their real or perceived enemies, with the operations sometimes involving kidnappings and brutal torture, or resulting in considerable loss of life to innocent bystanders. Although the overwhelming majority of the attacks described took place in the various countries of the Middle East or the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, others ranged across the world, including Europe. The narrative history began in the 1920s, decades before the actual creation of the Jewish Israel or its Mossad organization, and ranged up to the present day.

    The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other country. I might even go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn't be surprised if the body-count exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in newspaper stories might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman's extremely long book.

    [Jan 27, 2020] Contrasting Views on How to Code a Nuclear Crisis - Texas National Security Review

    Oct 03, 2019 | tnsr.org

    Nuclear Strategy - Contrasting Views on How to Code a Nuclear Crisis Nuclear Strategy October 03, 2019

    Brendan Rittenhouse Green , Austin Long , Mark S. Bell , Julia Macdonald

    In this issue's correspondence section, Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long offer up an alternative way to code nuclear crises in response to Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald's article in the February 2019 issue of TNSR. Bell and Macdonald, in turn, offer a response to Green and Long's critique.
    Facebook Share facebook facebook Linkedin Share linkedin linkedin Google Plus Share google-plus google-plus Twitter Share twitter twitter Mail Share mail mail In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises"

    Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long

    In their article in the February 2019 issue of the Texas National Security Review , Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal. 1 We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning. 2 We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results.

    Nevertheless, the article also highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics: Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code ex ante . The two variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact and theory. 3

    To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that, following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962.

    Below, we analyze their interpretation of the Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment.

    What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides in 1962?

    Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located, and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal." 4

    Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance. This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below.

    Any concept of operations for a U.S. first strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise attack. 5 Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike." 6

    Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources, including satellite reconnaissance and human sources. U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear forces. 7 As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on. As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low state of alert." 8

    Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its bombers, as "sitting ducks." 9 James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high." 10 The authors of the comprehensive History of the Strategic Arms Competition , drawing on a variety of highly classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:

    [T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States. 11

    The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities. 12 The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a Soviet submarine during the crisis. 13

    How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962?

    Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis. First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis. 14 Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) -- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike. 15 Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis. 16

    But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote. 17 The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge, 18 these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American nuclear superiority. 19

    The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear force would strike the United States." 20 But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation" capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly disarming strike. 21 Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated." 22

    Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 1964­–68. This memorandum, sent shortly after the crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable, although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet capability." 23 In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in 1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future.

    As for Kennedy's personal views, it is important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in opposite directions. 24 One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used, and probably on a massive scale. 25

    As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground does not match what the communists can bring to bear." 26

    But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all, "the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on." 27 Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way." 28

    Broader Implications

    Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct, requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis.

    Our discussion of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis" 29 -- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. 30

    According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited.

    So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C).

    Type A crises essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk. 31 Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some enemy transgression." 32 Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake. Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially, larger conventional and nuclear operations.

    Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model. 33 These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous.

    Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "firestorm" model. 34 These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short. 35

    In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings.

    Brendan R. Green, Cincinnati, Ohio

    Austin Long, Arlington, Virginia

    In Response to a Critique

    Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald

    We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively. 36 Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our argument.

    In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises.

    Our Argument

    In our article, we offer a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. 37 While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability" crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low controllability).

    Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis? What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur through a careful, deliberate process.

    First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis

    First, Green and Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were understood and appreciated by American leaders. 38

    While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis. 39 The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less) agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case. Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself, 40 which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes were at their highest. 41 We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his report had much of an effect on operational planning. 42 And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis.

    We would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 43 Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis. 44

    Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree. 45 But Green and Long seem to view any ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position: We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike."

    Part of our motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold. 46 Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we observe in the historical record.

    An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises

    Second, Green and Long offer an alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental objections to their typology. 47 After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and build upon them.

    First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants (stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move.

    Second, to the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits. Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts. Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present," their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are not a source of interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such crises have, in fact, taken place.

    In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics.

    Mark S. Bell, Minneapolis, Minnesota

    Julia Macdonald, Denver, Colorado

    Endnotes 1 Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," Texas National Security Review 2, no. 2 (February 2019): 40–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944 .

    2 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 42, 63.

    3 For an excellent treatment of this problem in the international relations context, see Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 154–72.

    4 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.

    5 See Memorandum for General Maxwell Taylor from Carl Kaysen, "Strategic Air Planning and Berlin," Sept. 5, 1961, from National Archives, Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf .

    6 Marc Trachtenberg, David Rosenberg, and Stephen Van Evera, "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," MIT Security Studies Program (1988), 9, http://web.mit.edu/SSP/publications/working_papers/Kaysen%20working%20paper.pdf .

    7 Austin Long and Brendan Rittenhouse Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike: Intelligence, Counterforce, and Nuclear Strategy," Journal of Strategic Studies 38, no. 1–2 (2015): 44–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.958150 .

    8 "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," 9.

    9 Quoted in Long and Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike," 46.

    10 James R. Schlesinger, "Some Notes on Deterrence in Western Europe," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, June 30, 1962), 8.

    11 Ernest R. May, John D. Steinbruner, and Thomas M. Wolfe, History of the Strategic Arms Competition 1945–1972 , v.1 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), 475.

    12 Quoted in Scott Sagan, "SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy," International Security 12, no. 1 (Summer 1987): 34, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538916 .

    13 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 56. See also, May, Steinbruner, and Wolfe, History of the Strategic Arms Competition , 475; and Owen Coté, The Third Battle: Innovation in the US Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003), 42.

    14 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55, 59.

    15 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.

    16 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.

    17 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 59, fn 96. For more on Bundy, see, e.g., McGeorge Bundy et al., "Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance," Foreign Affairs 60, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 753–68, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1982-03-01/nuclear-weapons-and-atlantic-alliance .

    18 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.

    19 Matthew Kroenig, The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 88.

    20 Sagan, "SIOP-62," 50.

    21 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.

    22 Sagan, "SIOP-62," 36, and esp. n. 49.

    23 Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 907-62 to McNamara, Nov. 20, 1962, in Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1961-1963 , Vol. 8, 387–89, quotation on 388, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d109 .

    24 For example, consider his remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons," before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use. See ExComm Meeting, Oct. 29, 1962, in Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.

    25 For excellent accounts of Kennedy's Berlin policy and his views on nuclear superiority, which we draw upon heavily, see Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), chap. 8; Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), chaps. 2–3.

    26 Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 292, 293, 294, 295.

    27 Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 353, 351.

    28 Legere memorandum for the record of the White House daily staff meeting, Dec. 10, 1962, National Defense University, Taylor Papers, Chairman's Staff Group December 1962-January 1963; quoted in FRUS 1961-1963 , Vol. 8, 436. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d118 .

    29 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 43.

    30 See, e.g., Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 353, n. 3.

    31 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 47–49.

    32 Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.

    33 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49.

    34 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49–50.

    35 Schelling, Arms and Influence , 102.

    36 This work was supported by U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) award FA7000-19-2-0008. The opinions, findings, views, conclusions or recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of USAFA, DTRA or the U.S. Government.

    37 Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," Texas National Security Review 2, no. 2 (February 2019): 40-64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944 . For additional applications of our framework, see Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence: The Upside of the Trump-Kim Summit," War on the Rocks , June 15, 2018, https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/toward-deterrence-the-upside-of-the-trump-kim-summit/ ; Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How Dangerous Was Kargil? Nuclear Crises in Comparative Perspective," Washington Quarterly 42, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 135–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1626691 .

    38 One minor correction to Green and Long's argument: The Cuban Missile Crisis is not the "sole empirical example" in our article of a crisis characterized by a lack of incentives for first use. In the article we also argue that the 2017 Doklam Crisis between India and China lacked strong incentives for first use, and we suspect there are plenty more crises of this sort in the historical record. Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 60–61.

    39 Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55.

    40 The quote from the crisis that Green and Long cite does not really support their argument. Green and Long state: "consider [Kennedy's] remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that 'My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons,' before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use." In fact, consider the full quote: "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons. The decision to use any kind of a nuclear weapon, even the tactical ones, presents such a risk of it getting out of control so quickly." Kennedy then trails off but "appears to agree" with an unidentified participant who states, "But Cuba's so small compared to the world." This suggests that Kennedy was expressing deep skepticism of any sort of nuclear use remaining limited, as well as doubts about the merits of taking such risks over Cuba, rather than making any sort of clear comparison between the merits of tactical use and massive pre-emption as Green and Long suggest. Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657.

    41 For a recent analysis of Kennedy's behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis that concludes that he was deeply skeptical of the benefits of nuclear superiority during the crisis, see James Cameron, The Double Game: The Demise of America's First Missile Defense System and the Rise of Strategic Arms Limitation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 29–37.

    42 For example, see Francis Gavin's assessment that "little was done with" Kaysen's plan, a claim which echoes Marc Trachtenberg's earlier assessment that "it is hard to tell, however, what effect [Kaysen's analysis] had, and in particular whether, by the end of the year, the Air Force was prepared in operational terms to launch an attack of this sort." Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 38; Marc Trachtenberg, History and Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 225.

    43 Marc Trachtenberg, "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis," International Security 10, no. 1 (Summer 1985), 162, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538793 .

    44 Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97.

    45 Indeed, at the risk of adding even more complexity, the relevant threshold likely varies with the stakes of the crisis: Leaders are likely to view lesser damage limitation capabilities as politically relevant when the stakes are higher than they are when the stakes involved are lower.

    46 For discussion of the North Korean case, see Bell and Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence," and Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 61–62.

    47 We do, however, suggest that our labels offer somewhat more joie de vivre than the alphabetic labels that Green and Long offer. Related Articles What Went Wrong? U.S.-China Relations from Tiananmen to Trump What Went Wrong? U.S.-China Relations from Tiananmen to Trump History Winter 2019 - 2020

    James B. Steinberg James Steinberg looks back at the relationship between the United States and China over the last 30 years and asks whether a better outcome could have been produced had different decisions been made. Whither the "City Upon a Hill"? Donald Trump, America First, and American Exceptionalism Whither the "City Upon a Hill"? Donald Trump, America First, and American Exceptionalism Foreign Policy December 2019

    Hilde Eliassen Restad In order to understand Donald Trump's "America First" agenda, we must examine the master narrative that underpins it. Trump breaks with all modern presidents not just because he challenges the postwar "liberal international order," but because he Sense and Indispensability: American Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty Sense and Indispensability: American Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty Foreign Policy December 2019

    Azita Raji Former ambassador to Sweden, Azita Raji, proposes a way forward for a renewed and sustainable American foreign policy. This would require a re-examination of America's interests, institutional reforms, and a revival of American ideals. To wit: reflection, Top Hello
    From Texas!

    × Stay in the know Sign up to the TNSR newsletter: Join
    WP_Query Object
    (
        [query] => Array
            (
                [page] => 
                [year] => 2019
                [monthnum] => 10
                [name] => contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis
            )
    
        [query_vars] => Array
            (
                [page] => 0
                [year] => 2019
                [monthnum] => 10
                [name] => contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis
                [error] => 
                [m] => 
                [p] => 0
                [post_parent] => 
                [subpost] => 
                [subpost_id] => 
                [attachment] => 
                [attachment_id] => 0
                [pagename] => 
                [page_id] => 0
                [second] => 
                [minute] => 
                [hour] => 
                [day] => 0
                [w] => 0
                [category_name] => 
                [tag] => 
                [cat] => 
                [tag_id] => 
                [author] => 
                [author_name] => 
                [feed] => 
                [tb] => 
                [paged] => 0
                [meta_key] => 
                [meta_value] => 
                [preview] => 
                [s] => 
                [sentence] => 
                [title] => 
                [fields] => 
                [menu_order] => 
                [embed] => 
                [category__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [category__not_in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [category__and] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [post__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [post__not_in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [post_name__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [tag__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [tag__not_in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [tag__and] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [tag_slug__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [tag_slug__and] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [post_parent__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [post_parent__not_in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [author__in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [author__not_in] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [ignore_sticky_posts] => 
                [suppress_filters] => 
                [cache_results] => 
                [update_post_term_cache] => 1
                [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1
                [update_post_meta_cache] => 1
                [post_type] => 
                [posts_per_page] => 12
                [nopaging] => 
                [comments_per_page] => 50
                [no_found_rows] => 
                [order] => DESC
            )
    
        [tax_query] => 
        [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object
            (
                [queries] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [relation] => 
                [meta_table] => 
                [meta_id_column] => 
                [primary_table] => 
                [primary_id_column] => 
                [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [clauses:protected] => Array
                    (
                    )
    
                [has_or_relation:protected] => 
            )
    
        [date_query] => 
        [queried_object] => WP_Post Object
            (
                [ID] => 1948
                [post_author] => 279
                [post_date] => 2019-10-03 05:00:03
                [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-03 09:00:03
                [post_content] =>
    
    In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises" Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long In their article in the February 2019 issue of the Texas National Security Review , Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal. [1] We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning. [2] We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results. Nevertheless, the article also highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics: Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code ex ante . The two variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact and theory. [3] To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that, following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962. Below, we analyze their interpretation of the Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment. What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides in 1962? Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located, and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal." [4] Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance. This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below. Any concept of operations for a U.S. first strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise attack. [5] Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike." [6] Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources, including satellite reconnaissance and human sources. U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear forces. [7] As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on. As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low state of alert." [8] Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its bombers, as "sitting ducks." [9] James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high." [10] The authors of the comprehensive History of the Strategic Arms Competition , drawing on a variety of highly classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:
    [T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States. [11]
    The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities. [12] The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a Soviet submarine during the crisis. [13] How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962? Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis. First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis. [14] Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) -- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike. [15] Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis. [16] But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote. [17] The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge, [18] these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American nuclear superiority. [19] The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear force would strike the United States." [20] But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation" capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly disarming strike. [21] Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated." [22] Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 1964­–68. This memorandum, sent shortly after the crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable, although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet capability." [23] In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in 1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future. As for Kennedy's personal views, it is important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in opposite directions. [24] One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used, and probably on a massive scale. [25] As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground does not match what the communists can bring to bear." [26] But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all, "the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on." [27] Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way." [28] Broader Implications Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct, requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis. Our discussion of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis" [29] -- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. [30] According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited. So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C). Type A crises essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk. [31] Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some enemy transgression." [32] Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake. Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially, larger conventional and nuclear operations. Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model. [33] These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous. Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "firestorm" model. [34] These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short. [35] In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings. Brendan R. Green, Cincinnati, Ohio Austin Long, Arlington, Virginia In Response to a Critique Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively. [36] Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our argument. In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises. Our Argument In our article, we offer a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. [37] While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability" crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low controllability). Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis? What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur through a careful, deliberate process. First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis First, Green and Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were understood and appreciated by American leaders. [38] While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis. [39] The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less) agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case. Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself, [40] which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes were at their highest. [41] We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his report had much of an effect on operational planning. [42] And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis. We would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban Missile Crisis. [43] Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis. [44] Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree. [45] But Green and Long seem to view any ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position: We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike." Part of our motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold. [46] Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we observe in the historical record. An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises Second, Green and Long offer an alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental objections to their typology. [47] After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and build upon them. First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants (stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move. Second, to the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits. Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts. Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present," their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are not a source of interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such crises have, in fact, taken place. In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics. Mark S. Bell, Minneapolis, Minnesota Julia Macdonald, Denver, Colorado [post_title] => Contrasting Views on How to Code a Nuclear Crisis [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2020-01-09 11:06:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-01-09 16:06:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tnsr.org/?p=1948 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [lead] => In this issue's correspondence section, Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long offer up an alternative way to code nuclear crises in response to Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald's article in the February 2019 issue of TNSR. Bell and Macdonald, in turn, offer a response to Green and Long's critique. [pubinfo] => [issue] => Vol 2, Iss 4 [quotes] => [style] => framing [type] => Framing [style_label] => The Foundation [download] => Array ( [title] => PDF Download [file] => 2442 ) [authors] => Array ( [0] => 279 [1] => 138 [2] => 258 [3] => 259 ) [endnotes] => Array ( [title] => Endnotes [endnotes] => [1] Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," Texas National Security Review 2, no. 2 (February 2019): 40–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944 . [2] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 42, 63. [3] For an excellent treatment of this problem in the international relations context, see Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 154–72. [4] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [5] See Memorandum for General Maxwell Taylor from Carl Kaysen, "Strategic Air Planning and Berlin," Sept. 5, 1961, from National Archives, Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf . [6] Marc Trachtenberg, David Rosenberg, and Stephen Van Evera, "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," MIT Security Studies Program (1988), 9, http://web.mit.edu/SSP/publications/working_papers/Kaysen%20working%20paper.pdf . [7] Austin Long and Brendan Rittenhouse Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike: Intelligence, Counterforce, and Nuclear Strategy," Journal of Strategic Studies 38, no. 1–2 (2015): 44–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.958150 . [8] "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," 9. [9] Quoted in Long and Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike," 46. [10] James R. Schlesinger, "Some Notes on Deterrence in Western Europe," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, June 30, 1962), 8. [11] Ernest R. May, John D. Steinbruner, and Thomas M. Wolfe, History of the Strategic Arms Competition 1945–1972 , v.1 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), 475. [12] Quoted in Scott Sagan, "SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy," International Security 12, no. 1 (Summer 1987): 34, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538916 . [13] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 56. See also, May, Steinbruner, and Wolfe, History of the Strategic Arms Competition , 475; and Owen Coté, The Third Battle: Innovation in the US Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003), 42. [14] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55, 59. [15] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [16] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [17] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 59, fn 96. For more on Bundy, see, e.g., McGeorge Bundy et al., "Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance," Foreign Affairs 60, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 753–68, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1982-03-01/nuclear-weapons-and-atlantic-alliance . [18] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [19] Matthew Kroenig, The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 88. [20] Sagan, "SIOP-62," 50. [21] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [22] Sagan, "SIOP-62," 36, and esp. n. 49. [23] Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 907-62 to McNamara, Nov. 20, 1962, in Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1961-1963 , Vol. 8, 387–89, quotation on 388, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d109 . [24] For example, consider his remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons," before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use. See ExComm Meeting, Oct. 29, 1962, in Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657. [25] For excellent accounts of Kennedy's Berlin policy and his views on nuclear superiority, which we draw upon heavily, see Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), chap. 8; Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), chaps. 2–3. [26] Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 292, 293, 294, 295. [27] Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 353, 351. [28] Legere memorandum for the record of the White House daily staff meeting, Dec. 10, 1962, National Defense University, Taylor Papers, Chairman's Staff Group December 1962-January 1963; quoted in FRUS 1961-1963 , Vol. 8, 436. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d118 . [29] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 43. [30] See, e.g., Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 353, n. 3. [31] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 47–49. [32] Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97. [33] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49. [34] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49–50. [35] Schelling, Arms and Influence , 102. [36] This work was supported by U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) award FA7000-19-2-0008. The opinions, findings, views, conclusions or recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of USAFA, DTRA or the U.S. Government. [37] Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," Texas National Security Review 2, no. 2 (February 2019): 40-64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944 . For additional applications of our framework, see Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence: The Upside of the Trump-Kim Summit," War on the Rocks , June 15, 2018, https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/toward-deterrence-the-upside-of-the-trump-kim-summit/ ; Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How Dangerous Was Kargil? Nuclear Crises in Comparative Perspective," Washington Quarterly 42, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 135–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1626691 . [38] One minor correction to Green and Long's argument: The Cuban Missile Crisis is not the "sole empirical example" in our article of a crisis characterized by a lack of incentives for first use. In the article we also argue that the 2017 Doklam Crisis between India and China lacked strong incentives for first use, and we suspect there are plenty more crises of this sort in the historical record. Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 60–61. [39] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [40] The quote from the crisis that Green and Long cite does not really support their argument. Green and Long state: "consider [Kennedy's] remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that 'My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons,' before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use." In fact, consider the full quote: "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons. The decision to use any kind of a nuclear weapon, even the tactical ones, presents such a risk of it getting out of control so quickly." Kennedy then trails off but "appears to agree" with an unidentified participant who states, "But Cuba's so small compared to the world." This suggests that Kennedy was expressing deep skepticism of any sort of nuclear use remaining limited, as well as doubts about the merits of taking such risks over Cuba, rather than making any sort of clear comparison between the merits of tactical use and massive pre-emption as Green and Long suggest. Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657. [41] For a recent analysis of Kennedy's behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis that concludes that he was deeply skeptical of the benefits of nuclear superiority during the crisis, see James Cameron, The Double Game: The Demise of America's First Missile Defense System and the Rise of Strategic Arms Limitation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 29–37. [42] For example, see Francis Gavin's assessment that "little was done with" Kaysen's plan, a claim which echoes Marc Trachtenberg's earlier assessment that "it is hard to tell, however, what effect [Kaysen's analysis] had, and in particular whether, by the end of the year, the Air Force was prepared in operational terms to launch an attack of this sort." Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 38; Marc Trachtenberg, History and Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 225. [43] Marc Trachtenberg, "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis," International Security 10, no. 1 (Summer 1985), 162, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538793 . [44] Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97. [45] Indeed, at the risk of adding even more complexity, the relevant threshold likely varies with the stakes of the crisis: Leaders are likely to view lesser damage limitation capabilities as politically relevant when the stakes are higher than they are when the stakes involved are lower. [46] For discussion of the North Korean case, see Bell and Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence," and Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 61–62. [47] We do, however, suggest that our labels offer somewhat more joie de vivre than the alphabetic labels that Green and Long offer. ) [contents] => Array ( [title] => [contents] => ) ) [queried_object_id] => 1948 [request] => SELECT wp_posts.* FROM wp_posts WHERE 1=1 AND ( ( YEAR( wp_posts.post_date ) = 2019 AND MONTH( wp_posts.post_date ) = 10 ) ) AND wp_posts.post_name = 'contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis' AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post' ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC [posts] => Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1948 [post_author] => 279 [post_date] => 2019-10-03 05:00:03 [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-03 09:00:03 [post_content] => In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises" Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long In their article in the February 2019 issue of the Texas National Security Review , Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal. [1] We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning. [2] We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results. Nevertheless, the article also highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics: Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code ex ante . The two variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact and theory. [3] To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that, following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962. Below, we analyze their interpretation of the Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment. What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides in 1962? Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located, and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal." [4] Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance. This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below. Any concept of operations for a U.S. first strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise attack. [5] Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike." [6] Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources, including satellite reconnaissance and human sources. U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear forces. [7] As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on. As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low state of alert." [8] Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its bombers, as "sitting ducks." [9] James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high." [10] The authors of the comprehensive History of the Strategic Arms Competition , drawing on a variety of highly classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:
    [T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States. [11]
    The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities. [12] The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a Soviet submarine during the crisis. [13] How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962? Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis. First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis. [14] Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) -- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike. [15] Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis. [16] But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote. [17] The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge, [18] these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American nuclear superiority. [19] The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear force would strike the United States." [20] But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation" capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly disarming strike. [21] Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated." [22] Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 1964­–68. This memorandum, sent shortly after the crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable, although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet capability." [23] In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in 1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future. As for Kennedy's personal views, it is important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in opposite directions. [24] One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used, and probably on a massive scale. [25] As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground does not match what the communists can bring to bear." [26] But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all, "the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on." [27] Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way." [28] Broader Implications Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct, requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis. Our discussion of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis" [29] -- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. [30] According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited. So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C). Type A crises essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk. [31] Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some enemy transgression." [32] Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake. Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially, larger conventional and nuclear operations. Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model. [33] These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous. Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "firestorm" model. [34] These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short. [35] In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings. Brendan R. Green, Cincinnati, Ohio Austin Long, Arlington, Virginia In Response to a Critique Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively. [36] Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our argument. In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises. Our Argument In our article, we offer a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. [37] While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability" crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low controllability). Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis? What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur through a careful, deliberate process. First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis First, Green and Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were understood and appreciated by American leaders. [38] While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis. [39] The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less) agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case. Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself, [40] which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes were at their highest. [41] We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his report had much of an effect on operational planning. [42] And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis. We would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban Missile Crisis. [43] Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis. [44] Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree. [45] But Green and Long seem to view any ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position: We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike." Part of our motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold. [46] Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we observe in the historical record. An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises Second, Green and Long offer an alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental objections to their typology. [47] After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and build upon them. First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants (stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move. Second, to the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits. Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts. Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present," their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are not a source of interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such crises have, in fact, taken place. In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics. Mark S. Bell, Minneapolis, Minnesota Julia Macdonald, Denver, Colorado [post_title] => Contrasting Views on How to Code a Nuclear Crisis [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => contrasting-views-on-how-to-code-a-nuclear-crisis [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2020-01-09 11:06:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2020-01-09 16:06:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://tnsr.org/?p=1948 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw [lead] => In this issue's correspondence section, Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long offer up an alternative way to code nuclear crises in response to Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald's article in the February 2019 issue of TNSR. Bell and Macdonald, in turn, offer a response to Green and Long's critique. [pubinfo] => [issue] => Vol 2, Iss 4 [quotes] => [style] => framing [type] => Framing [style_label] => The Foundation [download] => Array ( [title] => PDF Download [file] => 2442 ) [authors] => Array ( [0] => 279 [1] => 138 [2] => 258 [3] => 259 ) [endnotes] => Array ( [title] => Endnotes [endnotes] => [1] Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," Texas National Security Review 2, no. 2 (February 2019): 40–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944 . [2] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 42, 63. [3] For an excellent treatment of this problem in the international relations context, see Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 154–72. [4] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [5] See Memorandum for General Maxwell Taylor from Carl Kaysen, "Strategic Air Planning and Berlin," Sept. 5, 1961, from National Archives, Record Group 218, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB56/BerlinC1.pdf . [6] Marc Trachtenberg, David Rosenberg, and Stephen Van Evera, "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," MIT Security Studies Program (1988), 9, http://web.mit.edu/SSP/publications/working_papers/Kaysen%20working%20paper.pdf . [7] Austin Long and Brendan Rittenhouse Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike: Intelligence, Counterforce, and Nuclear Strategy," Journal of Strategic Studies 38, no. 1–2 (2015): 44–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2014.958150 . [8] "An Interview with Carl Kaysen," 9. [9] Quoted in Long and Green, "Stalking the Secure Second Strike," 46. [10] James R. Schlesinger, "Some Notes on Deterrence in Western Europe," (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, June 30, 1962), 8. [11] Ernest R. May, John D. Steinbruner, and Thomas M. Wolfe, History of the Strategic Arms Competition 1945–1972 , v.1 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981), 475. [12] Quoted in Scott Sagan, "SIOP-62: The Nuclear War Plan Briefing to President Kennedy," International Security 12, no. 1 (Summer 1987): 34, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538916 . [13] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 56. See also, May, Steinbruner, and Wolfe, History of the Strategic Arms Competition , 475; and Owen Coté, The Third Battle: Innovation in the US Navy's Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines (Newport, RI: Naval War College, 2003), 42. [14] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55, 59. [15] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [16] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [17] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 59, fn 96. For more on Bundy, see, e.g., McGeorge Bundy et al., "Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance," Foreign Affairs 60, no. 4 (Spring 1982): 753–68, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1982-03-01/nuclear-weapons-and-atlantic-alliance . [18] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [19] Matthew Kroenig, The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy: Why Strategic Superiority Matters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 88. [20] Sagan, "SIOP-62," 50. [21] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [22] Sagan, "SIOP-62," 36, and esp. n. 49. [23] Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 907-62 to McNamara, Nov. 20, 1962, in Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1961-1963 , Vol. 8, 387–89, quotation on 388, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d109 . [24] For example, consider his remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons," before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use. See ExComm Meeting, Oct. 29, 1962, in Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657. [25] For excellent accounts of Kennedy's Berlin policy and his views on nuclear superiority, which we draw upon heavily, see Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), chap. 8; Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), chaps. 2–3. [26] Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 292, 293, 294, 295. [27] Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 353, 351. [28] Legere memorandum for the record of the White House daily staff meeting, Dec. 10, 1962, National Defense University, Taylor Papers, Chairman's Staff Group December 1962-January 1963; quoted in FRUS 1961-1963 , Vol. 8, 436. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v08/d118 . [29] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 43. [30] See, e.g., Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace , 353, n. 3. [31] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 47–49. [32] Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97. [33] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49. [34] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 46, 49–50. [35] Schelling, Arms and Influence , 102. [36] This work was supported by U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) and Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Project on Advanced Systems and Concepts for Countering WMD (PASCC) award FA7000-19-2-0008. The opinions, findings, views, conclusions or recommendations contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of USAFA, DTRA or the U.S. Government. [37] Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," Texas National Security Review 2, no. 2 (February 2019): 40-64, http://dx.doi.org/10.26153/tsw/1944 . For additional applications of our framework, see Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence: The Upside of the Trump-Kim Summit," War on the Rocks , June 15, 2018, https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/toward-deterrence-the-upside-of-the-trump-kim-summit/ ; Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald, "How Dangerous Was Kargil? Nuclear Crises in Comparative Perspective," Washington Quarterly 42, no. 2 (Summer 2019): 135–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1626691 . [38] One minor correction to Green and Long's argument: The Cuban Missile Crisis is not the "sole empirical example" in our article of a crisis characterized by a lack of incentives for first use. In the article we also argue that the 2017 Doklam Crisis between India and China lacked strong incentives for first use, and we suspect there are plenty more crises of this sort in the historical record. Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 60–61. [39] Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 55. [40] The quote from the crisis that Green and Long cite does not really support their argument. Green and Long state: "consider [Kennedy's] remark, just after the peak of the crisis, that 'My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons,' before strongly implying massive U.S. preemption would be preferable to tactical use." In fact, consider the full quote: "My guess is, well, everybody sort of figures that, in extremis, everybody would use nuclear weapons. The decision to use any kind of a nuclear weapon, even the tactical ones, presents such a risk of it getting out of control so quickly." Kennedy then trails off but "appears to agree" with an unidentified participant who states, "But Cuba's so small compared to the world." This suggests that Kennedy was expressing deep skepticism of any sort of nuclear use remaining limited, as well as doubts about the merits of taking such risks over Cuba, rather than making any sort of clear comparison between the merits of tactical use and massive pre-emption as Green and Long suggest. Ernest R. May and Philip Zelikow, eds., The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 657. [41] For a recent analysis of Kennedy's behavior during the Cuban Missile Crisis that concludes that he was deeply skeptical of the benefits of nuclear superiority during the crisis, see James Cameron, The Double Game: The Demise of America's First Missile Defense System and the Rise of Strategic Arms Limitation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 29–37. [42] For example, see Francis Gavin's assessment that "little was done with" Kaysen's plan, a claim which echoes Marc Trachtenberg's earlier assessment that "it is hard to tell, however, what effect [Kaysen's analysis] had, and in particular whether, by the end of the year, the Air Force was prepared in operational terms to launch an attack of this sort." Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), 38; Marc Trachtenberg, History and Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 225. [43] Marc Trachtenberg, "The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis," International Security 10, no. 1 (Summer 1985), 162, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2538793 . [44] Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966), 97. [45] Indeed, at the risk of adding even more complexity, the relevant threshold likely varies with the stakes of the crisis: Leaders are likely to view lesser damage limitation capabilities as politically relevant when the stakes are higher than they are when the stakes involved are lower. [46] For discussion of the North Korean case, see Bell and Macdonald, "Toward Deterrence," and Bell and Macdonald, "How to Think About Nuclear Crises," 61–62. [47] We do, however, suggest that our labels offer somewhat more joie de vivre than the alphabetic labels that Green and Long offer. ) [contents] => Array ( [title] => [contents] => ) ) ) [post_count] => 1 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1948 [post_author] => 279 [post_date] => 2019-10-03 05:00:03 [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-03 09:00:03 [post_content] => In Response to "How to Think About Nuclear Crises" Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long In their article in the February 2019 issue of the Texas National Security Review , Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald make a cogent argument that all nuclear crises are not created equal. [1] We agree with their basic thesis: There really are different sorts of nuclear crises, which have different risk and signaling profiles. We also concur that the existence of a variety of political and military dynamics within nuclear crises implies that we should exercise caution when interpreting the results of cross-sectional statistical analysis. If crises are not in fact all the same, then quantitative estimates of variable effects have a murkier meaning. [2] We should not be surprised that, to date, multiple studies have produced different results. Nevertheless, the article also highlights an alternate hypothesis for nuclear scholarship's inconsistent findings about crisis outcomes and dynamics: Nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret. The balance of resolve between adversaries -- one of the most important variables in any crisis -- is influenced by many factors and is basically impossible to code ex ante . The two variables identified as critical by Bell and Macdonald for determining the shape of a crisis -- the nuclear balance and the controllability of escalation -- are only somewhat more tractable to interpretation. The consequence is that nuclear crises are prone to ambiguity, with coding challenges and case interpretations often resolved in favor of the analyst's pre-existing models of the world. In short, nuclear crises suffer from an especially pernicious interdependence between fact and theory. [3] To the extent that this problem can be ameliorated -- although it cannot be resolved entirely -- the solution is to employ the best possible conceptual and measurement standards for each key variable. Below we provide best practices for coding the nuclear balance, with particular focus on Bell and Macdonald's interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. We argue that, following much of the extant literature, Bell and Macdonald make interpretive choices that unintentionally truncate the history that underlies their coding of the nuclear balance in this case. In our view, they incorrectly conclude that the United States had no military incentives to use nuclear weapons first in 1962. Below, we analyze their interpretation of the Cuba crisis by examining two indicators that might be used to establish the nuclear balance: the operational capabilities of both sides and the perceptions of key U.S. policymakers. We conclude by drawing out some broader implications of the crisis for their conceptual framework, offering a friendly amendment. What Were the Operational Capabilities on Both Sides in 1962? Bell and Macdonald's characterization of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis is a central part of their argument, as it is their sole empirical example of a crisis that "was not characterized by incentives for deliberate first nuclear use." They base this assertion on a brief overview of the balance of U.S. and Soviet strategic forces in 1962, followed by a claim that "[t]he U.S. government did not know where all of the Soviet warheads were located, and there were concerns that U.S. forces were too inaccurate to successfully target the Soviet arsenal." [4] Yet, any calculation of the incentives for deliberate first use must be based on the full context of the military balance. This hinges on the operational capabilities of both sides in the crisis, which includes a concept of operations of a first strike as well as the ability of both sides to execute nuclear operations. The available evidence on operational capabilities suggests that a U.S. first strike would have been likely to eliminate much, if not all, of the Soviet nuclear forces capable of striking the United States, as we summarize briefly below. Any concept of operations for a U.S. first strike would have been unlikely to rely solely, or even primarily, on relatively inaccurate ballistic missiles, as Bell and Macdonald imply. In a sketch of such an attack drafted by National Security Council staffer Carl Kaysen and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Harry Rowen during the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the strike would have been delivered by a U.S. bomber force rather than with missiles. As Kaysen and Rowen describe, all Soviet nuclear forces of the time were "soft" targets, so U.S. nuclear bombers would have been more than accurate enough to destroy them. Moreover, a carefully planned bomber attack could have exploited the limitations of Soviet air defense in detecting low flying aircraft, enabling a successful surprise attack. [5] Kaysen would retrospectively note that U.S. missiles, which were inaccurate but armed with multi-megaton warheads, could also have been included in an attack, concluding, "we had a highly confident first strike." [6] Kaysen's confidence was based on his understanding of the relative ability of both sides to conduct nuclear operations. In terms of targeting intelligence, while the United States may not have known where all Soviet nuclear warheads were, it had detailed knowledge of the location of Soviet long-range delivery systems. This intelligence came from a host of sources, including satellite reconnaissance and human sources.

    U.S. intelligence also understood the low readiness of Soviet nuclear forces. [7] As Kaysen would later note, "By this time we knew that there were no goddamn missiles to speak of, we knew that there were only 6 or 7 operational ones and 3 or 4 more in the test sites and so on.

    As for the Soviet bombers, they were in a very low state of alert." [8]

    Of course, Kaysen's assessment of the balance of forces in 1961 might have been overly optimistic or no longer true a year later during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet, other contemporary analysts concurred. Andrew Marshall, who had access to the closely held targeting intelligence of this period, subsequently described the Soviet nuclear force, particularly its bombers, as "sitting ducks." [9] James Schlesinger, writing about four months before the crisis, noted, "During the next four or five years, because of nuclear dominance, the credibility of an American first-strike remains high." [10]

    The authors of the comprehensive History of the Strategic Arms Competition , drawing on a variety of highly classified U.S. sources, reach a similar conclusion:

    [T]he Soviet strategic situation in 1962 might thus have been judged little short of desperate. A well-timed U.S. first strike, employing then-available ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] and SLBM [submarine-launched ballistic missile] forces as well as bombers, could have seemed threatening to the survival of most of the Soviet Union's own intercontinental strategic forces. Furthermore, there was the distinct, if small, probability that such an attack could have denied the Soviet Union the ability to inflict any significant retaliatory damage upon the United States. [11]
    The Soviet nuclear-armed submarines of 1962 were likewise vulnerable to U.S. anti-submarine warfare, as they would have had to approach within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast to launch their missiles. As early as 1959, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Nathan Twining testified that while "one or two isolated submarines" might reach the U.S. coast, in general, the United States had high confidence in its anti-submarine warfare capabilities. [12] The performance of these capabilities during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when multiple Soviet submarines were detected and some forced to surface, confirms their efficacy, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in their description of an attack on a Soviet submarine during the crisis. [13]

    How Was the Nuclear Balance Perceived in 1962?

    Bell and Macdonald offer three data points for their argument that U.S. policymakers did not perceive meaningful American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis. First, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and other veterans of the Kennedy administration attested retrospectively that nuclear superiority did not play an important role in the Cuba crisis. [14] Second, President John F. Kennedy received a Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing on the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) -- the U.S plan for strategic nuclear weapons employment -- in 1961, which reported that Soviet retaliation should be expected under all circumstances, even after an American pre-emptive strike. [15] Third, the president expressed ambivalence about the nuclear balance on the first day of the Cuba crisis. [16] But this evidence is a combination of truncated, biased, and weak. The retrospective testimony of Kennedy administration alumni is highly dubious. McNamara, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and others were all highly motivated political actors, speaking two decades after the fact in the context of fierce nuclear policy debates on which they had taken highly public positions, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge in a footnote. [17] The problems with giving much weight to such statements are especially evident given the fact that, as Bell and Macdonald acknowledge, [18] these very same advisers made remarks during the Cuba crisis that were much more favorably disposed to the idea of American nuclear superiority. [19] The Joint Chiefs of Staff briefing to Kennedy on SIOP-62 is evidence, contrary to Bell and Macdonald's interpretation, of American nuclear superiority in 1962. Bell and Macdonald make much of the briefing's caution that "Under any circumstances -- even a preemptive attack by the US -- it would be expected that some portion of the Soviet long-range nuclear force would strike the United States." [20] But interpreting this comment as evidence that the United States did not possess "politically meaningful damage limitation" capabilities makes sense only if one has already decided that the relevant standard for political meaning is a perfectly disarming strike. [21] Scott Sagan, in commenting on the briefing, underscores that "although the United States could expect to suffer some unspecified nuclear damage under any condition of war initiation, the Soviet Union would confront absolutely massive destruction regardless of whether it struck first or retaliated." [22] Crucially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued for maintaining a U.S. first-strike capability in a memorandum to McNamara commenting on his plans for strategic nuclear forces for fiscal years 1964­–68. This memorandum, sent shortly after the crisis, argues that the United States could not, in the future, entirely eliminate Soviet strategic forces. Yet, the memorandum continues: "The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that a first-strike capability is both feasible and desirable, although the degree or level of attainment is a matter of judgment and depends upon the US reaction to a changing Soviet capability." [23] In short, not only did the Joint Chiefs of Staff conclude the United States had a meaningful first-strike capability in 1962, they believed such a capability could and should be maintained in the future. As for Kennedy's personal views, it is important not just to consider isolated quotes during the Cuban crisis -- after all, he made several comments that point in opposite directions. [24] One has to consider the political context of the Cuban affair writ large: the multi-year contest with the Soviets over the future of Berlin, and effectively, the NATO alliance. Moreover, Kennedy had deliberately built Western policy during the Berlin crisis on a foundation of nuclear superiority. NATO planning assumed that nuclear weapons would ultimately be used, and probably on a massive scale. [25] As Kennedy put it to French President Charles de Gaulle in June of 1961, "the advantage of striking first with nuclear weapons is so great that if [the] Soviets were to attack even without using such weapons, the U.S. could not afford to wait to use them." In July, he told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that "he felt the critical point is to be able to use nuclear weapons at a crucial point before they use them." In January of 1962, expecting the Berlin Crisis to heat up in the near future, he stressed the importance of operational military planning, and of thinking "hard about the ways and means of making decisions that might lead to nuclear war." As he put it at that meeting, "the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is sufficient to hold our present positions throughout the world" even if American conventional military power "on the ground does not match what the communists can bring to bear." [26] But the president recognized that this military strength was a wasting asset: The development of Soviet nuclear forces meant that the window of American nuclear superiority was closing. For this reason, Kennedy thought it important to bring the Berlin Crisis to a head as soon as possible, while the United States still possessed an edge. "It might be better to let a confrontation to develop over Berlin now rather than later," he argued just two weeks before the Cuba crisis. After all, "the military balance was more favorable to us than it would be later on." [27] Two months after the crisis, his views were little different. Reporting on a presidential trip to Strategic Air Command during which Kennedy was advised that "the really neat and clean way to get around all these complexities [about the precise state of the nuclear balance] was to strike first," Bundy "said that of course the President had not reacted with any such comments, but Bundy's clear implication was that the President felt that way." [28]

    Broader Implications

    Our argument about the nuclear balance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if correct, requires some friendly amendments to Bell and Macdonald's framework for delineating types of nuclear crisis. Our discussion of the operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions during the Cuba crisis underscores that Bell and Macdonald's first variable -- "the strength of incentives to use nuclear weapons first in a crisis" [29] -- probably ought to be unpacked into two separate variables: military incentives for a first strike, and political bargaining incentives for selective use. After all, whatever the exact nuclear balance was during 1962, the United States was certainly postured for asymmetric escalation. The salience of America's posture is thrown into especially bold relief once the political context of the crisis is recognized: The Cuban affair was basically the climax of the superpower confrontation over Berlin, in which American force structure and planning was built around nuclear escalation. Indeed, this is how policymakers saw the Cuba crisis, where the fear of Soviet countermoves in Berlin hung as an ever-present cloud over discussions within the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. [30] According to Bell and Macdonald, either kind of incentive is sufficient to put a case into the "high" risk category for deliberate use. But in truth, political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively -- even if only against military targets -- are ever present. They are just seldom triggered until matters have gone seriously awry on the battlefield. In short, we believe Bell and Macdonald were right to expend extra effort looking for military first-strike incentives, which add genuinely different sorts of risk to a crisis. We argue that operational capabilities and policymaker perceptions in the Cuba crisis show that such incentives are more common than generally credited. So, we would build on Bell and Macdonald's central insight that different types of nuclear crisis have different signaling and risk profiles by modestly amending their framework. We suggest that there are three types of nuclear crisis: those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C). Type A crises essentially collapse Bell and Macdonald's "staircase" and "stability-instability" models, and are relatively low risk. [31] Any proposed nuclear escalation amounts to a "threat to launch a disastrous war coolly and deliberately in response to some enemy transgression." [32] Such threats are hard to make credible until military collapse has put a state's entire international position at stake. Outcomes of Type A crises will be decided solely by the balance of resolve. We disagree with Bell and Macdonald's argument that the conventional military balance can ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis, since any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate. But the lower risks of a Type A crisis mean that signals of resolve are harder to send, and must occur through large and not particularly selective or subtle means -- essentially, larger conventional and nuclear operations. Type B crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "brinksmanship" model. [33] These have a significantly greater risk profile, since they also contain genuine risks of uncontrolled escalation in addition to political risks. Crisis outcomes remain dependent on the balance of resolve, but signaling is easier and can be much finer-grained than in Type A crises. The multiple opportunities for uncontrolled escalation mean that there are simply many more things a state can do at much lower levels of actual violence to manipulate the level of risk in a crisis. For instance, alerting nuclear forces will often not mean much in a Type A crisis (at least before the moment of conventional collapse), since there is no way things can get out of control. But alerting forces in a Type B crisis could set off a chain of events where states clash due to the interaction between each other's rules of nuclear engagement, incentivize forces inadvertently threatened by conventional operations to fire, or misperceive each other's actions. Any given military move will have more political meaning and will also be more dangerous. Type C crises are similar to Bell and Macdonald's "firestorm" model. [34] These are the riskiest sorts of nuclear crisis, since there are military reasons for escalation as well as political and non-rational risks. Outcomes will be influenced both by the balance of resolve and the nuclear balance: either could give states incentives to manipulate risk. Such signals will be the easiest to send, and the finest-grained of any type of crisis. But because the risk level jumps so much with any given signal, the time in which states can bargain may be short. [35] In sum, Bell and Macdonald have made an important contribution to the study of nuclear escalation by delineating different types of crisis with different risk and signaling profiles. We believe they understate the importance of American nuclear superiority during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and that these coding problems highlight some conceptual issues with their framework. In the end, though, our amendments appear to us relatively minor, further underscoring the importance of Bell and Macdonald's research. We hope that they, and other scholars, will continue to build on these findings. Brendan R. Green, Cincinnati, Ohio Austin Long, Arlington, Virginia

    In Response to a Critique Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald We thank Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long for their positive assessment of our work and for engaging with our argument so constructively. [36] Their contribution represents exactly the sort of productive scholarly debate we were hoping to provoke. As we stated in our article, we intended our work to be only an initial effort to think through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises, and we are delighted that Green and Long have taken seriously our suggestion for scholars to continue to think in more detail about the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another. Their arguments are characteristically insightful, offer a range of interesting and important arguments and suggestions, and have forced us to think harder about a number of aspects of our argument. In this reply, we briefly lay out the argument we made in our article before responding to Green and Long's suggestion that we underestimate the incentives to launch a nuclear first-strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their proposal of an alternative typology for understanding nuclear crises.

    Our Argument

    In our article, we offer a framework for thinking through the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. [37] While the existing literature on such crises assumes that they all follow a certain logic (although there is disagreement on what that logic is), we identify factors that might lead nuclear crises to differ from one another in consequential ways. In particular, we argue that two factors -- whether incentives are present for nuclear first use and the extent to which escalation is controllable by the leaders involved -- lead to fundamentally different sorts of crises. These two variables generate four possible "ideal type" models of nuclear crises: "staircase" crises (characterized by high first-use incentives and high controllability), "brinkmanship" crises (low first-use incentives and low controllability), "stability-instability" crises (low first-use incentives and high controllability), and "firestorm" crises (high first-use incentives and low controllability). Each of these ideal types exhibits distinctive dynamics and offers different answers to important questions, such as, how likely is nuclear escalation, and how might it occur? How feasible is signaling within a crisis? What factors determine success? For example, crises exhibiting high incentives for nuclear first use combined with low crisis controllability -- firestorm crises -- are particularly volatile, and the most dangerous of all four models in terms of likelihood of nuclear war. These are the crises that statesmen should avoid except under the direst circumstances or for the highest stakes. By contrast, where incentives for the first use of nuclear weapons are low and there is high crisis controllability -- the stability-instability model -- the risk of nuclear use is lowest. When incentives for nuclear first use are low and crisis controllability is also low -- brinkmanship crises -- or when incentives for first use are high and crisis controllability is also high -- the staircase model -- there is a moderate risk of nuclear use, although through two quite different processes. For the brinkmanship model, low levels of crisis controllability combined with few incentives for nuclear first use mean that escalation to the nuclear level would likely only happen inadvertently and through a process of uncontrolled, rather than deliberate, escalation. On the other hand, high levels of crisis controllability combined with high incentives for nuclear first use -- characteristic of the staircase model -- mean that escalation would more likely occur through a careful, deliberate process.

    First-Use Incentives in the Cuban Missile Crisis

    First, Green and Long address the extent of incentives for launching a nuclear first strike during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In short, they argue that there were substantial military incentives for America to strike first during the crisis and that these were understood and appreciated by American leaders. [38] While space constraints meant that our analysis of the nuclear balance in the Cuban Missile Crisis was briefer than we would have liked, we certainly agree that the United States possessed nuclear superiority over the Soviet Union during the crisis. [39] The debate between us and Green and Long is, therefore, primarily over whether the nuclear balance that we (more or less) agree existed in 1962 was sufficiently lopsided as to offer meaningful incentives for nuclear first use, and whether it was perceived as such by the leaders involved. In this, we do have somewhat different interpretations of how much weight to assign to particular pieces of evidence. For example, we believe that the retrospective assessment of key participants does have evidentiary value, although we acknowledge (as we did in our article) the biases of such assessments in this case. Given the rapidly shifting nuclear balance, we place less weight on President John F. Kennedy's statements in years prior to the crisis than on those he made during the crisis itself, [40] which were more consistently skeptical of the benefits associated with U.S. nuclear superiority at a time when the stakes were at their highest. [41] We also place somewhat less weight than Green and Long on the 1961 analysis of Carl Kaysen, given doubts about whether his report had much of an effect on operational planning. [42] And finally, we put less weight on the Joint Chiefs of Staff document from 1962 cited by Green and Long in support of their argument, given that it acknowledges the U.S. inability to eliminate Soviet strategic nuclear forces -- thus highlighting the dangers of a U.S. nuclear first strike -- as well as focuses on future force planning in the aftermath of the crisis. We would also note that our assessment that U.S. nuclear superiority in the Cuban Missile Crisis did not obviously translate into politically meaningful incentives for first use is in line with standard interpretations of this case, including among scholars that Green and Long cite. For Marc Trachtenberg, for example, "[t]he American ability to 'limit damage' by destroying an enemy's strategic forces did not seem, in American eyes, to carry much political weight" during the Cuban Missile Crisis. [43] Similarly, the relative lack of incentives for rational first use in the crisis motivated Thomas Schelling's assessment that only an "unforeseeable and unpredictable" process could have led to nuclear use in the crisis. [44] Regardless of whether participants in the Cuban Missile Crisis understood the advantages (or lack thereof) associated with nuclear superiority, in some ways, our disagreement with Green and Long is more of a conceptual one: where to draw the threshold at which a state's level of nuclear superiority (and corresponding ability to limit retaliatory damage) should be deemed "politically meaningful," i.e., sufficiently lopsided to offer incentives for first use. This is a topic about which there is certainly room for legitimate disagreement. "Political relevance" is a tricky concept, which reinforces Green and Long's broader argument that "nuclear crises are intrinsically hard to interpret" -- a point with which we agree. [45] But Green and Long seem to view any ability to limit retaliatory damage as politically meaningful, since they argue that a nuclear balance that would have likely left a number of American cities destroyed (and potentially more), even in the aftermath of a U.S. first strike, nonetheless provided strong military incentives for first use. By contrast, our view is that the threshold should be somewhat higher than this, though lower than Green and Long's characterization of our position: We do not, in fact, think that the relevant standard for political meaning "is a perfectly disarming strike." Part of our motivation in wanting a threshold higher than "any damage limitation capability" is that it increases the utility of the typology we offer by allowing us to draw the line in such a way that a substantial number of empirical cases exist on either side of that threshold. Green and Long, by contrast, seem more satisfied to draw the line in such a way that cases exhibiting very different incentives for first use -- a crisis with North Korea today compared to the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example -- would both be classified on the same side of the threshold. [46] Green and Long's approach would ignore the important differences between these cases by treating both crises as exhibiting strong incentives for nuclear first use. This would be akin to producing a meteorological map that rarely shows rain because the forecaster judges the relevant threshold to be "catastrophic flooding." There is nothing fundamentally incorrect about making such a choice, but it is not necessarily the most helpful approach to shedding light on the empirical variation we observe in the historical record. An Alternative Typology of Nuclear Crises Second, Green and Long offer an alternative typology for understanding the heterogeneity of nuclear crises. Green and Long argue that there are three types of crisis: "those with political bargaining incentives for selective nuclear use (Type A); those with risks of both selective use and non-rational uncontrolled escalation (Type B); and those with political risks, non-rational risks, and military incentives for a nuclear first strike (Type C)." This is an interesting proposal and we have no fundamental objections to their typology. [47] After all, one can categorize the same phenomenon in different ways, and different typologies may be useful for different purposes. Space constraints inevitably prevent Green and Long from offering a full justification for their typology, and we would certainly encourage them to offer a more fleshed out articulation of it and its merits. Their initial discussion of the different types of signals that states can send within different types of crises is especially productive and goes beyond the relatively simple discussion of the feasibility of signaling that we included in our article. We offer two critiques that might be helpful as they (and others) continue to consider the relative merits of these two typologies and build upon them. First, it is not clear how different their proposed typology is from the one we offer. At times, for example, Green and Long suggest that their typology simply divides up the same conceptual space we identify using our two variables, but does so differently. For example, they argue that they are essentially collapsing two of our quadrants (stability-instability crises and staircase crises) into Type A crises, while Type B crises are similar to our brinkmanship crises and Type C crises are similar to our firestorm crises. If so, their typology does not really suggest a fundamentally different understanding of how nuclear crises vary, but merely of where the most interesting variation occurs within the conceptual space we identify. The key question, then, in determining the relative merits of the two typologies, is whether there is important variation between the two categories that Green and Long collapse. We continue to think the distinctions between stability-instability crises and staircase crises are important. Although both types of crises are relatively controllable and have limited risk of what Green and Long call "non-rational uncontrolled escalation," they have very different risks when it comes to nuclear use: lower in stability-instability crises and higher in staircase crises. The factors that determine success in stability-instability crises -- primarily the conventional military balance due to the very low risk of nuclear escalation -- do not necessarily determine success in staircase crises, in which the nuclear balance may matter. As a result, we think that collapsing these two categories is not necessarily a helpful analytical move. Second, to the extent that their typology differs from our own, it does so in ways that are not necessarily helpful in shedding light on the variation across nuclear crises that we observe. In particular, separating incentives for first use into "political bargaining incentives" and "military incentives" is an intriguing proposal but we are not yet fully persuaded of its merits. Given that one of Green and Long's goals is to increase the clarity of the typology we offer, and given that they acknowledge the difficulties of coding the nuclear balance, demanding even more fine-grained assessments in order to divide incentives for first use into two separate (but conceptually highly connected) components may be a lot to ask of analysts. Moreover, given Green and Long's assertion that "political incentives to use nuclear weapons selectively are ever present," their argument in fact implies (as mentioned above) that political incentives for first use are not a source of interesting variation within nuclear crises. We disagree with this conclusion substantively, but it is worth noting that it also has important conceptual implications for Green and Long's typology: It means that their three types of crises all exhibit political incentives for nuclear first use. If this is the case, then political incentives for nuclear first use simply fall out of the analysis. In effect, crises without political incentives for nuclear first use are simply ruled out by definition. This analytic move renders portions of their argument tautologous. For example, they argue that the conventional balance cannot "ever determine the outcome of a nuclear crisis," but this is only because they assume that there are always political incentives to use nuclear weapons first, and thus, "any conventional victory stands only by dint of the losing side's unwillingness to escalate." More broadly, this approach seems to us at least somewhat epistemologically problematic. In our view, it is better to be conceptually open to the existence of certain types of crises and then discover that such crises do not occur empirically, than it is to rule them out by definition and risk discovering later that such crises have, in fact, taken place. In sum, while we are not fully persuaded by Green and Long's critiques, we are extremely grateful for their insightful, thorough, and constructive engagement with our article and look forward to their future work on these issues. We hope that they, along with other scholars, will continue to explore the ways in which nuclear crises differ from one another, and the implications of such differences for crisis dynamics.

    [Jan 27, 2020] The Emergence of Progressive Foreign Policy

    Jan 27, 2020 | warontherocks.com

    Since the end of the Cold War, two camps can claim victory on most U.S. foreign policy outcomes: neoconservatives and liberal internationalists. The neoconservatives have been defined by their support for unilateral military interventions, democracy promotion, and military supremacy. The liberal internationalists have focused on global economic liberalization, multilateral humanitarian interventions, and the promotion of human rights abroad. Both camps gained confidence from the supposed " end of history " and America's " unipolar moment ." And both camps have undergone a serious reckoning after the Afghanistan, Iraq, and forever wars, as well as the global financial crisis calling into question neoliberal economic policies -- namely, deregulation, liberalization, privatization, and austerity. Prominent foreign policy advocates have quite publicly engaged in soul-searching as they confronted these changes, and debates about the future of foreign policy abound.

    The emergence of a distinctively progressive approach to foreign policy is perhaps the most interesting -- and most misunderstood -- development in these debates. In speeches and articles, politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders have outlined an approach to foreign policy that does not fall along the traditional fault-lines of realist versus idealist or neoconservative versus liberal internationalist (disclosure: I have been a longtime advisor to Sen. Warren). Their speeches come alongside an increasing number of articles exploring the contours of a progressive foreign policy. Even those who might not consider themselves progressive are sounding similar themes .

    From this body of work, it is now possible to sketch out the framework of a distinctively progressive approach to foreign policy. While its advocates, like those in other foreign policy camps, discuss a wide range of issues -- from climate change to reforming international institutions -- at the moment, five themes mark this emerging approach as a specific framework for foreign policy.

    First, progressive foreign policy breaks the silos between domestic and foreign policy and between international economic policy and foreign policy. It places far greater emphasis on how foreign policy impacts the United States at home -- and particularly on how foreign policy (including international economic policy) has impacted the domestic economy. To be sure, there have always been analysts and commentators who recognized these interrelationships. But progressive foreign policy places this at the center of its analysis rather than seeing it as peripheral. The new progressive foreign policy takes the substance of both domestic and international economic policies seriously, and its adherents will not support economic policies on foreign policy grounds if they exacerbate economic inequality at home. For example, the argument that trade deals must be ratified on national security grounds even though they have problematic distributional consequences does not carry much weight for progressives who believe that an equitable domestic economy is the foundation of national power.

    Second, progressive foreign policy holds that one of the important threats to American democracy at home is nationalist oligarchy (or, alternatively, authoritarian capitalism ) abroad. Countries like Russia and China are not simply authoritarian governments, and neither can their resurgence and assertion of power be interpreted as merely great power competition. The reason is that their economic systems integrate economic and political power. Crony/state capitalism is not a bug, it is the central feature. In a global society, economic interrelationships weaponize economic power into political power . China, for example, already uses its economic power as leverage in political disputes with other Asian countries. Its growing share of global GDP is one of the most consequential facts of the 21st century. As a result of these dynamics, progressives are also highly skeptical of a foreign policy based on the premise that the countries of the world will all become neoliberal democracies. Instead, they take seriously the risks that come from economic integration with nationalist oligarchies.

    Third, the new progressive foreign policy values America's alliances and international agreements, but not because it thinks that such alliances and rules can convert nationalist oligarchies into liberal democracies. Rather, alliances should be based on common values or common goals, and, going forward, they will be critical to balancing and countering the challenges from nationalist oligarchies. Progressives are thus far more skeptical of alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia and far more interested in reinforcing and deepening ties with allies like Japan -- and are concerned about the erosion of alliances like NATO from within.

    [Jan 27, 2020] The Federal Assembly Speech; Putin vows to rein in capitalism and shore up sovereignty by Mike Whitney

    Jan 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Western elites and their lackeys in the media despise Russian president Vladimir Putin and they make no bones about it. The reasons for this should be fairly obvious. Putin has rolled back US ambitions in Syria and Ukraine, aligned himself with Washington's biggest strategic rival in Asia, China, and is currently strengthening his economic ties with Europe which poses a long-term threat to US dominance in Central Asia. Putin has also updated his nuclear arsenal which makes it impossible for Washington to use the same bullyboy tactics it's used on other, more vulnerable countries. So it's understandable that the media would want to demonize Putin and disparage him as cold-blooded "KGB thug". That, of course, is not true, but it fits with the bogus narrative that Putin is maniacally conducting a clandestine war against the United States for purely evil purposes. In any event, the media's deep-seated Russophobia has grown so extreme that they're unable to cover even simple events without veering wildly into fantasy-land. Take, for example, the New York Times coverage of Putin's recent Address to the Federal Assembly, which took place on January 15. The Times screwball analysis shows that their journalists have no interest in conveying what Putin actually said, but would rather use every means available to persuade their readers that Putin is a calculating tyrant driven by his insatiable lust for power. Check out this excerpt from the article in the Times:

    "Nobody knows what's going on inside the Kremlin right now. And perhaps that's precisely the point. President Vladimir V. Putin announced constitutional changes last week that could create new avenues for him to rule Russia for the rest of his life .(wrong)

    The fine print of the legislation showed that the prime minister's powers would not be expanded as much as first advertised, while members of the State Council would still appear to serve at the pleasure of the president. So maybe Mr. Putin's plan is to stay president, after all? .(wrong again)

    A journalist, Yury Saprykin, offered a similar sentiment on Facebook, but in verse:

    We'll be debating over how he won't leave,
    We'll be guessing, will he leave or won't he.
    And then -- lo! -- he won't be leaving.
    That is, before the elections he won't leave,
    And after that, he definitely won't leave." (wrong, a third time)

    ( " Big Changes? Or Maybe Not. Putin's Plans Keep Russia Guessing" , New York Times )

    This is really terrible analysis. Yes, "Putin announced constitutional changes last week", but they have absolutely nothing to do with some sinister plan to stay in power, and anyone who read the speech would know that. Unfortunately, most of the other 100-or-so "cookie cutter" articles on the topic, draw the same absurd conclusion as the Times , that is, that the changes Putin announced in his speech merely conceal his real intention which is to extend his time in office for as long as possible. Once again, there's nothing in the speech itself to support these claims, it's just another attempt to smear Putin.

    So what did Putin actually say in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly?

    Well, that's where it gets interesting. He announced changes to the social safety net, more financial assistance for young families, improvements to the health care system, higher wages for teachers, more money for education, hospitals, schools, libraries. He promised to launch a system of "social contracts" that commit the state to reducing poverty and raising standards of living. He pledged to provide healthier meals to schoolchildren, lower interest rates for first-time home buyers, greater economic support for working families, higher payouts to pensioners, raises to the minimum wage, additional funding for a "network of extracurricular technology and engineering centers". Putin also added this gem:

    "It is very important that children who are in preschool and primary school adopt the true values ​​of a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and successful country."

    Naturally, heartfelt statements like this never appear on the pages of the Times or any of the other western media for that matter. Instead, Americans are deluged with more of the same relentless Putin-psychobabble that's become a staple of cable news. The torrent of lies, libels and fabrications about Putin are so constant and so overwhelming, that the only thing of which one can be absolutely certain, is that nothing that is written about Putin in the MSM can be trusted. Of that, there is no doubt.

    That said, Putin is a politician which means he might not deliver on his promises at all. That is a very real possibility. But if that's the case, then why did his former-Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, resign immediately after the speech? Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned because they realized that Putin has abandoned the western model of capitalism and is moving in a different direction altogether. Putin is now focused on strengthening welfare state programs that lift people out of poverty, raise living standards, and narrow the widening inequality gap. And he wants a new team to help him implement his vision, which is why Medvedev and crew got their walking papers. Here's how The Saker summed it up in a recent article at the Unz Review :

    "The new government clearly indicates that, especially with the nominations of Prime Minister Mishustin and his First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov: these are both on record as very much proponents of what is called "state capitalism" in Russia: meaning an economic philosophy in which the states does not stifle private entrepreneurship, but one in which the state is directly and heavily involved in creating the correct economic conditions for the government and private sector to grow. Most crucially, "state capitalism" also subordinates the sole goal of the corporate world (making profits) to the interests of the state and, therefore, to the interests of the people. In other words, goodbye turbo-capitalism à la Atlantic Integrationists!" ( "The New Russian Government" , The Saker)

    This is precisely what is taking place in Russia right now. Putin is breaking away from Washington's parasitic model of capitalism and replacing it with a more benign version that better addresses the needs of the people. This new version of 'managed capitalism' places elected officials at the head of the system to protect the public from the savagery of market forces and from perennial-grinding austerity. It's a system aimed at helping ordinary people not Wall Street or the global bank Mafia.

    But while the changes to Russia's economic model are significant, it's Putin's political changes that have drawn the most attention. Here's what he said:

    (The) "requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution ."

    What does this mean? Does it mean that Putin will not respect international law or the treaties it has signed with its neighbors? No, it doesn't, in fact, Putin has been an enthusiastic proponent of international law and the UN Security Council. He strongly believes that these institutions play a crucial role in maintaining global security, an issue that is very close to his heart. What the Russian president appears to be saying is that the rights of the Russian people and of the sovereign Russian government take precedent over foreign corporations, treaties or free trade agreements. Russia will not allow the powerful and insidious globalist multinationals to take control of the political and economic levers of state power as they've done in countries around the world. Putin further clarified this point saying:

    "Russia can remain Russia only as a sovereign state. Our nation's sovereignty must be unconditional. We have done a great deal to achieve this. We restored our state's unity and overcome the situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans. We created powerful reserves, which increases our country's stability and capability to protect (us) from any attempts of foreign pressure."

    For Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is the bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully represents the will of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech saying:

    "The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source of power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people, both today and in the future."

    So while there may be significant differences between Russian and US democracy, the basic principle remains the same, the primary responsibility of the government is to carry out the "will of the people". In this respect, Putin's political philosophy is not much different from that of the framers of the US Constitution. What is different, however, is Putin's approach to free trade. Unlike the US, Putin does not believe that free trade deals should diminish the authority of the state. Most Americans don't realize that trade agreements like NAFTA often include provisions that prevent the government from acting in the best interests of their people. Globalist trade laws prevent governments from providing incentives to companies to slow the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, they undermine environmental regulations and food safety laws. Some of these agreements even shield sweatshop owners and other human rights abusers from penalty or prosecution.

    Is it any wonder why Putin does not want to participate in this unethical swindle? Is it any wonder why he feels the need to clearly state that Russia will only comply with those laws and treaties that "do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution"? Here's Putin again:

    "Please, do not forget what happened to our country after 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, .there were also threats, dangers of a magnitude no one could have imagined ever before. .Therefore We must create a solid, reliable and invulnerable system that will be absolutely stable in terms of the external contour and will securely guarantee Russia's independence and sovereignty."

    So what happened following the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

    The United States dispatched a cabal of cutthroat economists to Moscow to assist in the "shock therapy" campaign that collapsed the social safety net, savaged pensions, increased unemployment, homelessness, poverty, and alcoholism by many orders of magnitude, accelerated the slide to privatization that fueled a generation of voracious oligarchs, and sent the real economy plunging into an excruciating long-term depression.

    Economist Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:

    "In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..

    The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people than the Communists had said it would be. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices, and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)

    At the same time Washington's agents were busy looting Moscow, NATO was moving its troops, armored divisions and missile sites closer to Russia's border in clear violation of promises that were made to Mikhail Gorbachev not to move its military "one inch east". At present, there are more combat troops and weaponry on Russia's western flank than at any time since the German buildup for operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Naturally, Russia feels threatened by this flagrantly hostile force on its border. (BTW, this week, "The US is carrying out its biggest and most provocative deployment to Europe since the Cold War-era. According to the US Military in Europe Website: "Exercise DEFENDER-Europe 20 is the deployment of a division-size combat-credible force from the United States to Europe .The Pentagon and its NATO allies are recklessly simulating a full-blown war with Russia to prevent Moscow from strengthening its economic ties with Europe.) Here's more from Putin:

    "I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions."

    This is a theme that Putin has reiterated many times since his groundbreaking speech at Munich in 2007 where he said:

    "We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ." ("Wars not diminishing': Putin's iconic 2007 Munich speech, you tube)

    What Putin objects to is the US acting unilaterally whenever it chooses. It's Washington's capricious disregard for international law that has destabilized vast regions across the Middle East and Central Asia and has put world leaders on edge never knowing where the next crisis will pop up or how many millions of people will be impacted. As Putin said in Munich, "No one feels safe." No one feels like they can count on the protection of international law or UN Security Council resolutions.

    Putin:

    "Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention destroyed government institutions and the local way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human rights, including even the right to life

    The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003 invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 ."

    Is Putin overstating Washington's role in decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan or is this a fair assessment of America's pernicious and destabilizing role in the region? Entire civilizations have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across the region to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate its perceived enemies. And all this military adventurism can be traced back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the triumphalist response from US powerbrokers who saw Russia's collapse as a green light for their New World Order.

    Washington reveled in its victory and embraced its ability to dominate global decision-making and intervene unilaterally wherever it saw fit. The indispensable nation no longer had to bother with formalities like the UN Security Council or international law. Even sovereignty was dismissed as an archaic notion that had no place in the new borderless corporate empire. What really mattered was spreading western-style capitalism to the four corners of the earth particularly those areas that contained vital resources (ME) or explosive growth potential. (Eurasia) Those regions were the real prize.

    But then something unexpected happened. Washington's wars dragged on ad infinitum while newer centers of power gradually emerged. Suddenly, the globalist utopia was no longer within reach, the American Century had ended before it had even begun. Meanwhile Russia and China were growing more powerful all the time. They demanded an end to unilateralism and a return to international law, but their demands were flatly rejected. The wars and interventions dragged on even though the prospects for victory grew more and more remote. Here's Putin again:

    "We have no doubt that sovereignty is the central notion of the entire system of international relations. Respect for it and its consolidation will help underwrite peace and stability both at the national and international levels First of all, there must be equal and indivisible security for all states." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, " The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow, From the Office of the President of Russia)

    Indeed, sovereignty is the foundational principle upon which global security rests, and yet, it is sovereignty that western elites are so eager to extinguish. Powerhouse multinationals want to erase existing borders to facilitate the unfettered, tariff-free flow of goods and people in one giant, interconnected free trade zone that spans the entire planet. And while their plan has been derailed by Putin in Syria and Ukraine, they have made gains in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia. The virus cannot be contained, it can only be eradicated. Here's Putin:

    "Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe, as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed. I think this situation is in many respects the result of mistaken, hasty and to some extent over-confident choices made by some countries' elites a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late 1980s-early 1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate the globalization process but also to give it a different quality and make it more harmonious and sustainable in nature.

    But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves this way but said it openly, took the course of simply reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.

    In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring the entire world under the spread of their own organizations, norms and rules. They chose the road of globalization and security for their own beloved selves, for the select few, and not for all." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

    As Putin says, there was an opportunity to "make globalization more harmonious and sustainable", (perhaps, China's Belt and Road initiative will do just that.) but Washington elites rejected that idea choosing instead to impose its own self-aggrandizing vision on the world. As a result, demonstrations and riots have cropped up across Europe, right-wing populist parties are on the rise, and a majority of the population no longer have confidence in basic democratic institutions. The west's version of globalization has been roundly repudiated as a scam that showers wealth on scheming billionaires while hanging ordinary working people out to dry. Here's Putin again:

    "It seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification in society and the erosion of the middle class (but the situation) creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct impact on the public mood.

    Sociological studies conducted around the world show that people in different countries and on different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak. This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)

    True, life is harder now and it looks to get harder still, but what is Putin's remedy or does he have one? Is he going to stem the tide and reverse the effects of globalization? Is he going to sabotage Washington's plan to control vital resources in the Middle East, become the the main player in Central Asia, and tighten its grip on global power?

    No, Putin is not nearly that ambitious. As he indicates in his speech, his immediate goal is to reform the economy so that poverty is eliminated and wealth is more equally distributed. These are practical remedies that help to soften capitalism and decrease the probability of social unrest. He also wants to fend off potential threats to the state by shoring up Russian sovereignty. That's why he is adding amendments to the Constitution. The objective is to protect Russia from pernicious foreign agents or fifth columnists operating within the state. Bottom line: Putin sees what's going on in the world and has charted a course that best serves the interests of the Russian people. Americans would be lucky to have a leader who did the same.


    Digital Samizdat , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 8:21 am GMT

    @Westcosast

    He is now granted $40 billion in tax breaks to the biggest fossil fuel oligarchs–Rosneft and Gazprom. These are privatised companies that were formerly state companies in the former USSR. Instead of reversing the trend Putin has escalated privatization.

    It seems you were misinformed. Rosneft and Gazprom are still state-owned, the latter mostly and the former entirely. So if indeed Putin did grant them these tax breaks, it's just one branch of the government transferring money to another branch of government–sort of like when the Social Security Administration here in the US buy bonds from the Treasury Department. It's just an accounting gimmick, not gift to 'oligarchs'. (BTW, why is it that the media never refer to Soros, Bezos or the Rockefellers as 'oligarchs'? Why only Russians?)

    Miro23 , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 8:29 am GMT

    For Putin sovereignty, which is the supreme power of a state to govern itself, is the bedrock principle which legitimizes the state provided the state faithfully represents the will of the people. He elaborates on this point later in his speech saying:

    "The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source of power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people, both today and in the future."

    This is what has been missing from so called US Democracy for a while now.

    The present day US is a hegemony of Special Interests busy looting the place under cover their propaganda department (US MSM).

    St-Germain , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 1:07 pm GMT
    Great article, Mike Whitney. So far it's the only one I've seen that reveals a coherent hard core in what Putin seeks to achieve with a seemingly bureaucratic rejiggering of the constitution and ruling echelon. Maybe he's finally ending the humiliating indecision that has stymied Russia the past three decades: Will the country keep trying to be yet another pale copy of the financialized U.S. economic sphere, powered by dollar hegemony? Or, will it free itself from predatory corporate domination in order to duplicate the obvious success of sovereign next-door China? If your analysis is on the mark, Putin may have now found the answer to Russia's debilitating post-Soviet identity crisis.

    Trump's unexpected election and the parallel rise of nationalism in docile Europe suggests that much the same crisis has now emerged within the Western empire. Will it be borderless neofeudal corporatism for the benefit of those at the top of the social pyramid or will working people regain a voice in their own government? Reading those troubled tea leaves, Putin may have picked the right moment to launch Russia on the more promising path.

    geokat62 , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT

    Is Putin overstating Washington's role in decimating Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan or is this a fair assessment of America's pernicious and destabilizing role in the region? Entire civilizations have been laid to waste, millions have been killed or scattered across the region to achieve some nebulous strategic advantage or to help Israel eliminate its perceived enemies.

    No need to qualify the cause of this nefarious plan by referencing some nebulous objective. There was nothing nebulous about it. The plan to Remake the Middle East was clearly articulated by Richard Perle, well before the GWOT was launched, in A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm .

    The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 2:07 pm GMT
    @Tucker

    Sooner or later, every Bully will push the wrong opponent and wind up getting his ass stomped in the dirt.

    Sad, but true. I think everyone hopes that the US pulls off some sort of last minute transformation and repentance, because the takedown would be very ugly for everyone

    Franklin Ryckaert , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 2:42 pm GMT
    @geokat62 Don't forget to mention the Oded Yinon Plan, the plan to shatter all Israel's neighbors into small, dysfunctional, quarrelling statelets. See, Global Research : "Greater Israel" : The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.
    Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 2:52 pm GMT
    God bless Putin and Russia for saving Syria from the terrorists created by the ZUS and Israel and ZBritain and ZNATO , these terrorists AL CIADA aka ISIS and all offshoots thereof were created and armed and funded to destroy the middle east for the zionist greater Israel project and all of this was brought on by the joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911 and blamed on the arabs.

    Who is the greater terrorist, the terrorists or the ones who created them.

    bluedog , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT
    @Sean Russia will do very well they are moving in the right direction, they are putting regulations on those that need it, and better programs for the people.

    I once read that you can start out with a strong generation and from that strong generation ever generation after will become weaker and weaker, until you end up with a generation like the U.S. has that's like clay in the hands of a master, they can't think nor even act they just follow the dictates of the master.!!!

    Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 3:11 pm GMT
    @Old and grumpy In regards to sanctions Russia for the last 3 years has been the greatest producer and exporter of grain, and since food is the most important thing, the ZUS is pissing into the wind with sanctions on Russia.
    RoyJ , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 3:15 pm GMT
    "This is sad. The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time, people see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing events and shaping policy." (Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club)"

    Jeez ain't that the truth. I live in Virginia and it seems that no matter how I vote it just never changes anything. We just had big demonstrations against the stupid new gun laws our despotic governor wants to enact and from where I'm sitting it didn't make one iota of difference. The rank and file have zero to say in how they are governed But we sure get to finance it with our taxes.

    Huxley , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMT
    @Anonymous You are delusional and have obviously spent no time in Russia. When the Pussy Riot grrrls desecrated the altar at St. Savior, Russians went ballistic, from the Patriarchs down to the blue collar diesel mechanics.

    Your so-called "faith" in the US and Europe has already sold out to Globohomo completely. Most priests are gay and have been buggering the altar boys for decades. Protestant sects have lesbian bishops. Your "faithful" have not only totally surrendered to the Globohomo takeover, they now EMBRACE it proudly. "All are welcome." There is now no difference between Vatican II Catholicism and Unitarian Universalism. Western Europe is so far gone, so anti-life, there's hardly a white child left. Muslims are sharpening their machetes.

    So you think there's no substance behind Orthodoxy. You are mistaken. (I'm Latin Mass Catholic, BTW)

    Take 3 minutes to listen to Patriarch Kirill:

    LIBERAL IDEA IS A SIN:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/CZgykarzaM4?feature=oembed

    Greg S. , says: Show Comment January 26, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMT
    @John Chuckman

    It's only consistent with his past behavior of reining in post-Soviet Russian Oligarchs.

    And there is the real reason why the "west" hates him. Because who controls the west? Who owns all of the media, owns the politicians, and controls the narrative? Our very own Oligarchs, indistinguishable from the Russian version and in fact interchangeable (borders mean nothing to them). So of course they are pissed if Putin is rolling them back over in Russia. How dare he.

    Also, have you ever noticed that the word "Oligarch" is only every applied in the same sentence as "Russian?"

    [Jan 25, 2020] Why the West Can't Beat Putin or His Policies by Phil Butler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally, the political dysfunction that now eats away at the United States' reputation, is not a factor that we should underestimate. Donald Trump's administration treats no one as equal. Only Israel and at times Saudi Arabia seem like favored nations if not full-fledged equals. Speaking of brotherhood and loyalty, Mr. Putin's loyalty to and rescuing of Syria's Assad has not gone unnoticed in these regions. At the same moment the US-led coalition tries to stabilize it's invaded satraps, Putin continues a more than forty-year tradition of sticking by the Syrian leadership. And the Russian president has capitalized on this aspect to expand Russian influence worldwide. ..."
    Jan 25, 2020 | astutenews.com

    Whenever there's an examination of Russia's resurgence in Middle Eastern and African affairs, the narrative is always about weapons, economic competition, and Cold War-era detente. Few analysts or reporters examine the non-transactional elements of the policies of Vladimir Putin. To really understand the recent successes of Mr. Putin and Russia, we must understand the somewhat obscure aspects of Russia's foreign policy.

    A perfect example of how trade statistics dominate western thought process on Russia policy can be found at almost any Washington or London think tank. Take this Chatham House report last year by Dr. Alex Vines OBE, for instance. The Africa Programme at Chatham House is not immune from the disease that causes western experts to oversimplify and underestimate Putin's external policies. To quote Dr. Vines:

    "Russia has, for several years, been quietly investing in Soviet-era partnerships and forging new alliances by offering security, arms training, and electioneering services in exchange for mining rights and other opportunities."

    As you can see, Vines is totally focused on transactional aspects of Russia's relationships, adhering to what political scientists refer to as "rentierism" – or the new imperialism. As you may know, the concept of the rentier state is Marxist, thought to have come into practical use in the time of Lenin. But while the so-called rentier mentality which dominates much of the Middle East and Africa does affect Russia and policy, the deeper implications of Russia's new relationships are equally important.

    Dr. Vines, Chatham House, and nearly all the west's other analytical stables discuss Russia's wielding of soft power. This is true because their approaches and understanding of world affairs is from purely a businessman's or a general's world perspective. This is the part of the reason west-east relations are so mucked up. Every reporter on a policy beat in New York or Washington can write a biography on Vladimir Putin and "what he wants," but there's no one who really understands how Russia's president is winning at world detente.

    In much the same way business relationships are fostered in a highly competitive economic environment, Russia's successful policies often win out because of the more subtle factors. In Africa, for instance, the history of the Soviet Union's, and later Russia's criticisms of Cold War-era neocolonialism play a role. Make no mistake, ideologically, Mr. Putin's efforts and outreaches are far more appealing than those of the US, France, Britain, Germany, and others with the Anglo-European mindset toward these nations. As for the Middle East, Mr. Putin's policies win out in large part because of a more "fraternal relationships" – like the one between Russian and Middle Eastern Islamic communities. Samuel Ramani and Theodore Karasik point these out in a report last year at LobeLog .

    The western discussion centers around accusing Russia and Mr. Putin for what US policies are centered around. It's as if the greatest minds in the western world cannot fathom establishing cultural or ideological linkages with people of these nations. The Americans, French, Brits, and Germans look at Russia policy success as bankers and weapons dealers, from a superiority and exceptionalism standpoint. While Russia seems to address the Middle East and Africa on a more equal footing.

    Finally, the political dysfunction that now eats away at the United States' reputation, is not a factor that we should underestimate. Donald Trump's administration treats no one as equal. Only Israel and at times Saudi Arabia seem like favored nations if not full-fledged equals. Speaking of brotherhood and loyalty, Mr. Putin's loyalty to and rescuing of Syria's Assad has not gone unnoticed in these regions. At the same moment the US-led coalition tries to stabilize it's invaded satraps, Putin continues a more than forty-year tradition of sticking by the Syrian leadership. And the Russian president has capitalized on this aspect to expand Russian influence worldwide.

    Russia is supplanting western powers as the more "reliable partner" for many reasons. And it does not hurt that Donald Trump and his European allies continually stumble over their archaic ideas about emerging countries. Sure Russian business will prosper from this dynamic shift in Africa and the Middle East, but the profit will not be nearly as one-sided as it is with the neocolonialists. This AI-Monitor report puts it this way in a discussion of Mr. Putin's "Gulf Security Plan":

    "He [Putin] might believe his is ultimately the only meaningful diplomatic channel; his stock rises, even if incrementally, simply by playing on traditionally American turf; and the Gulf states, and maybe even the United States and the EU, might eventually come around to avoid an unwanted crisis and conflict."

    In short, Putin and Russia have been so successful, winning nowadays is about watching the US and allies make mistakes as much as it is about created dynamic policies. For those unfamiliar, the Russian concept for the Gulf area is a strategy that will work. That is if the western hegemony can agree to try a new game for peace and prosperity in these regions. I find it interesting that the official documentation of this Putin plan is framed in the form of an invitation to Washington and the others, to take part in a broader coalition for peace and security. Obviously, the Anglo-European cabal did not accept.

    "Russia's proposals are in no way final and represent a kind of invitation to start a constructive dialogue on ways to achieve long-term stabilization in the Gulf region. We are ready to work closely with all stakeholders in both official settings and in sociopolitical and expert circles."

    Yes, Russia wants trade and economic wins in both the Middle East and Africa. No, Vladimir Putin does not want to leverage regions and continents in a global domination game intended to destroy America and allies. Destroying markets, after all, is not a way to do good business. As for analyzing Putin, the experts should examine the other variables of his success. That is, even if the goal of think tanks is to find an enemy's weakness. So far, Putin does not seem to have any.


    By Phil Butler
    Source: New Eastern Outlook

    [Jan 25, 2020] 25 years ago: the Fright of a Norwegian rocket launch almost caused a nuclear war

    Jan 25, 2020 | www.wsws.org

    This week in history

    January 25, 2020

    Black Brant XII rocket

    On January 25, 1995, the Russian military mistook a Black Brant XII missile launched by a group of scientists from Norway and the United States to study the Northern lights over Svalbard for a nuclear attack by the US Navy with a Trident ballistic missile. It was the first case when the Russian leader brought the nuclear suitcase in a state of combat readiness.

    The rocket, which was equipped to study the Northern lights, was launched from the island's Andøya Rocket Range, located off the North-West coast of Norway. It was moving along the same trajectory that US Intercontinental nuclear missiles could fly towards Moscow. Alarm sirens sounded in the Russian radar center, where technical specialists recorded the flight of the missile, and where the message about the us missile attack came from.

    Russian President Boris Yeltsin summoned the generals and military advisers, and a "nuclear suitcase" "Cheget"was delivered to him. He had less than ten minutes to decide whether the Russian military would strike back. "I really used my" little black box "with a button for the first time yesterday, which is always with me," Yeltsin told the press the next day, after narrowly avoiding a nuclear disaster. -- I immediately contacted the Ministry of defense and all the military commanders I needed, and we tracked the movement of this missile from start to finish."

    A few years later, Spiegel Online noted that Yeltsin left Russian nuclear missiles in his mines at the time, probably "because relations between Russia and the United States in 1995 were relatively trusting."

    The scientists who conducted the study, starting in 1962, launched more than 600 missiles, but the Black Brant XII rocket was larger than the previous ones and more like an American ballistic missile. A month before this launch, a team of researchers instructed the Norwegian foreign Ministry to notify neighboring countries of their experiment. Russian officials received such a notification from Oslo three weeks before the launch, but it was apparently ignored by them. The radar crews of the Russian missile warning system (SPRn) were also not informed and reported that it was a potentially nuclear missile moving towards Russia.

    Peter Pry, a former CIA officer, wrote that although there were other false alarms in the nuclear age, none of them went as far as the Norwegian missile incident, "the single most dangerous moment of the nuclear missile era."

    [Jan 25, 2020] Putin's Now Purged the West from the Kremlin

    Jan 19, 2020 | astutenews.com

    It came as the biggest shock of the day on Wednesday. The Russian government resigned. The day before President Vladimir Putin gave his State of the Nation address and outlined a slate of constitutional changes.

    That speech prompted an overhaul of Russia's government.

    Putin's plan is to devolve some of the President's overwhelming power to the legislature and the State Council, while beefing up the Constitutional Court's ability to provide checks on legislation.

    From TASS:

    In Wednesday's State of the Nation Address, Putin put forward a number of initiatives changing the framework of power structures at all levels, from municipal authorities to the president. The initiatives particularly stipulate that the powers of the legislative and judicial branches, including the Constitutional Court, will be expanded. The president also proposed to expand the role of the Russian State Council. Putin suggested giving the State Duma (the lower house of parliament) the right to approve the appointment of the country's prime minister, deputy prime ministers and ministers.

    The bigger shock was that in response to this Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev dissolved the current government willingly and resigned as Prime Minister.

    Within hours Putin recommended Federal Tax Service chief, Mikhail Mishustin as Prime Minister. The State Duma approved Putin's recommendation and Mishustin was sworn in by Putin all within a day.

    While this came on suddenly it also shouldn't be a surprise. These changes have been discussed for months leading up to Putin's speech. And it's been clear for the past few years that Putin has been engaged in the second phase of his long-term plan to first rebuild and then remake Russia during his time in office.

    The first phase was rescuing Russia from economic, societal and demographic collapse. It was in serious danger of this when Putin took over from Boris Yeltsin.

    It meant regaining control over strategic state resources, rebuilding Russia's economy and defense, stabilizing its population, getting some semblance of political control within the Kremlin and bringing hope back to a country in desperate need of it.

    Hostile analysts, both domestic and foreign, criticized Putin constantly for his tactics. Russia's reliance on its base commodities sectors to revive its economy was seen as a structural weakness. But, an honest assessment of the situation begs the question, "How else was Putin going to back Russia away from the edge of that abyss?"

    These same experts never seem to have an answer.

    And when those critics were able to answer, since they were people connected to monied interests in the West who Putin stymied from continuing to loot Russia's natural wealth, their answer was usually to keep doing that.

    Don't kid yourself, most of the so-called Russia experts out there are deeply tied back to Wall St. through one William Browder and his partner-in-crime Mikhail Khordokovsky.

    Nearly all of them in the U.S. Senate are severely compromised or just garden variety neocons still hell-bent on subjugating Russia to their hegemonic plans.

    Their voices should be discounted heavily since they are the same criminals actively destroying U.S. and European politics today.

    In the West these events were spun to suggest Putin is consolidating power. The initial reports were that he would remove the restraint on Presidential service of two consecutive terms. And that this would pave the way to his staying in office after his current term expires in 2024.

    That, as always when regarding Russia, is the opposite of the truth. Putin's recommendation is to remove the word "consecutive" from the Constitution making it clear that a President can only ever serve two terms. Moreover, that president will have had to have lived in Russia for the previous 25 years.

    No one will be allowed to rule Russia like he has after he departs the office. Because Putin understands that the Russian presidency under the current constitution is far to powerful and leaves the country vulnerable to a man who isn't a patriot being corrupted by that power.

    There are a number of issues that most commentators and analysts in the West do not understand about Putin. Their insistence on presenting Putin only in the worst possible terms is tired and nonsensical to anyone who spends even a cursory amount of time studying him.

    These events of the past couple of days in Russia are the end result of years of work on Putin's part to purge the Russian government and the Kremlin of what The Saker calls The Atlanticist Fifth Column.

    And they have been dug in like ticks in a corrupt bureaucracy that has taken Putin the better part of twenty years to tame.

    It's been a long and difficult road that even I only understand the surface details of. But it's clear that beginning in 2012 or so, Putin began making the shift towards the next phase of Russia's strategic comeback.

    And that second phase is about taking a stable Russia and elevating its institutions to a more sustainable model.

    Once birth rates improved and demographic collapse averted the next thing to do was to reform an economy rightly criticized for being too heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues.

    And that is a much tougher task. It meant getting control over the Russian central bank and the financial sector. Putin was given that opportunity during the downturn in oil prices in 2014.

    Using the crisis as an opportunity Putin began the decoupling of Russia's economy from the West. During the early boom years of his Presidency oil revenue strengthened both the Russian state coffers and the so-called oligarchs who Putin was actively fighting for control.

    He warned the CEO's of Gazprom, Rosneft and Sberbank that they were too heavily exposed to the U.S. dollar this way in the years leading up to the crash in oil prices in 2014-16.

    And when the U.S. sanctioned Russia in 2014 over the reunification with Crimea these firms all had to come to Putin for a bailout. Their dollar-denominated debt was swapped out for euro and ruble debt through the Bank of Russia and he instructed the central bank to allow the ruble to fall, to stop defending it.

    Taking the inflationary hit was dangerous but necessary if Russia was to become a truly independent economic force.

    Since then it's been a tug of war with the IMF-trained bureaucracy within the Bank of Russia to set monetary policy in accordance with Russia's needs not what the international community demanded.

    That strong Presidency was a huge boon. But, now that the job is mostly done, it can be an albatross.

    Putin understands that a Russia flush with too much oil money is a Russia ruled by that money and becomes lazy because of that money. Contrary to popular opinion, Putin doesn't want to see oil prices back near $100 per barrel.

    Because Russia's comparative advantage in oil and gas is so high relative to everyone else on the world stage and to other domestic industries that money retards innovation and investment in new technologies and a broadening of the Russian domestic economy.

    And this has been Putin's focus for a while now. Oil and gas are geostrategic assets used to shore up Russia's position as a regional power, building connections with its new partners while opening up new markets for Russian businesses.

    But it isn't the end of the Russian story of the future, rather the beginning.

    And the slow privatization of those industries is happening, with companies like Gazprom and Rosneft selling off excess treasury shares to raise capital and put a larger share of them into public hands.

    Again, this is all part of the next stage of Russia's development and democratizing some of the President's power has to happen if Russia is going to survive him leaving the stage.

    Because it is one thing to have a man of uncommon ability and patriotism wielding that power responsibly. It's another to believe Russia can get another man like Putin to take his place.

    So, Putin is again showing his foresight and prudence in pushing for these changes now. It shows that he feels comfortable that this new structure will insulate Russia from external threats while strengthening the domestic political scene.

    Gilbert Doctorow has an excellent early reaction to this dramatic turn by Putin which I encourage everyone to read in full. The subtle point he makes is:

    To understand what comes next, you have to take into account a vitally important statement which Putin made a few moments before he set out his proposed constitutional reforms. He told his audience that his experience meeting with the leaders of the various Duma parties at regular intervals every few weeks showed that all were deeply patriotic and working for the good of the country. Accordingly, he said that all Duma parties should participate in the formation of the cabinet.

    And so, we are likely to see in the coming days that candidates for a number of federal ministries in the new, post-Medvedev cabinet will be drawn precisely from parties other than United Russia. In effect, without introducing the word "coalition" into his vocabulary, Vladimir Putin has set the stage for the creation of a grand coalition to succeed the rule of one party, United Russia, over which Dimitri Medvedev was the nominal chairman.

    The end result of this move to devolve the cabinet appointments to the whole of the Duma is to ensure that a strong President which Putin believes is best for Russia is tempered by a cabinet drawn from the whole of the electorate, including the Prime Minister.

    That neither opens the door to dysfunctional European parliamentary systems nor closes it from a strong President leading Russia during crisis periods.

    Once the amendments to the constitution are finalized Putin will put the whole package to a public vote.

    This is the early stage of this much-needed overhaul of Russia's constitutional order and the neocons in the West are likely stunned into silence knowing that they can no longer just wait Putin out and sink their hooks into his most likely successor.

    Sometimes the most important changes occur right under our noses, right out in the open. Contrast that with the skullduggery and open hostility of the political circus in D.C. and you can which direction the two countries are headed.


    By Tom Luongo
    Source: Gold Goats 'n Guns

    [Jan 24, 2020] Peter Hitchen to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat: You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now, sweetie

    Highly recommended!
    Kevin Smith: "Higgins is currently frantically trying to prop up the Douma narrative against a mountain of evidence disproving his conclusions. For those who’ve followed his story, it’s clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set up to take the fall when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the mainstream.
    Jan 24, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    "You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held together by elastic, and is not for sale." ~Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on Twitter – 2 January 2020.

    [Jan 24, 2020] Crimes of the century truth, perception and punishment

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path. ..."
    "... This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing. ..."
    "... I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people can relate better to events today. ..."
    Jan 24, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    Kevin Smith

    "You didn't think that one through, did you, @eliothiggins sweetie? You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now. This discussion is about truth, which endures, is not held together by elastic, and is not for sale."
    Peter Hitchens responding to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat over the OPCW scandal on Twitter – 2 January 2020.

    Like many, I've been following the Douma scandal for some time and particularly since the OPCW whistleblowers and leaked emails blew the lid off the official narrative that Assad used chemical weapons there.

    This issue is being discussed on one of my 'go to' accounts on Twitter – Peter Hitchens who has brought this to the attention of the mainstream .

    For the past few weeks he's been debating the topic with Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat, Scott Lucas and various Middle East based journalists who created and then pushed the false narrative.

    In fact, it's not really a debate. Peter Hitchens is quite literally slaughtering these narrative managers – his logic and clear thinking – and wit exposing the numerous gaps in their story and their desperate deflections.

    Hitchens position is not exactly the same as many of us here hold – that Douma was a clear false flag. What he is saying is the evidence points to there being no chemical attack by the Syrian government, the pretext used for the attack on Syria. He doesn't wish to speculate on matters which aren't conclusively proven, for example precisely on what did actually happen.

    I respect that position in many ways and his refusal to comment on the dead civilians in the Douma images makes sense from a journalist in the mainstream. I think by having a position which is clear and unassailable enables him to easily brush off his online detractors and not allow them to deflect to other issues.

    While I don't agree with everything he says, Hitchens has a calm and rational argument for all the issues he covers. This puts clear ground between him and his online opponents who often resort to childish abuse.

    My 80-year old mum admires him too. She describes him as 'frightfully posh'. Perhaps someone who might have belonged in a previous age – but I'm glad we have him in this one.

    Anyway, I think we can be sure that Hitchens will continue his important work within the remit he's chosen and others will investigate the unanswered questions which arise from the Douma incident.

    Ultimately the question about the dead civilians in the images is simply too dreadful to ignore.

    This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a fabrication.

    And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal to even establish the basic facts in the days following?

    And then, of course, the resulting air strikes nearly caused us to go to war with Russia, with all that would entail.

    While these investigations continue, I think it's timely to see where these events fit into the way the general public think and perceive wrongdoing and to try to radically to change this.

    I believe more people nowadays recognise that the devastating wars in Iraq and Libya and events in Syria were pushed by our governments and media. They can even accept, when you explain, that we've been assisting terrorists to unseat governments for years. But they seem hesitant of taking the next step and we need to encourage them on this path.

    This path leads to recognising the sheer evil in our midst and getting out of this mindset that criminal behavior and lying in governments and in our media is normal or should in any way be tolerated. Perhaps some people appreciate this already but don't want to address it out of concern to what they might find. Maybe some people dread the thought of a global conflict so ignore it. But we need to hammer home the consequences of simply doing nothing.

    I've been trying to think of an analogy to try to get this point across. I sometimes say to people, we wouldn't have released a serial killer like Harold Shipman from prison and appointed him Foreign Secretary. Therefore, why do we tolerate a long line of Foreign Secretaries complicit in laying waste to the world? Sadly, with this analogy most people usually look back at me blankly so I have been searching for one more complete and rooted in history which people can relate better to events today.

    So, here follows an analogy of a character who lived in the 17th century. His traits, his crimes, the political climate and peoples misguided perceptions in response can be compared to recent events and one particular individual causing havoc in the world today.

    Of course I refer to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat.

    Eliot ( 'suck my balls' ) Higgins and Titus Oates 1. Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat

    Higgins probably doesn't need much of an introduction here. It seems he has no specific qualifications relevant to his role and a bit of a drop-out in terms of education.

    Higgins has been quoted as saying :

    Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo."

    But this didn't prevent him blogging about world events and then setting himself up and his site as investigator for several incidents most notably the shooting down of the MH17 passenger plane over Ukraine and allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria. It's now known that Bellingcat is funded by pro-war groups including the Atlantic Council

    Higgins has been accused by chemical weapons experts, academics and independent journalists on the ground of fabricating evidence to reach a predetermined outcome decided on by his funders.

    His rise to prominence was fast and apparently some media editors now refer their journalists to Bellingcat fabrications rather than allowing them to do any journalism themselves.

    Higgins is currently frantically trying to prop up the Douma narrative against a mountain of evidence disproving his conclusions.

    For those who've followed his story, it's clear that Higgins is an intelligence asset, set up to take the fall when the currently collapsing narratives take hold in the mainstream.

    2. Titus Oates and the Popish Plot

    Oates was a foul-mouthed charlatan , serial liar and master of deception who lived in the 17th century. His earlier life included being expelled from school and he was labelled a 'dunce' by people who knew him. He became a clergyman and later joined the Navy. His career was plagued by various sex scandals and charges of perjury.

    In the 1670s during the time of Charles II, religious tensions threatened to spill over into civil war but the pragmatic King, by and large, kept a lid on it.

    However, along with Dr Israel Tonge an anti-Catholic rector, Oates started writing conspiracy theories and inventing plots and later began writing a manuscript alleging of a plan to assassinate King Charles II and replace him with his openly Catholic brother.

    When the fabrication started to gather momentum, the King had an audience with Oates and was unconvinced and was said to have found discrepancies in his story.

    However, the tense political and religious climate at that time was ideal for conspiracy theories and scaremongering. The King's ministers took Oates at his word and over a dozen Catholics were executed for treason. This story created panic and paranoia lasting several years taking the nation to the brink of civil war.

    Over time Oates lies were exposed and when the Catholic King James II came to the throne, he tried Oates with perjury and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.

    After James II fled England during the so-called 'Glorious Revolution' King William and Queen Mary pardoned Oates and gave him a pension.

    For me, this whole episode has many obvious parallels with Higgins, the long-running Russia and the anti-Semitism witch-hunts in the media and the false narratives over Iraq, Libya and Syria. Like those in power today, Oates had a knack for getting away with it. And I guess we can all relate this to Julian Assange – the victims or whistleblowers being punished and the perpetrators getting off.

    I had wondered why James II, often ruthless and unforgiving had not executed Oates. But apparently the crime of perjury even then didn't carry the death sentence. The judge who convicted Oates was said to have tried his best to finish him off through the whipping, though he survived.

    But perhaps even the King and judiciary in failing in this or not using other means at their disposal, couldn't comprehend the enormity of his crimes. Oates was after all a rather absurd character, open to ridicule.

    Perhaps this is a bit similar to people today when discovering that Eliot Higgins is also a foul-mouthed fraud – but they can't reconcile this comical ex-lingerie employee as a menace to humanity.

    3. Modern day

    In the past few weeks I've read various older articles on Iraq and Syria. US troops shooting people for fun from a helicopter . The perpetrators are still free – the whistle-blowers who exposed that, and other events in prison or exile.

    Last year we learned about a shocking massacre of Syrian children, unreported in the mainstream media . Mainstream journalists through their one-sided distortions of the conflict and silence, perpetuating the myth that the terrorists who carried out this mass murder are freedom fighters.

    And as I've mentioned, we've seen firmer evidence of what many of us knew along – that Douma was a staged fabrication as a pretext for air-strikes and dangerously escalating the Syrian war. The likes of Eliot Higgins and others in the media, colluding in the cover-up of mass murder which likely facilitated this event. And for those honest journalists and experts who bring the truth of these staged events to us, smears will no doubt continue .

    Higgins and others in the media who lie, misinform or remain silent are no better than those shooting civilians from helicopters or starting these wars in the first place. In fact, they have killed more and keep killing.

    This modern-day Titus Oates, and others share a big responsibility for death and destruction in the Middle East and a dangerous new Cold War.

    As I say, I think people are waking up to the distorted narratives and misdirections which have inflicted war on others. Now they need to take the next step and grasp the sheer enormity of the crimes and the risks of global conflict if we don't act.

    So, how do we achieve this and get in a position of holding the criminals and war propagandists to account?

    By confronting them directly and mercilessly. As Jeremy Corbyn should have done over the anti-Semitism hoax. Perhaps we should adopt some of the tactics they use against the truth-tellers and whistle-blowers. I don't mean by lies or smears. Maybe even ridiculing these people and their nonsense might have the effect of trivialising the crimes they have committed.

    No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.

    We need to recognise more the seriousness of the crimes. This commentary from the usually measured Piers Robinson about the staged event in Douma reflects the true gravity of the situation in terms of the OPCW complicity .

    4. The hijacking of OPCW

    The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass murder."

    We need to now apply this strong language to all crimes committed, be it from the soldiers on the ground, the governments starting these wars or supplying terrorists or the media which promote mass murder through their lies, distortions and silence when presented with the true facts.

    We need to go on the offensive and call out the criminals and spell out in no uncertain terms what we are dealing with. With the evidence and fact-based analogies or arguments we publish we should be using more commentary such as 'mass murderer', 'traitor' or 'terrorist propagandist'.

    This is particularly important in light of events in recent days. The assassination of General Qasem Soleimani has been normalised in both mainstream and on social media. The people legitimising state-sponsored murder in offices thousands of miles away from Iran, woefully ignorant of the potential of this causing a chain of events which could visit our door soon.

    Above all, we should specifically name and shame the individuals promoting war. This needs to be relentless. The official war narratives which have crumbled so far are ample evidence of wrongdoing on a vast scale. So, we can be confident in doing this with the truth firmly on our side.

    Filed under: Douma "Chemical Attack" , historical perspectives , latest , Syria Tagged with: Bellingcat. Eliot Higgins , douma chemical attack , Glorious Revelution , Kevin Smith , OPCW , Peter Hitchens , Titus Oates can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

    OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

    Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted

    wardropper ,

    No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks.
    Yes indeed.
    I was, however, reminded today of the huge mountain we yet have to climb before it can be normal again NOT to be corrupt and wicked. The scenario was a session of acrimony in a US Senate chamber, and according to the NYTimes, "Tensions grew so raw after midnight that Chief Justice Roberts cut in just before 1 a.m. to admonish the managers and the president's lawyers to "remember where they are" and return to "civil discourse." "
    "Remembering where you are", when dealing with Titus Oates and other vulgar frauds is perhaps not entirely appropriate ?

    wardropper ,

    Apologies, I forgot to set the first sentence in quotes

    Thom ,

    Hitchens may be on the level on this particular issue but it is part of a wider deception where Hitchens poses as a friend to critical thinkers and then tells them they are helpless and/or can do nothing about it. If he really had journalistic integrity he wouldn't be taking a salary from the Mail on Sunday, a newspaper that relentlessly lied for the Tories at the last election, with the help of the itelligence agencies.

    Koba ,

    As good as Hitchens has done here he's still at heart a Trotskyist he lives a good split and a toothless display just like the Trotskyists he used to side with. His brother went from Trotskyist to soft neocon and peter went from Trotskyist to an ardent Christian Conservative in a veeeeeery short space of time. Plus there dad was deeeeep in with the establishment and his mum Jewish. So .

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    what?

    Gall ,

    Bellingcrap is just another scam like Dupes (Snopes) and Politi"facts". All of them are funded by the Atlantic Council and the CIA front National Endowment for "Democracy". Their cover as an "independent objective fact checking service" is about as transparent as Saran Wrap.

    tonyopmoc ,

    I really liked this when I read it this morning, before the grandkids came round, but I thought some of the comments a bit severe..

    I mean this photo is of some 40 year old kid, who lives in Leicester, and his Mum/wife/sister or whatever works in the local Post Office .

    I personally had never heard of Brown Noses, and I have never personnally succeeded in getting anything I wrote, posted above our below the line, since The Manchester Guardian moved from Manchester to London, and whilst I do love reading some of the posters' comments well look face it.

    Even though Rhys probabaly doesn't like what this kid writes – Elliot is it? he is hardly going to come round with a chainsaw, to cut his head off is he? He probably never even thought of it.

    He did say he is small fry, and he probably is still a virgin (been brainwashed – so he actually belives the model doll is better. What has he got to compare it to?)

    So I can't blame any of them.

    There are alternatives as well as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, and all those Dating Websites, when almost everything you write gets deleted.

    Just go down the local pub when there is a good band on. Even I can pull there, but I am better looking than both Rhys and Elliot

    I Like Girls.

    I am a man. It's Normal

    Just keep fit dancing and smiling, and you will be O.K.

    Tony

    paul ,

    The prime importance of these endless hoaxes, smears, lies, fabrications and official approved conspiracy theories, lies not so much in the events themselves as what it says about the nature of the people who rule over us and their courtiers and handmaidens in the MSM.

    It would take a whole forest of trees merely to catalogue all their lies over the years, whether it's the Iraq Incubator Babies, the black Viagra fuelled rape gangs in Libya, the Syrian Gas Hoaxes, 9/11, Iraq's WMD, Iran's non existent nuclear weapons, Skripal, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, or the communist spy/ terrorist/ anti semitic smear campaign against Corbyn. And that is only the tip of a very large iceberg. You could go back further to Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf, the "Holocaust", Zinoviev Letter, Bayonetted Belgian Babies, Raped Belgian Nuns, Human Bodies Made Into Soap. The list is endless.

    We have been lied to consistently for years, decades, and generations. And these lies have been peddled endlessly in the MSM, no matter how ludicrous and transparently false they are. In the absence of direct personal knowledge or very convincing evidence to the contrary, you just have to assume that everything we have ever been told, are being told, and will be told, and most of the accepted historical record, are simply false. Nothing, nothing at all, can ever be taken at face value.

    And those who rule over us and who are responsible for these lies are psychopathic subhuman filth devoid of any moral values or any redeeming features whatsoever. They are a thousand times worse than the worst mass murderers or child killers who have ever been through our courts. The Moors Murderers, the Ted Bundys, the Jeffrey Dahmers, were seriously damaged individuals who killed a handful of victims. And they did their own dirty work. The Blairs, the Campbells, the Straws, the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Allbrights, the Macrons, the Camerons, the Netanyahus, the Trumps, have the blood of millions on their hands. They and their wire pullers are responsible for the death, starvation and misery of tens and hundreds of millions.

    So when Blair, or Johnson, or Trump or whoever is interviewed on television, you have to remember that individual is a thousand times worse than the Moors Murderers, and we would actually be that much better off if Brady or Hindley were ruling over us. They deserve no respect or deference or legitimacy. They plot the murders of millions and the starvation of tens of millions – and laugh and giggle as they do so. They should be simply recognised for what they awe – psychopathic subhuman filth.

    austrian peter ,

    I do agree with you Paul and of course all you say is true. One of the main problems is that these people have the power to build artificial constructs sufficient for the masses to believe and perpetuated through their bought and paid for MSM whose journalists are mere foot soldiers and wish only to get their pay checks. They have no reason to question the lies and distortions pedaled to them by TPTB – they merely repeat the false narrative:
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" – Upton Sinclair

    And we, the great 99%, have little power to change things except within our local network. We can shout all we like on social media but it changes nothing until the great crisis reoccurs and perhaps the masses will rise and demand a just and equitable system. Until that day perhaps this little video will provide an understanding:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/rStL7niR7gs?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Roberto ,

    The business of the MSM throughout the ages has been to traumatise or at least just generally worry the public with headlines focused on fear, envy, anger, revenge, and hate. Include all five in your story and you're well on the way to a Pulitzer Prize, bestowed on the profession by one of the great muckrakers of all time. It's not incidental that there have been a disturbing number of winners that have turned out to be dissembling frauds. Add to this the fact that 'journalism' training apparently does not teach entrants to distinguish the difference between opinion and news, and the die is cast: propaganda as news.

    Dungroanin ,

    Here is what BellEndScat supporting Rusbridger is moaning about.

    "For some years now – largely unreported – two chancery court judges have been dealing with literally hundreds of cases of phone hacking against MGN Ltd and News Group, the owners, respectively, of the Daily Mirror and the Sun (as well as the defunct News of the World).
    The two publishers are, between them, forking out eye-watering sums to avoid any cases going to trial in open court. Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on.

    But there are clues. Mirror Group (now Reach) had by July 2018 set aside more than £70m to settle phone-hacking claims without risking any of them getting to court. The BBC reported last year that the Murdoch titles had paid out an astonishing £400m in damages and calculated that the total bill for the two companies could eventually reach £1bn."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/19/there-is-a-reason-why-royals-demonised-but-wont-read-all-about-it-prince-harry-meghan-markle

    On the overall perfidious msm he quips:

    "Because the newspaper industry lobbied so forcefully to scrap the second part of the Leveson inquiry, which had been due to shine a light on such matters, we can only surmise what is going on."

    -- --

    Completely ignoring that the Integrity Iniative infested Guardian ITSELF objected to the recommendation of Levesons thoroughly public Inquiry and opposition to a independent press regulator!

    It would have been a building block and certainly stopped most of the continued press misbehaviour over the last 5 years.

    Neither Fish nor Fowl Mr Rusbridger. More sinner that saint, more like.

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    Going to the heart of what Bellingcat, MI6 and CIA is Pompeo's: "We lie, we cheat, we steal." These evil filth are devoid of any moral code and have no respect whatsoever for the laws of God or Man. At which point, consider Moses' (how apt) Ten Commandments. There among them is: "Thou shalt not bear false witness". Think what you will of these Ten, but as a moral code, they were quite useful.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Would that all these scum could share the fate of their progenitor, Streicher-without the ' necktie party'. Life at hard labour would do the lot of them much good.

    Brianeg ,

    I looked at the Veterans Today link and it all sounds very plausible'

    However in today's world nothing makes sense especially when the questions arise.

    Is it possible to change the signal of an aircrafts transponder remotely. Can the target acquisition radar on the missile be spoofed remotely. Just why did the flight control officer sanction the take off of this plane in the middle of a war unless they were party to the whole thing.. Just what were the six Israeli F-35 jets doing flying close to the Iranian border?

    Okay there is a lot of smoke but just where is the fire.

    Just as interesting is that none of the twelve Iranian missiles was intercepted and there are rumours that the Iranians were able to take out of action American air defences.

    I am sure that like with Douma when the majority of NATO missiles were intercepted by missiles that were decades old, you wonder what might happen when most of the middle east is covered by the S-300 and later versions.

    This is a story that has got a long way to run and we might never hear the ending.

    Dungroanin ,

    Facts are inconvenient.
    Many planes took off.
    This one was delayed by the pilot 'to remove overloading'.
    Reports of Cruise missiles heading in.

    Mucho ,

    For the best info on this, go to Brendon O' Connell's channel and watch 1 to 3 and number 22. You will get answers there.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYaLxbD7Rix3p1rdGY3IMjg?pbjreload=10

    Also go to the Antedote and listen to Greg and Jeremy's latest offering.
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMf1qGR8km1c8vg_dtpzzVQ

    Dungroanin ,

    It sounds a bit MAGA.

    The thing about 'chips' is they could easily be identified by putting them in a black box and watching what they do using a chip which only does that!

    The whole bs about it's THEM not US crap falls away. Just need some open source simple 'custodian' chip manufacturer to make that available. If it can be made a 'gate keeper' than we are all safe.

    Mucho ,

    "It sounds a bit MAGA. "
    After this, I will never, ever read any of your comments ever again. Get lost!

    Mucho ,

    You talk so much crap. Please, keep it to yourself

    Dungroanin ,

    I ain't saying that is your opinion am I?

    The bit I watched was him being gung-ho about getting back 'control of microprocessors' !!!

    There is a big difference between designing chips and 'manufacturing' facilities'.

    Have you never wondered why most actual building of small electrical component equipment takes place in Asia?

    I don't care wherher you read my comments- i am free to post what I want on whatevet article and whoevers comment. And stick to facts.

    Mucho ,

    "The bit I watched ".
    Honestly, I am so tired of people who comment on things they know nothing about. Everything you say is wrong, because you are speaking from a position of total ignorance, because you haven't watched the films.
    Watch 1 to 3. Watch 22 and 23 ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not skimming. Then comment. Every inaccurate comment you make is covered in detail. Honestly it's no wonder we're so fucked.

    From 2005 after one google search, time spent on this, 10 seconds:
    "While Yona was developed in partnership with one of Intel's California centers, the 65nm microprocessor product is the first to be developed in its entirety, both the architecture and strategy, by Intel engineers at its Israel plants in Haifa and Yakum. "
    https://www.israel21c.org/intels-new-chip-design-developed-in-israel/

    You know zilch, you understand nothing, you make assumptions, you don't watch or read the material, and then in your total ignorance, you spew your feeble thoughts on this forum. Moron

    Mucho ,

    You define the phrase "ignorant Brit"

    Dungroanin ,

    Mucho since you FAILED instantly in your promise to ignore me – i will respond to your toy throwing out of the parambulator.

    First just telling people to WATCH something without explaining what the salient point to be learnt – is not the way to influence or educate.

    I prefer reading an argument- I definitely do not spend hours watching TV or listening to propaganda by msm / indy or 'shock jocks' – that last was the personality I saw and didn't feel the need to hear anymore as I don't when Nigel Farage and his ilk do on the radio here.

    If you want to inform or prove something to me or anyone else kindly post a link to a written piece.

    Second, chips are designed eveywhere there is such competence. Chip manufacturing mainly improved theough research in top universities.
    The UK was a lead chip designer too.

    None of that means the Israelis haven't monopolosed tech and own many patents. The fact is the Israelis ARE part of the 5+1 eyed world Empire – they are the plus one. Snowdens whistleblowing makes absolutely clear that the +1 gets a higher clearance than the +4.

    That's as nice as I am prepared to be, so finally, that last paragraph is what is known as PROJECTION. Look it up and learn that it comes from your fav bogeymen brainfuckers.

    That is some serious self-hate you have going on – work on it.

    Take it easy ok?

    Mucho ,

    Number 23 is totally relevant too, going deep into chips, backdooring and kill switch usage

    Koba ,

    So the mocking of maga is what set you off? Fuck maga and it's idiot supporters great nations don't slaughter civilians for capital

    bevin ,

    Has this link been cited?
    https://thewallwillfall.org/2020/01/19/important-douma-opcw-update-from-prof-piers-robinson/

    norman wisdom ,

    chris morris is very funny has a fine body of twisted comedick works
    for all his charm his role is too destroy society degrade
    he is khazar after all

    sacha baron co hen the names speaks for itself an empty cruel tool
    never trust a coen cohen khan or cowen or co they cookoo

    eliot mcfuck higgins is not oirish
    he is not certainly related to snooker loopy or is it darts i cannot remember hero alex higgins.

    eliot"s dad is rita katz from site intel group amaq news
    his mom barbera lerner spector
    or is it vice versa
    versa vice
    whatever
    shirley you

    get my the friends of the oirish israel drift
    so to speaks
    or sum such

    Mucho ,

    Brilliant, insightful, logical hypothesis of the recent plane downing over Iran by Jeremy Rothe Kushel. Ignore the video, this is about the written article.

    The Prime Suspect in Ukrainian PS752 Shootdown: Israel's Unit 8200
    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/01/10/ps752/

    Mucho ,

    For further info about Israeli tech domination, what it is, where it comes from and the implications of this, go to Brendon O Connell's YT channel. Number 22 in his list is very important.

    Mucho ,

    Jeremy Rothe-Kushel is a very important member of the truth community, in no small part due to the fact that he is an Ashkenazi Jew. My personal belief is that in the end, the Jewish community will play a pivotal role in weeding out the evil that rules over us. I wish we didn't have these labels, that we could have true freedom to play our chosen role in our God created realm, but at this stage in the game, we're stuck with our divide and rule labels and systems of control.
    Jeremy's style is to the point, he has great depth of knowledge, an encyclopedic knowledge of his field and is a highly astute commentator. He presents a lot of complex information in fairly easy to digest chunks with his co-host, Greg McCarron, on their show "The Antedote" on YT, as well as doing a lot of guerilla style activism in US politics. Highly recommended.

    norman wisdom ,

    i met elliot many years ago
    the chap on the 8 year old lap top above
    we called him fat face down the synagogue ohh how we laughed
    he laughed as well everytime someone said it
    such fun
    are rabbi one day organised a trip and lecture tour of chatham house the belly of the beast.
    we learnt all about how tough regime change was and how difficult it is to do on a bbc size budget.

    what we learnt was that having are people everywhere really helped
    scripted up to speed influencer roles in media in public on track on page working cog like.
    a kind of khazar collective non semites only for security reasons of course.
    we could work from a very low pound dollar and shekels base and still be very effective.

    never under estimate the benjamins or elliots it is folks like this that are the real hero of the oded yinon
    yes sir
    already my life
    fat face eliot boy done good

    and like all khazar he hates the sephardim jewisher and the unclean arab which is shirley a bonus is it not

    George Mc ,

    First off, if folks haven't a clue who Harold Shipman is, you're not going to get far with Titus Oats. At the most they might think it's a character from Gormenghast.

    Second, I initially misread the article and thought that the figure from the 17th century actually WAS Higgins of Bellingcat. And if that seems an absurd assumption to make, even temporarily, it doesn't seem much more absurd than some of the stuff he says e.g.

    I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo.

    The point has been raised that there are psyops perpetrated with a malicious sense of humour as if to say, "These suckers will swallow anything". Higgins with his "education" from Arnold and Rambo may be an example of one of those jokes.

    Third, and to end on an optimistic note, I like the 17th century sentencing and recommend we bring it back:

    and he was whipped and placed in the pillory.

    Dungroanin ,

    Admin – a suggestion on keeping recent articles available from the top of the page.

    Problem: As you add new aricles at top left the ones on the very right drop away! Almost as if being binned into a memory hole.

    Solution: allow a scroll at the right hand edge so that these older links are easily available to readers. Only a minor coding change without any change to your front page.

    Tallis Marsh ,

    I concur! I'm sure many of us will appreciate a scroll on the right hand edge so we can access the older articles. Thanks in advance, OffG!

    Oliver ,

    HM Armed Forces operations in Syria follow the doctrine of Major General Sir Frank Kitson who learnt his stuff in Kenya in the 1950s. Murder, torture, rape the staples of the British military's modern terrorist ability. NATO doctrine too.

    Joe ,

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/0oLfNr4JjeI?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    BigB ,

    This is an important article: one of the few that dares to express that Douma et al are not mere false flags they a darkly psychotic form of 'snuff propaganda porn' (including the recycling and rearanging of 'props' that were until recently animate human souls with a lifetime of possibility abnegated for ideology). The Working Group on Syria is part of a small counter-narrative subset – along with Sister Agnes Mariam, Vanessa Beeley, RT (on occasion), UK Column, The Indicter, Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli – who are willing to state plainly that this is child murder. Now I wholeheartedly commend Kevin that we should name and shame the culprits and their supporters.

    "No, I think it is time for plainer, no-holds-barred language describing these people for the true evil they are – until the truth and label sticks."

    I had a similar epiphany in early 2016. The barbaric of murder of starved and thirsty children at Rashidin – Syrian innocence lured by much needed sweets and drinks only to be blown apart in front of their mothers. Anyone who supports the White Helmets terrorist construct and their NATO-proxy child-murderers needs to be exposed. But what if that trail of exposure leads back to the leader of the Labour party: who had just personally endorsed the charity funding of the White Helmets? And continued to support the Jo Cox Foundation of Syrian humanitarian bombers and R2P interventionists? Which itself is a front for the dark money web of 'philanthrocapitalism' that is the shadow support network for regime change crimes against humanity. This is when righteous indignation meets the dark wall of silence around the social construction of reality. Especially if you put Jeremy Corbyn in the frame.

    What this means is the ability to frame dark actors for the true evil they are has to be a two-way flow. Meaning is created across networks, not just by naming but by naming and agreeing across narrative communities. Again, this is not abstruse: it is social reality. Social reality is not reality: it is a consensual constructivism. Significant numbers of others have to be in a position of consensual agreement in order to challenge the dominant narrative(s). So I echo the sentiment that many can see that the dominant narrative – especially concerning Syria – is deeply flawed. But they are as yet unwilling to admit that the depth of the flaw is in fact a tear in social reality that cannot be easily healed.

    This is the aspect of social reality called 'universe maintenance'. Doxa is the reality constructing belief set – the episteme of interacting beliefs. The narrative has two main aspects: ortho-doxa and hetero-doxa – the orthodox maintaining and heterodox subverting discourses. In order to truly subvert the hegemonic orthodoxy – there has to be a social moment of criticality when the heterodox is no longer deniable. To reach that point: the intrajecting true has to be believable to the hegemonic orthodoxy. Now we have a third mode: para-doxa when the true 'state of affairs' is not believable – it is easily rejected as paradoxical to the reigning consensus covenant of the true. This is universe maintaining: whereby the the totality of the dominant discourse actually subsumes or repels any paradox as a half-truth or ameliorated, disarmed less-than-true ('conspiracy theory'). This is known as 'recuperation'. Anything that meets the dominant discourse has to be explained in the terms of the dominant discourse accommodative and recommending itself to the dominant discourse. Which then becomes a part of the dominant universe of discourse.

    A moment of the true is like a barb to a bubble. It has to be contained and wrapped in narrative that describes and explains it into a consumable form. The full realisation of the propagandic child murder in Syria – tacitly supported by the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn in particular – would destroy the symbolic universe of social reality. Of which it is my personal experience no one really wants to do. The correlations, direct and indirect links, and universally maintained orthodoxy of narrative discourse point to an accomodation. An explanation or multivariate set of explanations that problem shift and ascribe blame to imaginary actors. To deflect or defend the personal self. Because the personal self is independently situated outside the social sphere. Or is it?

    Seeing the real event as it happens requires the perspicacity of social inclusion. We all create social reality together: with our without layers of dualising exclusion that protects us from the way the world really is. Who would vote to legitimise the supporters of NATO and the child-murderers of Syria? 31 million legitimising independent social actors just did. Do you suppose they did so in full knowledge that it is child-murder they were supporting? Or did they create universe maintaining accommodations to the truth? That is how powerful the screening discourses and legitimising orthodoxic narrative mythology is. It is not that it cannot be subverted: its just that calling out the true evil has to be heard in unison by large or social small assemblages willing to totally change everything – including themselves. In order to transition to a different social reality one that accommodates the truth. One which will look nothing like the social reality we choose to maintain as is.

    Francis Lee ,

    My first attempt didn't get through. Herewith second.

    It seems to me that the internal affairs of the Russian Federation, although they may have some impact on external geopolitical issues, are a matter for them. At the present time the relevant question regarding the RF is as follows: Question 1. Is Russia a revionist state intent on an expansionist foreign policy? Answer NO. But it is not going to tolerate NATO expansion into its own strategic zones, namely, Ukraine, Georgia and the North Caucusas. Question 2. Is the Anglo-Zionist empire in open of pursuit of a world empire intent on destroying any sovereign state – including first and foremost Russia – which stands in its way? Answer YES. This really is so blatant that anyone who is ethnically challenged should seek psychiatric help. In Polls conducted around the world the US is always cited as the most dangerous enemy of world peace, including in the US itself. Thus a small influential (unfortunately deranged) cabal based in the west has insinuated its way into the institutions of power and poses a real and present danger to world peace.

    This being the case it is imperative to push all and any 'normal' western governments and shape public opinion and discourse (except the nut-jobs like Poland and the Baltics) into diplomacy. Wind down NATO just as the Warsaw Pact was wound down. that will do for starters. Of course the PTB in all the western institutions – the media (whores) the deep state, the Atlantic Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House the Arms merchants, the security services GCHQ, the CIA, Mossad and the rest will oppose this with all the power at their command. This is the present primary site of struggle, mainly propagandistic, cultural and economic, but with overtones of kinetic warfare.

    Similar diplomatic initiatives must be directed at China. Yes, I know all about China's social credit policy, I don't particularly like the idea of 24 hour system of surveillance, and I wouldn't want to live there, but is already a virtual fait accompli in the west. Again it bears repeating that sovereign states should be left to their own devices. After all 'States have neither permanent friends of allies, only permanent interests. (Lord Palmerston, 19 century British Statesman). No more 'humanitarian interventions' thank you very much. How about Mind our own Business non-interventions.

    I make no apologies for being a foreign policy realist – if that hasn't become apparent by this stage!

    BigB ,

    Francis:

    The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating the Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and 70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?

    Market mechanisms and methodology are exponentially expansionist, extractivist, and extrapolative. Market propaganda is free and equal exchange coupled with mutual development through comparative advantage. Everyone benefits, right?

    No: markets operate as vast surplus value extractors that only operate unequally to deliver maximum competitive advantage to the suprasovereign core. Surplus value valorises surplus capital which cannot be contained in a single domestic market: so it seeks to exploit underdeveloped foreign markets setting up dependencies and peripheries in the satellite states. Which keeps them maldeveloped. In short: Russia and China's wealth is not just their own.

    Russia and China are globalisation now. Globalist exponential expansionism, extractivism, and extrapolation is the repression of humanism and destruction of the biosphere. It can't stop growing in the cancer stage of hyper-capitalism. We are currently consuming every resource at a material throughput increase of 3% per annum year on year. That's a 23 year exponential doubling of material resources. And a 46 year doubling of the doubling. How long before globalisation uses everything? How far into the race to the bottom will the market collapse?

    It would be really nice to return to a Westphalian System of non-expansionist, non-extractivist sovereign nation states. It is just not even plausible under market mechanisms of extraction. There can be no material decoupling and development remains contingent on an impossible infinity: because development remains parallel and assymetrically maintained. And all major resources are depleting exponentially too. Including the nominative renewable and sustainable ones.

    Degrowth; self-sufficiency; localised 'anti-fragility', steady-state; asymmetric development of the marginalised and the peripheralised; regenerative agroecological agriculture; human development not abstract market development; are just some of the pre-requisites of a return to sovereign states. Russia 'sovereigntist' globalisation is the expansionist opposite to that. The RF is part of the biggest market in the world that hoovers up as much surplus value as it can before sending a large tranche of it to London. As much as $25bn a year in capital flight into the offshore nexus of secrecy jurisdictions. It's a globalist expansionist market mechanism that hoovers all vitality out of the life-ground. That: I call expansionist and imperialist of which Russia and China are now the major part.

    Francis Lee ,

    "The Russian Federation is involved is strategic partnership with China in consolidating the Eurasian 'supercontinent' into the world island. One which is slowly being drawn together into a massive market covering 70% of the world's population, 75% of energy resources, and 70% of GDP. I'd call that expansionist, wouldn't you?"

    No, I wouldn't actually. Building roads, rail connections and other trade routes doesn't strike me as imperial expansion. No-one is being forced to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or into reconfiguring their internal political and economic structures, as the US does in Latin America or as the British did in India and Southern Africa. (East India Company and the British British South Africa Chartered Company). The SCO is a voluntary arrangement. Uzbekistan for example has decided not to join the central Asian Eurasian Economic Union – well that's its prerogative. No-one is going to send any gun-boats to force them. (I am aware that Uzbekistan is a landlocked country, but I was talking figuratively.)

    The EEU's genesis has along with the SCO and BRI has been forced upon the China/Russia axis as part of an emerging counter-hegemonic alliance against the US's imperial aggrandisement with its kowtowing vassals in tow. Russia has no claims on any of its neighbours since it is already endowed with ample land and mineral deposits. China is a key part of this essentially geopolitical bloc quite simply because the US imperial hegemon is determined to stop China's development by all means necessary including the dragooning of contiguous military bases in US proxy states around China's maritime borders.

    A distinction should be made between rampant imperialism of the Anglo-zi0nist empire, and the response of an increasingly bloc of states who find both their sovereignty and even their existence threatened by the imperial juggernaut. What exactly did you expect them to do given the hostility and destructive intent of the Empire? Defence against imperialism is not imperialism. The defence of autonomy and sovereignty of international society and the creation of an anti-hegemonic have the potential to finally create a transformative new world order (and goodness knows we need one) announced at the end of the Cold War in 1991. This ambition finds support not only in Russia and China but in other countries ready to align with them, but also in many western countries. I obviously need to put the question again. Who is and who is not the greatest threat to world peace? Surely to pose the question is to answer it.

    Dungroanin ,

    Agree Francis.
    There is a move to suggest that the Old Empire retains a 'maritime' world and the SCO confines itself to the Eurasian land mass.
    Dream on.
    The Empire is DEAD. Long live the new Empire!

    BigB ,

    Who is the greatest threat to world peace and to the world itself? We are. The global carbon consumption/pollution bourgeoisie. It is the global expansionist mindset that is increasing its demands for growth – as the only solution to social problems, maldevelopment, and maldistribution caused by excessive growth. Supply has to be met by exponentially expanding markets. Whether this is voluntaristic or coerced makes very little difference to the market cancer subsuming the globe. Benign or aggressive forms of cancer are still cancer. And the net effect is the same.

    Russia and China – the 'East' – uphold exactly the same corporate model of global governance that the 'West' does. Which has been made clear in every joint communique – especially BRICS communiques. I have made the case – following Professor Patrick Bond – that BRICS in particular (a literal Goldman Sachs globalist marketing ploy) – are sub-imperial, not anti-imperial. All their major institutions are dollar denominated for loans; BRI finance is in dollars; BRICS re-capitalised the IMF; Contingency Reserve Arrangements come with an IMF neoliberalising structural adjustment policy; etc. It is the same model East and West. One is merely the pseudo-benign extension of the other. The alternative to neoliberal globalisation is neoliberal globalisation. This became radiantly clear at SPIEF 2019: TINA there is no alternative.

    The perceived alternative is the reproduction of neoliberalism – which has long been think-tanked and obvious – and its transformation from 'globalisation 3.0' to 'globalisation 4.0' trade in goods and services, with the emphasis on a transition to high-speed interconnectivity and decoupled service economies. Something like the Trans-Eurasian Information Super Highway (TASIM)? With a sovereigntist and social inclusivity compact. So the neoliberal leopard can change its spots?

    No. Whilst your argument is sound and well constructed: it is reliant on the early 20th century Leninist definition of 'imperialism' as a purely militarist phenomena. Imperialism mutated since then – from military to financial (which are not necessarily exclusive sets) – and is set to metastasise again into 'green imperialism' of man over man (and it is an andrarchic principle) and man (culture) over nature. Here your argument falls down to an ecological and bio-materialist critique. Cancer is extractivist and expansionist wherever it grows.

    Russia is the fourth largest primary energy consumer on the planet. Disregarding hydro – which is not truly ecological – it has a 1% renewable penetration. It is a hydrocarbon behemoth set to grow the only way it knows how – consuming more hydrocarbons. They cannot go 'green': no one can. And a with a global ecological footprint of 3.3 planets per capita, per annum, this is not sustainable. Now or ever.

    So a distinction needs to be made between the old rampant neoliberal globalisation model (3.0) – the Anglo-Zionist imperialist model – and the emergent neoliberal globalisation model (4.0) of Russia/China's rampant ecological imperialism? And a further distinction needs to be made about what humanity has to do to survive this distinction between aggressive and quasi-benign cancer forms. Because we will be just as dead, just as quick if we cannot even identify the underlying cancer we are all suffering from.

    Koba ,

    Big B sit down ultra! China and Russia rent empires and have no desire to be! If you're a left winger you're another poor example of one and more than likely a Trotskyist

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Love the nickname, Josef.

    Louis Proyect ,

    This is because if a chemical attack did not take place and Assad was not responsible it seems highly likely that the civilians including children were murdered to facilitate a fabrication.

    And were our own intelligence agencies involved in a staged event, considering the refusal to even establish the basic facts in the days following?

    -- -

    This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy theories. The notion that this kind of slaughter took place to "facilitate" a false flag is analogous to the 9/11 conspiracism that was on display here a while back and that manifested itself through the inclusion of NYU 9/11 Truther Mark Crispin Miller on Tim Hayward's Assadist propaganda team.

    Sad, really.

    Harry Stotle ,

    Go on Louis, remind us about the 'terrorist passport' miraculously found at the foot of the collapsed tower with a page coveniently left open displaying a 'Tora Bora' stamp – I kove that bit.

    I mean who, apart from half the worlds scientific community is not totally convinced by such compelling evidence, especially when allied to the re-writing of the laws of physics in order to rationlise the ludicrous 2 planes 3 towers conspiracy theory?

    Next you'll be telling us it was necessary for the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for reasons few American'srecall beyond the neocon fantasy contructed on 11th Septemember, 2001.

    Dave Hansell ,

    It's clear to a blind man on a galloping horse from this comment of yours Mr Proyect that concepts such as objective evidence, logical and rational deduction, the scientific method etc are beyond your ken.

    Faced with the facts of a collapsing narrative of obvious bullshit and lies you have bought into, which you are incapable of facing up to, it is unsurprising that you are reduced to such puerile school playground level deflections.

    So come on, try getting out of the gutter and upping your game. Because this fare is nothing short of sad and pathetic.

    We know from the evidence of those who actually know their arse from their elbow on these matters that the claims of an attack using chemical weapons on this site are unsustainable.

    Which leaves the issue of the bodies at the site. Given they did not lose their lives as a result of the unscientific bullshit explanation you desperately and clearly want to be the case the question is how did those civilians lose their lives? How did their corpses find their way to that location?

    Did Assad and his "regime" murder them and move the bodies to that site (over which they had no control) in order to create a false flag event to get themselves falsely accused of an NBC attack Louis? Because that's the only reasonable and rational deduction one can imply from your argument and approach.

    It is certainly more reasoned, rational and in keeping with the scientific method (you might want to try it sometime) to surmise that the bodies on site, having not been the result of the claimed and unsustainable narrative you have naively committed to, either died on site from some other cause or were brought to the site for the purpose of creating your fantasy narrative.

    In the latter case it is further a matter of rational and reasoned deduction that such an occurrence could only be carried it in circumstances in which whoever carried it out had actual, effective and physical control of a geographical location and area situated within a wider conflict zone.

    Again, it remains a piece of factual reality that this location was not under the control of the Assad 'regime.' Not least because otherwise there would be no logical or rational military reason for the de facto Syrian Government and it's armed forces to waste resources attacking it.

    Unless of course he buys I to the conspiracy theory and hat they somehow organised a false flag implicating themselves?

    I'm sure everyone else here in the reality based community is waiting with bated breath for you to 'explain' how they did this Louis.

    I know I am. I could do with a good laugh.

    George Mc ,

    This is the sort of conclusion you must come to if you are into Islamophobic conspiracy theories.

    Umm – the assumption that Muslims DIDN'T do it is "Islamophobic"? Even on your own terms you're not making much sense these days, Louis.

    lundiel ,

    There was little doubt that British special forces were captured in Eastern Ghouta when the SAA prevented an all out attack on Damascus. European precursors and British munitions were uncovered along with factories within the tunnel complex, itself a product of western engineering and slave labour. This was no propaganda, evidence was collected, statements were taken and everything was documented. Douma was a direct follow-on from that failure and yet, you refuse the evidence piling up, but accept testimony of journalists based in Jordan and Turkey? The "conspiracy" is wholly yours Louis and you are guilty of malicious intent, false representation and pretending to be a "Marxist" when you are a Zionist neocon.

    lundiel ,

    Hi I'm Louis an unrepentant Marxist and I willfully refuse to use block-quotes.

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    More proyectile vomitus in defence of child-murdering salafist vermin. How low can this creature descend?

    Louis Proyect ,

    Richard, such abusive language only indicates your inability to discuss the matter at hand. In general, a detached sarcasm works much better in polemics. You need to read Lenin to see how it is done. I should add that I am referring to V.I. Lenin, not John Lenin who wrote "Crippled Inside".

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    You defended the salafist butchers with lies, proyectile-do you not even comprehend your own sewage? Or did someone else write it and you just appended your paw-print?

    Dave Hansell ,

    Apologies here. There is an open goal and the ball needs to be put in the back of the net:

    Seems that Louis here is well ahead of the curve in terms of Fukuyama's well known observation about the end of history.

    For Louise history, in terms of the progress and development of human knowledge, stopped around a century ago with whatever Lenin wrote.

    But that's what happens to those who only read one book.

    Sad really.

    Dungroanin ,

    You come across more as Yaxley – Lenin mr Tommy Proyect – but he is a MI5 stooge unlike you cough cough.

    Koba ,

    Lenin hates Trotsky! Trotsky was a power mad maniac who wanted a permanent war state to somehow spread his specific brand of "ahem" socialism, which won't win you friends! "Hi yeah sorry we killed your family in a war we started to save you but yippee Trotsky is now in charge so stop complaining"! You're just a bunch of liars the trots

    Maggie ,

    learn to use the internet which has the information you need to learn the truth:

    Acting out a chemical attack?

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/o63VnLJpwuc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Jimmy Dore hits the nail every time!!

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/FLRQSfSKoJo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Didn't you just love George Carlin, identifies just what the problem is with dicks like Proyect.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/KLODGhEyLvk?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Maggie ,

    Here's another Jimmy Dore Vid from 2017
    Watch and learn

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/MnSAB4qeDug?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Koba ,

    Maggie don't take jimmy bore as some truth teller he's a bland progressive with revolutionary slogans like proyect! He also has a habit of equating Stalin with Hitler in that god awful nasal accent of his

    Richard Le Sarc ,

    Thems White Helmets is always so neat and tidy. Their mammies must have insisted that they always look their best.

    paul ,

    The British taxpayer funded head choppers and throat slitters in Syria routinely committed massacres and filmed their victims. The resulting footage was passed off by tame media hacks as "evidence" of regime atrocities.

    Koba ,

    Death to the Trotskyists
    Fuck proyect your name calling says it all!
    Islamophobes indeed?! What an idiot

    Harry Stotle ,

    The alternative media, and a smattering of truth tellers are locked in an asymmetrical information-war with the establishment – with an all too obvious 'David & Goliath' sort of dynamic underlying it.

    The question asked at the heart of this article is how to break the vice like grip information managers hold over various geopolitical narratives, referencing events in Douma in particular.

    Alnost reflexively 9/11 comes to mind – a fairly unambiguous example of mass murder for which the official account does not withstand even the most cursory form of scrutiny.
    Professionals even went so far as to purger themselves while the investigating committee admitted they were 'set up to fail' (to quote its chairman).

    Yet the public, instead of shredding Bush, limb from limb (for the lies that were told) rolled onto their back while the neoncons tickled their collective belly as you might do with a particulalrly adorable puppy,
    So if we can't even get to the bottom of events in the middle of New York what realistic chance of doing so in a hostile war zone like Douma?

    On balance racism, together with other forms of collective loathing is the most likely reason why this unsatisfactory state of affairs is unlikely to change.

    A collective 'them and us' mindset makes it far easier for information managers to manipulate a visceral hatred and fear of 'the other'.
    Today it is Qasem Soleimani westerners are taugyt to despise, yesterday it was Bashar al-Assad, before that Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Nicolás Maduro . the list just goes on and on.
    Information managers simply wind the public up so that collective anger can be directed toward governments or individuals they are trying to bring down – recent history tells us that the public are largely oblivious to this process, so thus never learn from their mistakes.

    Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely on, is the ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose a grave threat to 'our way of life' while failing to notice that it is in fact our own leaders who are carrying out the worst atrocities.

    harry law ,

    Harry Stotle, .."Perhaps one thing western leaders, and the US in particular can always rely on, is the ease with which the public can be persuaded to believe that certain bogeymen pose a grave threat to 'our way of life'. That's true Hermann Goring had it about right with this quote
    "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

    [Jan 24, 2020] Putin Calls for a New System Guided by the UN Charter But Is It Possible by Matthew Ehret

    Jan 24, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    Anyone looking with sober eyes upon today's world and the feeble economic and geopolitical underpinnings holding the system together must accept the fact that a new system WILL be created.

    This is not an opinion, but a fact. We are moving towards eight billion lives on this globe and the means of productive powers to sustain that growing population (at least in the west) has been permitted to decay terribly over the recent half century while monetary values have grown like a hyperinflationary cancer to unimaginable proportions.

    Derivatives speculation alone under the deregulated "too big to fail" banking system has resulted in over $1.5 quadrillion in nominal values which have ZERO connection to the real world (GDP globally barely accounts for $80 trillion). Over the past 5 months $415 billion of QE bailouts have been released into the bankrupt banks to prevent a collapse. So, economically it's foundation of sand.

    Militarily, the west has followed the earlier Roman empire of yesteryear by overextending itself beyond capacity creating situations of global turmoil, death and unbounded resentment at the dominant Anglo American powers controlling NATO and the Military-industrial complex.

    The recent near-war with Iran at the start of 2020 put the world on a fast track towards a nuclear war with Iran's allies Russia and China.

    Culturally, the disconnection from the traditional values that gave western civilization it's moral fitness to survive and grow has resulted in a post-truth age now spanning over three generations (from the baby boomers to today's young adults) who have become the most confused class of people in modern history losing all discrimination of "needs" vs "wants", "right" vs "wrong", "beauty" vs "ugliness" or even "male" and "female".

    Without ranting on anymore, it suffices to say that this thing is not sustainable.

    So the question is not "will we get a new system?" but rather "whom will this new system serve?"

    Will this new system serve an oligarchical agenda at the expense of the nations and people of the earth or will it serve the interests of the nations and people of the earth at the expense of the oligarchy?

    Putin Revives a Forgotten Vision

    President Putin's January 15 State of the Union was a breath of fresh air for this reason, as the world leader who has closely allied his nation's destiny to China's Belt and Road Initiative, laid out a call for a new system to be created by the five largest nuclear powers as common allies under a multi-polar paradigm.

    After speaking about Russia's vision for internal improvements, Putin shifted towards the international arena saying:

    I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions."

    Calling for Russia, the USA, UK, China and France to organize a new architecture that goes far beyond merely military affairs, Putin stated:

    The founding countries of the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that bear a special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development of humankind. These five nations should first of all start with measures to remove the prerequisites for a global war and develop updated approaches to ensuring stability on the planet that would fully take into account the political, economic and military aspects of modern international relations."

    Putin's emphasis that "the United Nations should set an example" is not naďve fantasy, nor "crypto globalist rhetoric" as some of his critics have stated.

    Putin knows that the UN has been misused by anti-nation state ideologues for a very long time. He also knows his history better than his critics and is aware that the original mandate of the United Nations was premised upon the defense of the sovereign nation state. Article 2.1 of the charter clearly says:

    The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

    For readers who are perhaps rightfully cynical that such organizations as the UN could ever play a truly positive role in world affairs, it is important to recall that the UN was never intended to have any unilateral authority over nation-states, or military power unto itself when was created in 1945.

    Its purpose was intended to provide a platform for dialogue where sovereign nation-states could harmonize their policies and overcome misunderstanding with the aim of protecting the general welfare of the people of the earth.

    Articles 1.3-4 state clearly that the UN's is designed "to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends."

    If the United Nations principles as enunciated in its pre-amble and core articles were to ever be followed (just like America's own admirable constitution): then wars of aggression and regime change would not be possible.

    Article 2.4 directly addresses this saying:

    All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".

    These principles stand in stark contrast to the earlier 1919 Round Table/RIIA-orchestrated attempt at a post-national world order under the failed League of Nations which was rightfully put out of its misery by nationalists of the 1920s.

    FDR's 1944 vision, as Putin is well aware, was based not on "world government", but rather upon the concept of a community of sovereign nations collaborating on vast development and infrastructure projects which were intended to be the effect of an "internationalization" of the New Deal that transformed America in the years following the Great Depression.

    The closest approximation to this spirit in practice in our modern age is found in China's Belt and Road Initiative .

    Thousands of Asian, African and South American engineers and statesmen were invited to visit the USA during the 1930s and early 1940s to study the Tennessee Valley Authority and other great New Deal water, agriculture and energy projects in order to bring those ideas back to their countries as a driver to break out of the shackles of colonialism both politically, culturally and economically.

    In opposition to FDR, Churchill the unrepentant racist was okay with offering political independence, but never the cultural or economic means to achieve it.

    Although the world devolved into an Anglo-American alliance with FDR's death in 1945, the other Bretton Woods Institutions which were meant to provide international productive credit to those large scale infrastructure projects to end colonialism were taken over by FDR's enemies who purged the IMF and World Bank of all loyalists to FDR's international New Deal vision throughout the years of the red scare.

    Whether these corrupt financing institutions can be brought back to their original intention or whether they must simply be replaced with new lending mechanisms such as the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, BRICS New Development Bank or Silk Road Investment Fund remains to be seen.

    What is vital to keep in mind is that Putin (just like FDR before him) knows that neither Britain nor Britain's Deep State loyalists in America can trusted.

    Yet, in spite of their mistrust, they both knew that a durable world order could only be accomplished if these forces were reined in under a higher law imposed by the authority of truly sovereign nations, and this is why FDR's post-war plans involved a USA-Russia-China-UK partnership to provide the impetus to global development initiatives and achieve the goals of the Atlantic Charter.

    This partnership was sabotaged over FDR's dead body as the Cold War and Truman Doctrine broke that alliance. The goal of ending colonialism had to wait another 80 years.

    At the 2007 Munich Security Conference, Putin had already laid his insight into history clearly on the table when he said:

    This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that "security for one is security for all."

    As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out:

    When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely in today's – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation."

    Putin is not naďve to call for the United Nations charter to serve as the guiding light of a new military, political, economic architecture.

    Nor is he naďve to think that such untrustworthy nations as the USA, UK and France should serve in partnership with Russia and China since Putin knows that it will be Russia and China shaping the terms of the new system and not the collapsing basket-cases of the west whose excess bluff and bluster betrays a losing hand, which is why certain forces have been so desperate to overthrow the poker table over the past few years.

    The fact that Putin, Xi and their growing allies have not permitted this chaos agenda to unfold has not only driven "end of history" imperialists into rage fits but also gives FDR's vision for a community of sovereign nation-states a second chance at life.

    Originally published by Strategic Culture . Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: latest , Russia Tagged with: Belt and Road Initiative , china , FDR , Matthew Ehret , russia , UN , UN Charter , United Nations , Vladimir Putin can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

    OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

    Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of


    Gall ,

    The big mistake was giving France, UK and the US or FUKU or FUKUS, USSR NKA Russia and China any veto over the other independent Nations on the planet. Especially since the first two were responsible for hobbling together the Frankenstein monster known as the United States of America that was created by rapacious theft and genocide of the indigenous population followed by almost total ecocide and now has been loosed upon the world it seems to accomplish the same thing under the cover of bringing it "freedom and democracy".

    Paul ,

    It's a pity the experience of the League of Nations isn't examined any longer because it is instructive. OK Congress declined to approve it so the Pilot Wilson was missing but more serious was the problem of totally partisan and self serving decisions that made its provisions a mockery. Italy was 'allowed' to keep on occupying Ethiopia and sanctions eg on oil were simply declined, partly because the US supplied the oil and wasn't going to stop selling it, especially to Mussolini who was rapidly becoming a client state of America in enormous debt.

    BigB ,

    Someone said it was "banal" of me to oppose 'The Western Intellectual Tradition' (TWIT). Well, here is its vision *in extremis*. If you do not recognise it: this is 'Platonic Humanism' in all its glory.

    It reads well. It is sensible and intelligible in its clearly written propositions. It has meaning and clearly denotes real world events – right? And yet it is ultimately unintelligible and non-sensical in an early Wittgensteinian sense of its underlying logic. If you did not immediately recognise the subtextual vision of Lyndon LaRouche: you might want to read it again?

    The underlying logic is one of economic infinity: completely decoupled from the neo-Malthusian sustainable 'green iron cage' that prohibits the *productive* economy growing forever as per the deluded LaRouchian proscription. Which is utterly banal: if not actually exceedingly dangerous.

    This fact of life is the essential proof that not only mankind but the universe is unbounded in its potential for constant self-perfectibility and thus ANTI-ENTROPIC in its essence.

    https://orientalreview.org/2019/07/31/the-genocidal-roots-of-the-green-new-deal-the-limits-to-growth-and-the-unchaining-of-prometheus/

    To illustrate my point: this is from an earlier text. I never actually know where I stand: because "anti-entropy" is laced through much of the commentary here. Which is why this text may appeal on a superficial reading? It ticks a lot of boxes: including perpetual capitalist growth; expansion of the SCO/BRI/BRICS/EAEU/CPEC colonisation of the Eurasian 'supercontinent'; and development of an anti-hegemonic sovereigntist bloc. All of which seem as a fashionable vogue for the internet progressive about town. But in multipolar alliance with Donald Trump! Infinite anti-entropic capitalistic growth – guided by the UN Charter – with Putin, Xi AND Trump at the helm in an "alliance for a new just economic order"? Sounds like hell to me.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/07/06/trumps-relationship-to-russia-and-china-a-revival-of-the-henry-wallace-doctrine-for-the-post-war-world/

    My point is that perhaps we should learn to read more deeply? Perhaps at the underlying paradigmatic logic of the text? Power is transmitted in mysterious ways. Everyone is paranoid about "mind-control" and "hidden agendas". Well, Matthew's is a prime exemplar of hidden context perhaps not to be uncritically assimilated? Unless, perhaps you share the vision of unlimited self-perfectibility; infinite nuclear fusion powered bourgeois ecumenical consumerism decoupled from ecological neo-Malthusian 'limits-to-growth'; and ANTI-ENTROPY? In which case you may be a banal Platonist TWIT too? 🙂

    LaRouche was a cultic delusionist who took cherrypicked ideas to assemble an intelligible and sensible montage of beliefs that did not hang together. Which makes his writing absurd nonsense and a philosophical non-entity. Any putative logical link to the real world is severed by its premises. This piece is reduced to a mere a Trojan Horse for gibberish. It is a meaning-less 'language game'.

    As unfortunate as it may seem: entropy exists as a fundamental property of the ecosphere. Resources deplete and growth is thermodynamically limited. We need a new system: one which actually addresses the extinction level ecological crisis we are in the midst of. Something we need to understand and embrace: not illogically deny. This text subverts that strategic denial to its own ends. Let the reader be aware of the paradigmatic subtext.

    paul ,

    Russia and China have always been status quo powers, more concerned with their own internal development than implementing insane Neocon/ James Bond Villain-style fantasies of world domination. This was true even during the period of communist rule. Their growth and influence in the world can only be viewed as a positive development.

    China built the infrastructure in the Third World that was neglected during centuries of colonialism.

    China builds things.
    America (and its cringing satellites like Britain and France) bomb things.
    Most people in Africa and elsewhere prefer building things to bombing things.

    Dungroanin ,

    A good piece – The UN is not fit for purpose.
    The SCO already operates under a 'charter' – which goes past religion and cultural hagemony by any one nation or peoples. Since it already represents more than half the worlds population and the majority of its land mass – it is only a matter of time that the defunct UN is upgraded to these standards and absorbed into it OR crashes and burns.

    Today there were hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – maybe over million, in showing the US and its allies that they really are serious about their national sovereignty and demand that the foreign forces fuck off!

    The US response? To revive the old divide and rule option. Break up Iraq into religion and sectarian areas – using the 'never learning Charlie Brown' proxy Kurds by offering them tet another football to kick!

    While the world accelerates towards a new order which puts economic security and mutual defence at its core, the US and its gunfighter professional gamblers resort to poker terminology – 'we are ALL IN' in keeping the Iranians and Syrians (and Turkey?) out of the SCO to stop a nonstop link from the Med to the Pacific and Artic to the Southern Seas.

    All in! Lol. They going to lose their shirts and be overturning the table and demanding a shootout to keep from paying up their bet.
    It's a bluff and sitting with pocket rockets a simple CALL by the new, new world order.

    Philip Roddis ,

    Excellent. Worthy of wide dissemination for its first nine paragraphs alone.

    BigB ,

    Phillip, my friend this is not a personal attack, but – have you heard of Lyndon LaRouche? I suggest you might want to read up on his agenda then re-read the text in its wider context? The subtleties are not explicit: but if you are aware of LaRouche – or read some of the authors other texts – they are obvious in the subtext.

    The basic premise – unstated herein – is for Trump, Putin, and Xi to form a wider multipolar alliance against the British economic empire (the British Deep State infiltrators) for untrammeled infinite global economic growth – with maximum penetration of nuclear power (eventually nuclear fission) into every economy of the world. To the ends of a global bourgeois consumer culture serviced by the BRI intitiative. Unrestricted by neo-Malthusian ecologists like me, who say this is impossible.

    We may not always see eye to eye: but I'm pretty sure you do not envisage a hypothetically- infinite ecumenical consumerism as humanities apex culture? Not least as I assume that you would agree that this is actual ecological fantasy – the world is finite, as are resources – which means this text needs to be shredded not further disseminated?

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/contributors/matthew-ehret/

    Norn ,

    UN Charter .. "sustainable development of humankind"

    One of the top priorities must be: Swift actions to STOP poisoning our food.

    Seamus Padraig ,

    A very sanguine view of FDR. To be sure, it's impossible to say with 100% certainty what he would have done had he survived the war, but it boggles the mind to think that he was going to be forever cool with the idea of sharing the world with Russia and China, when he abjectly refused to share it with Germany and Japan in his own lifetime.

    And please don't believe that old canard about the Japanese wanting to take over America; it was actually Roosevelt who precipitated the whole war with Japan, with his oil embargo and what not. He even had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor from multiple sources, but deliberately withheld that intelligence from his own navy. FDR clearly wanted the attack on Pearl Harbor to be as devastating as possible, so as to drag his recalcitrant countrymen to war, and it worked. In fact, eighty years later, we're still at war. That's the real legacy of FDR, not the long-gone New Deal, of which only Social Security survives (for now). All the other 'alphabet soup' programs he initiated are gone.

    I will always wonder wistfully how our history would have turned out had Huey Long become president instead.

    seriouslyman ,

    Everything Putin says is perfect. There is nothing bad that can be said about Russia on offguardian. Anyone with any mild criticism of russia is a pro imperialist bastard and cannot be engaged with. Offguardian has rightly attacked almost every significant political figure on earth from corbyn to trump. Putin is the only person who can save us. There is no flaw in his character or politics and anyone who suggests otherwise is a conspiracy theorist. Good on Offguardian for never publishing any negative stories about this brilliant intelligent fair play hero who will save us all from hell.

    paul ,

    No, Little Greta is going to save us.
    Vlad isn't going to do that, but he has done quite a good job so far of stopping the Exceptional And Indispensable People from blowing up the planet.
    This gives Greta the chance to save us all from the global warming and the polar bears.

    Andy ,

    Sarcasm can be an effective tool for making a point. This is an example of it not being.

    Francis Lee ,

    I am trying hard to assess your contribution but couldn't find anything either interesting or relevant to say about it, other than it is little more than sarcastic rant. How does it, or is it even meant to, increase our understanding of international relations? Who exactly makes those claims about Putin?

    What I would say about Putin is that he is simply talking like a foreign policy realist. More power to his elbow I say; we could do with some more realism. His political position is very similar to American foreign policy realists such John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who to their credit put the Zionist noses (AIPAC, JINSA, ADL, AEI) out of joint with the publication of – "The Israel Lobby". Putin's views could have come straight out of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) which brought an end to the Wars of the Reformation could have come straight from the Treaty, which were based on the following precepts which of course support a multipolar not a unipolar system. Liberal imperialism, humanitarian intervention, call it what you will is a deadly threat to the future of mankind. In contrast multipolarism as an alternative. See below.

    1. States existed within recognised borders.
    2. Each states sovereignty was recognised by the others
    3. Principles of non-interference were agreed.
    4. Religious differences between states were tolerated.
    5. States might be monarchies, republics, democracies, as was their wont
    6. Permanent state interests or raison d'etat was the organizing principle of interntional relations.
    7. War was not entirely eliminated, yet it was mitigated by diplomacy and balance-of-power politics.
    9. The object of the balance of power was to prevent one state from becoming so powerful that it could conquer others and destroy world order.

    Sounds like straight common sense to me.

    BigB ,

    seriouslyman has a point. The progressive world is extremely slow to recognise the capitalist colonisation of 70% of the Eurasian globe as an existential threat to humanity. As I have been pointing out: capitalism does not transform to a benign humanist alternative as it travels West to East. Russia and China's economic expansionist extractivisim is inimical to all life on Earth. Especially as China has taken a coal-fired 'Great Leap Backwards' to maintain growth in the face of the secular synchronised global economic slowdown.

    When the very real extinction level threat of industrialised financialised capitalism is reduced to a personification and represented as the personality of one man – VVP – this is nothing more than a masking discourse that conceals the globalised extinctionism of fossil fuel capitalism. Perhaps the time to reflect on the superior personality of VVP will come when we are all gasping for our last breath – breathing in petrol?

    Capitalism thrives on such personal Fetishism. Power is the invisibilising of capitalism's truly destructive force. No one even wants to open the discourse into what underlies Russia's welfare capitalism. Which is infinite market mechanism extraction and quasi-eternal expansionism of fossil fueled growth. Which will kill us all just as soon as America's big guns and bombs.

    George Mc ,

    You know BigB I can't help but get the feeling that behind all that polysyllabic pontificating, everything you say comes down to a kind of masked reactionary claptrap. You call yourself "neo-Malthusian". Well that's comparatively candid. Malthus being the most obvious case of a capitalist apologist of the most brutal sort. And how interesting that you are having a go at Putin here – as if to suggest that even some kind of socialist transformation isn't going to save us. So what then? Some kind of reaching back to some healthy sparsely populated savannah filled with Conan the barbarian types?

    And this:

    "Perhaps the time to reflect on the superior personality of VVP will come when we are all gasping for our last breath – breathing in petrol?"

    Seems to me you are secretly longing for that moment of last breath when you can finally gleefully shout, "Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah – Told you so!" before croaking.

    Frank ,

    Sorry, but this doesn't sound much like satire.

    It sounds like an 8-year-old taught you everything you know about geopolitics, and unfortunately it all went a bit over your head.

    George Mc ,

    Two points:

    First, I fail to see the point of pillorying Putin when the entire Western media is already doing so.

    Second, to pillory Putin on the pretence of "a plague on all their houses" takes us nicely into that pleasant non-committal "higher sphere" where all-is-one-and-one-is-all. The old con trick of "being reasonable" in order to sit on an all-facing fence and basically have no opinion at all.

    Estaugh ,

    So far, Vlad has being doing a very good job, (saving us all from Hell), and it seems, most of the world is increasingly backing him up. That's tough on 'pro-imperialist bastards' but that's cricket.

    [Jan 24, 2020] Making Sense of Russia's New Cabinet by Gilbert Doctorow

    Jan 22, 2020 | original.antiwar.com
    Tuesday evening, 21 January, the composition of Russia's new cabinet was announced to the nation and the world. Russian state television was caught as unawares as any of us in the broad public when the names of the departing ministers, the names and biographical details of arriving ministers and the few changes in reporting lines were released to the wire services. Their correspondents hastened to find Duma members, think tank celebrities and others whom they hoped could make sense of the changes for their viewers.

    Eventually, late in the night, a picture emerged of what the latest seismic wave in Russian politics means. I will try to present the generalities here. I will not go into detailed examination of each minister, because such micro-investigation is neither my specialty, nor is it likely to interest an international readership for whom 'which way the wind is blowing' is quite sufficient.

    Of course, in the past week, even the contours of political change have appeared inscrutable to Western media who could only fall back on the assumptions that whatever Putin is up to cannot be good. Hence, the flurry of articles following Mr. Putin's address to the bicameral legislature a week ago which sought to portray the constitutional changes he promised as serving only one purpose: to perpetuate his dominance and control over Russian politics after his presidential term ends in 2024. That was so despite the fact that nothing whatsoever in his proposed reforms would facilitate the stated objective and despite the fact that the changes, which diminish his power when implemented, would come four years before he has to relinquish his office.

    However, even the harshest critics of Russia and Putin are beginning to change their minds.

    The New York Times' "Morning Briefing" today told its online subscribers:

    Quote

    On social media, our correspondent writes from Moscow , Russian political analysts "have put forward so many different theories that they paint a picture of a nation in collective befuddlement."

    Case in point: Mr. Putin's announcement prompted a string of high-level resignations and unexpected appointments. Yet the new cabinet, announced on Tuesday, includes the most prominent members of the last one.

    Background: Many analysts initially thought that the constitutional changes were intended to allow Mr. Putin, 67, to take up a powerful role when his second presidential term expires in 2024. Now they aren't so sure.

    Unquote

    Chapeau! This is one of the rare instances when the editors of The New York Times have followed the facts to an inconvenient truth about Putin and Russia – and have shared with their readership what they found.

    Surely the confusion in the minds of the Russian public, as well as domestic and foreign political observers, over how to understand all the changes and prospective changes in Russia's federal government was not by accident, but by design. The intention of Mr. Putin and of Sergei Kiriyenko, his close assistant in these reforms within his presidential administration, was surely to conflate two very different political disruptions: first, the introduction of constitutional reforms that rebalance the power sharing between executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government; and second, the change of cabinet to remove ineffectual and unpopular ministers, to bring in fresh blood from among the most successful administrative and technical talent operating at the higher levels of the federal government and groomed for succession these past several years. Both very separate measures share one common feature: to lay the groundwork for the Duma elections scheduled to be held in September 2021. They will likely generate more excitement in the public and will be more consequential than would otherwise be the case.

    As for the proposed constitutional changes, I believe they serve a very clearly defined purpose: to prepare Russia for the post-Putin era by introducing checks and balances that will prevent any one branch of government, meaning the executive, from 'running away with the show' and changing the vector of Russia's development and its orientation in the world as the result of the unforeseeable popularity and electoral victory by a candidate to the presidency put up by the Opposition, or even by factions within the Ruling Party and other 'Duma parties' in 2024 and thereafter.

    Commentators have often speculated on whom Putin was grooming as his successor. We now have the answer: no one. And this is a wise approach to the issue, because no one in Russia would be capable of filling the shoes of Vladimir Putin, who is a once in a hundred years political phenomenon. And so the shoes to be filled in 2024 and thereafter have been downsized via the power sharing provisions of the proposed constitutional reforms.

    Now let us turn our attention to the new cabinet of ministers which Mr. Putin convened and welcomed last night.

    In the past few days, many have asked why Putin prompted Dimitri Medvedev and his ministers to resign a week ago. One of my fellow panelists in a Turkish international English television (TRT World) program yesterday devoted to Putin's announced reforms offered the explanation that Medvedev was, in effect, forced out because he is so unpopular in the country. See here.

    Indeed, unpopular he was, but that is not a new development. Rather, I believe the fate of Dimitri Medvedev and his cabinet was decided in the presidential administration back in December when the weak results on implementation of the president's high priority National Projects during 2019 came in and when it also became clear that GDP growth during the year had been anemic, trailing rather than matching or exceeding global trends. A government shakeup was already in the cards from that moment.

    ... ... ...

    It must be remembered that during his tenure as president, Medvedev showed himself to be the most outgoing, the most friendly to the West of all Russian and Soviet heads of state in the last hundred years or more. It was a very regrettable mistake by Western leaders that his initiative to begin talks on revising the security architecture of Europe was spurned, and that he was intentionally misled about NATO intentions in Libya when the UN, with Russian support, voted to allow military intervention for humanitarian purposes.

    Personal unpopularity or battle fatigue may explain the decision not to reappoint several members of the outgoing cabinet. The first rule pertains to Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, who is guilty of graphomania and has been filling a whole library shelf with his overly nationalistic and simplistic histories while in office. Moreover, he got embroiled in quite controversial issues of what is permitted as artistic expression, making many enemies.

    Then there was the non-reappointment of Vitaly Mutko who had been the Sports Minister until 2016 and carried all the baggage of Russia's shame over doping, of its strained relations with FIFA. Mutko had been 'kicked upstairs' to a deputy premiership more for the sake of defying Western allegations against him than because of any personal merit justifying his new position. Clearly it was time to move on and reward others more worthy.

    As for Minister of Health Dr. Veronika Skvortsova, who was omnipresent in the country overseeing a vast reform program to bring quality health care to the rural population and also raise the level of diagnosis and early treatment for cardiovascular and oncological illnesses everywhere, the best guess is that she was simply worn down by the task and needed to pass the baton to someone else.

    In my two essays on the planned constitutional reforms over the past week, I expressed the optimistic hope that President Putin would use the occasion of appointing a new cabinet to take the first step towards power sharing with the Duma. Specifically, I suggested that he might bring into the cabinet parliamentarians from the minority parties in the Duma, allotting to them portfolios in the more innocent domains such as labor, social welfare and culture, in effect forming a coalition government and thereby consolidating the Russian political landscape.

    Reviewing the list of new ministers in the incoming cabinet, it is clear that quite the opposite has happened: the cabinet has been de-politicized . To be sure, nearly all members of the cabinet are members of the United Russia party. But they are what we may call just card-carrying members, whereas the former prime minister Dimitri Medvedev was and remains the head of United Russia.

    The new cabinet members are concentrated in the 'economic block' and in the 'social block' of ministries, the two areas that rank very high in the fulfillment of President Putin's pledges to the nation to raise living standards through fulfillment of his National Projects. They are what the Russians call хозяйственники or управленцы, which we may translate as highly competent managers with proven success in getting things done. Technocrats, by another name. One or two come from the administration of Moscow mayor Sobyanin, who oversees the country's most successful municipality. One or two come from among the Prime Minister's former colleagues in the Federal Tax Service, which is a model of technological innovation and efficiency.

    At the same time, the most experienced and successful ministers from the Medvedev cabinet have been kept on in their posts. In particular, I point to Anton Siluanov at Finance, Sergei Lavrov at the Foreign Ministry, Sergei Shoigu at Defense, Alexander Novak at Energy. While Siluanov has been stripped of his rank as first deputy prime minister, he received moral compensation by being assigned the additional responsibility for State Property. I explain Siluanov's removal from the deputy prime minister list as resulting from the ambitions of PM Mikhail Mishustin, who is himself a very experienced financial expert, to have free hands in this domain.

    Now we will have to wait till just after the September 2021 Duma elections to see to what extent Mr. Putin intends to bring the lower house of parliament into the middle of national policy making by granting them seats in the cabinet.

    Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2017. Reprinted with permission from his blog .

    © Gilbert Doctorow, 2020

    [Jan 24, 2020] One real Trump crime about which DemoRats are afraid to talk: OPCW Investigator testifies at UN that no Chemical Attack Took Place in Douma, Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report. ..."
    "... Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full transcript of Henderson's testimony ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video ..."
    Jan 24, 2020 | dissidentvoice.org

    by Ben Norton / January 23rd, 2020

    Video and a transcript of former OPCW engineer and dissenter Ian Henderson's UN testimony appears at the end of this report.

    A former lead investigator from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has spoken out at the United Nations, stating in no uncertain terms that the scientific evidence suggests there was no gas attack in Douma, Syria in April 2018.

    The dissenter, Ian Henderson, worked for 12 years at the international watchdog organization, serving as an inspection team leader and engineering expert. Among his most consequential jobs was assisting the international body's fact-finding mission (FFM) on the ground in Douma.

    He told a UN Security Council session convened on January 20 by Russia's delegation that OPCW management had rejected his group's scientific research, dismissed the team, and produced another report that totally contradicted their initial findings.

    "We had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson said, referring to the FFM team in Douma.

    The former OPCW inspector added that he had compiled evidence through months of research that "provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."

    Western airstrikes based on unsubstantiated allegations by foreign-backed jihadists

    Foreign-backed Islamist militants and the Western government-funded regime-change influence operation known as the White Helmets accused the Syrian government of dropping gas cylinders and killing dozens of people in the city of Douma on April 7, 2018. Damascus rejected the accusation, claiming the incident was staged by the insurgents.

    At the time, Douma was controlled by the extremist Salafi-jihadist militia Jaysh al-Islam , which was created and funded by Saudi Arabia and formerly allied with Syria's powerful al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra .

    The governments of the United States, Britain, and France responded to the allegations of a chemical attack by launching airstrikes against the Syrian government on April 14. The military assault was illegal under international law, as the countries did not have UN authorization.

    Numerous OPCW whistleblowers and leaks challenge Western government claims

    In May 2019, an internal OPCW engineering assessment was leaked to the public. The document, authored by Ian Henderson, said the "dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders" in Douma "were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder having been delivered from an aircraft," adding that there is "a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft."

    After reviewing the leaked report, MIT professor emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security Theodore Postol told The Grayzone, "The evidence is overwhelming that the gas attacks were staged." Postol also accused OPCW leadership of overseeing "compromised reporting" and ignoring scientific evidence .

    In November, a second OPCW whistleblower came forward and accused the organization's leadership of suppressing countervailing evidence , under pressure by three US government officials .

    WikiLeaks has published numerous internal emails from the OPCW that reveal allegations that the body's management staff doctored the Douma report.

    As the evidence of internal suppression grew, the OPCW's first director-general, José Bustani, decided to speak out. "The convincing evidence of irregular behavior in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had," Bustani stated.

    "I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing," the former OPCW head concluded.

    OPCW whistleblower testimony at UN Security Council meeting on Douma

    On January 20, 2020, Ian Henderson delivered his first in-person testimony, alleging suppression by OPCW leadership. He spoke at a UN Security Council Arria-Formula meeting on the fact-finding mission report on Douma.

    ( Video of the session follows at the bottom of this article, along with a full transcript of Henderson's testimony .)

    China's mission to the UN invited Ian Henderson to testify in person at the Security Council session. Henderson said in his testimony that he had planned to attend, but was unable to get a visa waiver from the US government. (The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked access to the UN for representatives from countries that do not kowtow to its interests, turning UN visas into a political weapon in blatant violation of the international body's headquarters agreement .)

    Henderson told the Security Council in a pre-recorded video message that he was not the only OPCW inspector to question the leadership's treatment of the Douma investigation.

    "My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report," Henderson explained.

    Soon after the alleged incident in Douma in April 2018, the OPCW FFM team had deployed to the ground to carry out an investigation, which it noted included environmental samples, interviews with witnesses, and data collection.

    In July 2018, the FFM published its interim report , stating that it found no evidence of chemical weapons use in Douma. ("The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties," the report indicated.)

    "By the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred," Henderson told the Security Council.

    After this inspection that led to the interim report, however, Henderson said the OPCW leadership decided to create a new team, "the so-called FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis."

    Then in March 2019, this new OPCW team released a final report, in which it claimed that chemical weapons had been used in Douma.

    "The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments," Henderson remarked at the UN session.

    "The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma [FFM] team, in July 2018," Henderson stated.

    The former OPCW expert added, "I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack."

    via @ BenjaminNorton

    A former OPCW inspection team leader and engineering expert told the UN Security Council that their investigation in Douma, Syria suggested no chemical attack took place. But their findings were suppressed and reversed

    Read more here: https://t.co/HI028MZl0k

    via @BenjaminNorton pic.twitter.com/rmaSzWzs5Z

    -- The Grayzone (@TheGrayzoneNews) January 22, 2020

    US government pressure on the OPCW

    The US government responded to this historic testimony at the UN session by attacking Russia, which sponsored the Arria-Formula meeting.

    Acting US representative Cherith Norman Chalet praised the OPCW, aggressively condemned the "Assad regime," and told the UN that the "United States is proud to support the vital, life-saving work of the White Helmets" – a US and UK-backed organization that collaborated extensively with ISIS and al-Qaeda and have been involved in numerous executions in Syrian territory occupied by Islamist extremists .

    The US government has a long history of pressuring and manipulating the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the George W. Bush administration threatened José Bustani, the first director of the OPCW, and pressured him to resign.

    In 2002, as the Bush White House was preparing to wage a war on Iraq, Bustani made an agreement with the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein that would have permitted OPCW inspectors to come to the country unannounced for weapons investigations. This infuriated the US government.

    Then-Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Bustani in 2002 that US Vice President Dick " Cheney wants you out ." Bolton threatened the OPCW director-general, stating, "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you We know where your kids live."

    Attacking the credibility of Ian Henderson

    While OPCW managers have kept curiously silent amid the scandal over their Douma report, an interventionist media outlet called Bellingcat has functioned as an outsourced press shop, aggressively defending the official narrative and attacking its most prominent critics, including Ian Henderson.

    Bellingcat is funded by the US government's regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and is part of an initiative bankrolled by the British Foreign Office.

    Following Henderson's testimony, Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins tried to besmirch the former OPCW engineer's credibility by implying he was being used by Russia . Until 2019, Higgins worked at the Atlantic Council , a pro-war think tank financed by the American and British governments , as well as by NATO.

    Supporters of the OPCW's apparently doctored final report have relied heavily on Bellingcat to try to discredit the whistleblowers and growing leaks. Scientific expert Theodor Postol, who debated Higgins, has noted that Bellingcat "have no scientific credibility at any level." Postol says he even suspects that OPCW management may have relied on Bellingcat's highly dubious claims in its own compromised reporting.

    Higgins has no expertise or scientific credentials, and even The New York Times acknowledged in a highly sympathetic piece that "Higgins attributed his skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be cracked."

    In his testimony before the UN Security Council, Ian Henderson stressed that he was speaking out in line with his duties as a scientific expert.

    Henderson said he does not even like the term whistleblower and would not use it to describe himself, because, "I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns."

    Russia's UN representative added that Moscow had also invited the OPCW director-general and representatives of the organization's Technical Secretariat, but they chose not to participate in the session.

    Video of the UN Security Council session on the OPCW's Douma report

    Ian Henderson's testimony begins at 57:30 in this official UN video :

    https://www.un.org/webcast/1362235914001/B1J3DDQJf_default/index.html?videoId=6125087582001

    Transcript: Testimony by OPCW whistleblower Ian Henderson at the UN Security Council

    "My name is Ian Henderson. I'm a former OPCW inspection team leader, having served for about 12 years. I heard about this meeting and I was invited by the minister, councilor of the Chinese mission to the UN. Unfortunately due to unforeseen circumstances around my ESTA visa waiver status, I was not able to travel. I thus submitted a written statement, to which I will now add a short introduction.

    I need to point out at the outset that I'm not a whistleblower; I don't like that term. I'm a former OPCW specialist who has concerns in an area, and I consider this a legitimate and appropriate forum to explain again these concerns.

    Secondly, I must point out that I hold the OPCW in the highest regard, as well as the professionalism of the staff members who work there. The organization is not broken; I must stress that. However, the concern I have does relate to some specific management practices in certain sensitive missions.

    The concern, of course, relates to the FFM investigation into the alleged chemical attack on the 7th of April in Douma, in Syria. My concern, which was shared by a number of other inspectors, relates to the subsequent management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of a final report.

    There were two teams deployed; one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field deployments, was to Douma in Syria; the other team deployed to country X.

    The main concern relates to the announcement in July 2018 of a new concept, the so-called FFM core team, which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis.

    The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments. And by the time of release of the interim report in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that a chemical attack had occurred.

    What the final FFM report does not make clear, and thus does not reflect the views of the team members who deployed to Douma -- in which case I really can only speak for myself at this stage -- the report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data, or analysis in the fields of witness testimony, toxicology studies, chemical analysis, and engineering, and/or ballistic studies had resulted in the complete turn-around in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team, and the entire Douma team, in July 2018.

    In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistic studies into these cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view that there had not been a chemical attack.

    This needs to be properly resolved, we believe through the rigors of science and engineering. In my situation, it's not a political debate. I'm very aware that there is a political debate surrounding this.

    Perhaps a closing comment from my side is that I was also the inspection team leader who developed and launched the inspections, the highly intrusive inspections, of the Barzah SSRC facility, just outside Damascus. And I did the inspections and wrote the reports for the two inspections prior to, and the inspection after the chemical facility, or the laboratory complex at Barzah SSRC, had been destroyed by the missile strike.

    That, however, is another story altogether, and I shall now close. Thank you."

    • Article first published in The Grayzone

    Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton . Read other articles by Ben , or visit Ben's website .

    This article was posted on Thursday, January 23rd, 2020 at 12:37pm and is filed under Chemical weapons , Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) , Syria , United Nations , WikiLeaks .

    [Jan 24, 2020] Dennis Kucinich, Antiwar to His Core by Adam Dick

    Jan 10, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    A Thursday article by Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone discusses Dennis Kucinich's work in politics, from Kucinich's eight terms in the United Sates House of Representatives to his two presidential campaigns to his activities since leaving political office. Taibbi, in the article focused much on Kucinich's long-term devotion to advancing the case for peace, describes Kucinich as "antiwar to his core."

    Read Taibbi's article here .

    Kucinich is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.


    Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Related What are you supporting? When you join the
    Ron Paul Institute
    for Peace and Prosperity
    You are supporting

    News and analysis
    like you'll get nowhere else

    Brave insight on
    foreign policy and civil liberties

    A young writer's program
    and much more!

    Support Ron Paul
    Support the Institute!
    Support Peace and Prosperity! Archives


    [Jan 22, 2020] Who is a real "Russian asset" is an on-trivial question ;-)

    Jan 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    pparalegal , 1 hour ago link

    Stay out of Arkansas.

    Best President Ever , 2 hours ago link

    Nobody likes Hillary even liberals like myself won't vote for her and that is why Trump won. She is the Russian asset.

    RG_Canuck , 1 hour ago link

    Please don't insult the Russians like that.

    [Jan 22, 2020] Wikipedia is nothing but a tool for the concealment of truth.

    Jan 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Arch Mangle , Jan 21 2020 14:04 utc | 3

    The Wikipedia article on the Douma attack makes no mention of the recent OPCW leaks:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Douma_chemical_attack

    It's clear to me that Wikipedia is nothing but a tool for the concealment of truth.

    somebody , Jan 22 2020 12:39 utc | 96

    Posted by: Walter | Jan 22 2020 12:30 utc | 95

    Of course. Intelligence services wordwide and their governments knew this as soon as they saw the image.

    But Western main stream media does not report on it.

    [Jan 22, 2020] Tulsi Gabbard Sues Hillary Clinton Over 'Russian Asset' Remark

    Jan 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, accusing the former Secretary of State of defamation for remarks characterizing the Democratic presidential candidate as a Russian asset .

    Filed on Wednesday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Gabbard's attorneys allege that Clinton "smeared" Gabbard's "political and personal reputation," according to The Hill .

    Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton and the first page of the filing is WILD AF pic.twitter.com/DXHLPfy016

    -- Alec Sears (@alec_sears) January 22, 2020

    "Tulsi Gabbard is a loyal American civil servant who has also dedicated her life to protecting the safety of all Americans," said Gabbard's attorney Brian Dunne in a statement.

    "Rep. Gabbard's presidential campaign continues to gain momentum, but she has seen her political and personal reputation smeared and her candidacy intentionally damaged by Clinton's malicious and demonstrably false remarks."

    In a podcast released in October, Clinton said she thought Republicans were "grooming" a Democratic presidential candidate for a third-party bid. She also described the candidate as a favorite of the Russians.

    Clinton did not name the candidate but it was clear she was speaking about Gabbard.

    "They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate ," Clinton said.

    " She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far , and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate," Clinton said. - The Hill

    Read the filing below:


    GotAFriendInBen , 1 hour ago link

    Go Gabby Go!!

    Smack that smirk off that face

    Ulna P Radius , 2 hours ago link

    I love Tulsi. She's done more to attack the Democrat globalist neo-Con scumbags than Trump and the GoP put together. What a hero.

    Maxamillia , 2 hours ago link

    Best Wishes. Tulsi. Better Hope You Draw A Sympathetic Judge...

    This Black Witch Hillary R Clinton... Has Been Under Satan So Long, His Radar Has Nearly Made Her Untouchable..

    Except When It Comes To The Majority of American Voters...

    [Jan 22, 2020] The End Of US Military Dominance Unintended Consequences Forge A Multipolar World Order

    Notable quotes:
    "... The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the U.S.. ..."
    "... The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. ..."
    "... As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania and Poland. ..."
    "... There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this "balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington's vaunted ABM systems. ..."
    "... In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S. aggression. ..."
    "... Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended. Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation. ..."
    "... Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors. ..."
    Jan 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Starting from the presidency of George W. Bush to that of Trump, the U.S. has made some missteps that not only reduce its influence in strategic regions of the world but also its ability to project power and thus impose its will on those unwilling to genuflect appropriately .

    Some examples from the recent past will suffice to show how a series of strategic errors have only accelerated the U.S.'s hegemonic decline.

    ABM + INF = Hypersonic Supremacy

    The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the U.S..

    The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. This argument held little water as the Iranians had neither the capability nor intent to launch such missiles.

    As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania and Poland.

    Following from Trump's momentous decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), it is also likely that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will also be abandoned, creating more global insecurity with regard to nuclear proliferation.

    Moscow was forced to pull out all stops to develop new weapons that would restore the strategic balance, Putin revealing to the world in a speech in 2018 the introduction of hypersonic weapons and other technological breakthroughs that would serve to disabuse Washington of its first-strike fantasies.

    Even as Washington's propaganda refuses to acknowledge the tectonic shifts on the global chessboard occasioned by these technological breakthroughs, sober military assessments acknowledge that the game has fundamentally changed.

    There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this "balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington's vaunted ABM systems.

    In addition to ensuring its nuclear second-strike capability, Russia has been forced to develop the most advanced ABM system in the world to fend off Washington's aggression. This ABM system is integrated into a defensive network that includes the Pantsir, Tor, Buk, S-400 and shortly the devastating S-500 and A-235 missile systems. This combined system is designed to intercept ICBMs as well as any future U.S. hypersonic weapons

    The wars of aggression prosecuted by George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only ended up leaving the U.S. in a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis Russia and China. Moscow has obviously shared some of its technological innovations with its strategic partner, allowing Beijing to also have hypersonic weapons together with ABM systems like the Russian S-400.

    No JCPOA? Here Comes Nuclear Iran

    In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S. aggression.

    While this suggestion of mine may not correspond with the intentions of leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the protection North Korea enjoys from U.S. aggression as a result of its deterrence capacity may oblige the Iranian leadership to carefully consider the pros and cons of following suit, perhaps choosing to adopt the Israeli stance of nuclear ambiguity or nuclear opacity, where the possession of nuclear weapons is neither confirmed nor denied. While a world free of nuclear weapons would be ideal, their deterrence value cannot be denied, as North Korea's experience attests.

    While Iran does not want war, any pursuit of a nuclear arsenal may guarantee a conflagration in the Middle East. But I have long maintained that the risk of a nuclear war (once nuclear weapons have been acquired) does not exist , with them having a stabilizing rather than destabilizing effect, particularly in a multipolar environment.

    Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended. Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation.

    Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors.

    The death of Soleimani punctures the myth of the U.S. invincibility

    I wrote a couple of articles in the wake of General Soleimani's death that examined the incident and then considered the profound ramifications of the event in the region.

    What seems evident is that Washington appears incapable of appreciating the consequences of its reckless actions. Killing Soleimani was bound to invite an Iranian response; and even if we assume that Trump was not looking for war (I explained why some months ago), it was obvious to any observer that there would be a response from Iran to the U.S.'s terrorist actions.

    The response came a few nights later where, for the first time since the Second World War, a U.S. military base was subjected to a rain of missiles (22 missiles each with a 700kg payload). Tehran thereby showed that it possessed the necessary technical, operational and strategic means to obliterate thousands of U.S. and allied personnel within the space of a few minutes if it so wished, with the U.S. would be powerless to stop it.

    U.S. Patriot air-defense systems yet again failed to do their job, reprising their failure to defend Saudi oil and gas facilities against a missile attack conducted by Houthis a few months ago.

    We thus have confirmation, within the space of a few months, of the inability of the U.S. to protect its troops or allies from Houthi, Hezbollah and Iranian missiles. Trump and his generals would have been reluctant to respond to the Iranian missile attack knowing that any Iranian response would bring about uncontrollable regional conflagration that would devastate U.S. bases as well as oil infrastructure and such cities of U.S. allies as Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dubai.

    After demonstrating to the world that U.S. allies in the region are defenseless against missile attacks from even the likes of the Houthis, Iran drove home the point by conducting surgical strikes on two U.S. bases that only highlights the disconnect between the perception of U.S. military invincibility and the reality that would come in the form of a multilayered missile conflict.

    Conclusion

    Washington's diplomatic and military decisions in recent years have only brought about a world world that is more hostile to Washington and less inclined to accept its diktats, often being driven instead to acquire the military means to counter Washington's bullying. Even as the U.S. remains the paramount military power, its ineptitude has resulted in Russia and China surpassing it in some critical areas, such that the U.S. has no chance of defending itself against a nuclear second strike, with even Iran having the means to successfully retaliate against the U.S. in the region.

    As I continue to say, Washington's power largely rests on perception management helped by the make-believe world of Hollywood. The recent missile attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabia's oil facilities and the Iranian missile attack a few days ago on U.S. military bases in Iraq (none of which were intercepted) are like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal Washington's military vulnerability. No amount of entreaties by Washington to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain will help.

    The more aggressive the U.S. becomes, the more it reveals its tactical, operational and strategic limits, which in turn only serves to accelerate its loss of hegemony.

    If the U.S. could deliver a nuclear first strike without having to worry about a retaliatory second strike thanks to its ABM systems, then its quest for perpetual unipolarity could possibly be realistic. But Washington's peer competitors have shown that they have the means to defend themselves against a nuclear first strike by being able to deliver an unstoppable second strike, thereby communicating that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is here to stay. With that, Washington's efforts to maintain its status as uncontested global hegemon are futile.

    In a region vital to U.S. interests , Washington does not have the operational capacity to stand in the way of Syria's liberation. When it has attempted to directly impose its will militarily, it has seen as many as 80% of its cruise missiles knocked down or deflected , once again highlighting the divergence between Washington's Hollywood propaganda and the harsh military reality.

    The actions of George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only served to inadvertently accelerate the world's transition away from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. As Trump follows in the steps of his predecessors by being aggressive towards Iran, he only serves to weaken the U.S. global position and strengthen that of his opponents.


    Big Sky Country , 1 hour ago link

    Up to the election of our current President, I agree that we were bullying for the personal gain of a few and our military was being used as a mercenary force. The current administration is working on getting us out of long term conflicts. What do you think "drain the swamp" means? It is a huge undertaking and need to understand what the "deep state" is all about and their goals.

    The death of Soleimani was needed and made the world a safer place. Dr. Janda / Freedom Operation has had several very intriguing presentations on this issue. It is my firm belief that there is a worldwide coalition to make the world a better and safer place. If you want to know about the "deep state" try watching: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU

    Roacheforque , 2 hours ago link

    All mostly true, but the constant drone of this type of article gets old, as the comments below attest. We really don't need more forensic analysis by the SCF, what we need is an answer to America's dollar Imperialism problem. But we'll never get it, just as England never got an answer to it's pound Imperialism problem.

    I like Tulsi Gabbard, but she can never truly reveal the magnitude of the dollar Imperialism behind her "stop these endless wars" sloganism. Besides, she doesn't have the billions required to mount any real successful campaign. Only billionaires like Bloomberg need apply these days.

    The Truth is that NO ONE will stand up to Wall Street and it's system of global dollar corporatism (from which Bloomberg acquired his billions, and to which the USG is bound). It's suicide to speak the truth to the masses. The dollar must die of its own disease.

    Trump is America's Chemo. The cure nearly as bad as the cancer, but the makers of it have a vested interest in its acceptance.

    messystateofaffairs , 3 hours ago link

    General Bonespur murders a genuine military man from the comfort of his golf course. America is still dangerous, Pinky might be tired but the (((Brain))) is working feverishly on solutions for the jaded .

    msamour , 2 hours ago link

    There has been a perception in the last 25 years that the US could win a nuclear war. This perception is extremely dangerous as it invites the US armed forces to commit atrocities and think they can get away with it (they are for now). The world opinion has turned, but the citizens of the United States of America are not listening.

    If the US keeps going down the path they are currently on, they are ensuring that war will eventually reach its coast.

    Jazzman , 4 hours ago link

    To challenge the US Empire the new Multipolar World is focused on a two-pronged strategy:

    1. Nullifying the US nuclear first strike (at will) as part of the current US military doctrine - accomplished (for a decade maybe).
    2. Outmaneuvering the US petrodollar in trade, the tool to control the global fossil fuel resources on the planet - in progress.

    What makes 2.) decisive is that the petrodollar as reserve currency is the key to recycle the US federal budget deficit via foreign investment in U.S. Treasury Bonds (IOUs) by the central banks, thus enabling the global military presence and power projection of the US military empire.

    rtb61 , 4 hours ago link

    All their little plots and schemes failed, as corrupt arsehole after corrupt arsehole stole the funding from those plots and schemes to fill their own pockets. They also put the most corrupt individuals they could find into power, so as much as possible could be stolen and voila, everywhere they went, everything collapsed, every single time.

    Totally and utterly ludicrous decades, of not punishing failure after failure has resulted in nothing but more failure, like, surprise, surprise, surprise.

    Routine failures have forced other nation to go multipolar or just rush straight to global economic collapse as a result of out of control US corruption. Russia and China did not outsmart the USA, the USA did it entirely to itself by not prosecuting corruption at high levels, even when it failed time and time again, focusing more on how much they could steal, then on bringing what ever plot or scheme to a successful conclusion.

    Falcon49 , 4 hours ago link

    The use of the terms "Unintended Consequences", shortsightedness, mistakes, stupidity, or ignorance provides the avenue to transfer or divert the blame. It excuses it away as bad decisions so that the truth and those responsible are never really exposed and held accountable. The fact is, these actions were not mistakes or acts of shortsightedness...they were deliberate and planned and the so-called "unintended consequences" were actually intended and part of their plan. Looking back and linking the elites favorite process to drive change (problem, reaction, solution)...one can quickly make the connection to many of the so-called "unintended consequences" as they are very predictable results their actions. It becomes very clear that much of what has occurred over the last few decades has been deliberate with planned/intended outcomes.

    mike_1010 , 6 hours ago link

    I think the biggest advantage USA used to have was that they claimed to stand for Freedom and Democracy. And for a time, many people believed them. That's partly why the USSR fell apart, and for a time USA had a lot of goodwill among ordinary Russians.

    But US political leaders squandered this goodwill when they used NATO to attack Yugoslavia against Russia's objections and expanded NATO towards Russia's borders. This has been long forgotten in USA. But many ordinary Russians still seethe about these events. This was the turning point for them that motivated them to support Putin and his rebuilding of Russia's military.

    When you have goodwill among your potential competitors, then they don't have much motivation to increase their capabilities against you. This was the situation USA was in after the USSR fell apart. But USA squandered all of this goodwill and motivated the Russians to do what they did.

    And now, USA under Trump has done something like this with China. USA used to have a lot of goodwill among the ordinary Chinese. But now this is gone as a result of US tariffs, sanctions, and its support for separatism in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Now, the Chinese will be as motivated as the Russians to do their best at promoting their interests at the expense of USA. And together with Russia, they have enough people and enough natural resources to do more than well against USA and its allies.

    I think USA could've maintained a lot more influence around the world through goodwill with ordinary people, than through sanctions, threats, and military attacks. If USA had left Iraq under Saddam Hussein alone, then Iran wouldn't have had much influence in there. And if USA had left Iran alone, then the young people there might've already rebelled against their strict Islamic rule and made their government more friendly with USA.

    Doing nothing, except business and trade, would've left USA in a much better position, than the one USA is in now.

    Now USA is bankrupting itself with unsustainable military spending and still falling behind its competitors. USA might still have the biggest economy in the world in US Dollar terms. But this doesn't take into account the cost of living and purchasing parity. With purchasing parity taken into account, China now has a bigger economy than that of USA. Because internally, they can manufacture and buy a lot more for the same amount of money than USA can. A lot of US military spending is on salaries, pensions, and healthcare of its personnel. While such costs in Russia and China are comparatively small. They are spending most of their money on improving and building their military technology. That's why in the long run, USA will probably fall behind even more.

    abodasho , 4 hours ago link

    The Anglos in the U.S. are not from there and are imposters who are claiming characteristics and a culture that doesn't belong to them. They're using it as a way to hide from scrutiny, so you blame "Americans", when its really them. That's why there's such a huge disconnect between stated values and actions. The values belong to another group of people, TRUE Americans, while the actions belong to Anglos, who have a history of aggressive and forced, irrational violence upon innocents.

    mike_1010 , 3 hours ago link

    It's true that ordinary people are often different from their government, including in Russia, in China, in Iran, in USA, and even in Nazi Germany in the past.

    But the people in such a situation are usually powerless and unable to influence their government. So, their difference is irrelevant in the way their government behaves and alienates people around the world.

    USA is nominally a democracy, where the government is controlled by the people. But in reality, the people are only a ceremonial figurehead, and the real power is a small minority of rich companies and individuals, who fund election campaigns of politicians.

    That's why for example most Americans want to have universal healthcare, just like all other developed countries have. But most elected politicians from both major parties won't even consider this idea, because their financial donors are against it. And if the people are powerless even within their own country, then outside with foreigners, they have even less influence.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

    MalteseFalcon , 2 hours ago link

    The USA completely squandered their "soft" power.

    nuerocaster , 7 hours ago link

    Anyone interested in the real story?

    1. Nation Building? It worked with Germany and Japan, rinse and repeat. So what if it's comparing apples to antimatter?

    2. US won the Cold War? So make the same types of moves made during Reagan adm? The real reason the Soviet Empire collapsed was because it was a money losing empire while the US was a money making empire. Just review the money pits they invested in.

    3. Corruption? That was your grandfather's time. The US has been restructured. Crime Syndicate and Feudal templates are the closest. Stagnation and decline economically and technologically are inevitable.

    4. Evaluating the competition is problematic. However perhaps the most backward and regressive elements in this society are branding themselves as progressive and getting away with it. That can't work.

    [Jan 22, 2020] The plans to nuke USSR were being drawn prior to the Trinity test. Levine's essay buttresses this quite well, though essentially in background

    Jan 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Walter , Jan 22 2020 14:30 utc | 100

    William Gruff | Jan 22 2020 13:48 utc | 98

    That's right. I used to know the guys at Gannet in a major US city. Nice people, but not technically aware, and politically-philosophically innocent. Naifs. Put on nice parties where they chatted about their pasts in foreign places entirely unaware of the objective and obvious exploitation going on right before their eyes.

    I might add that the engineering students dread, as a rule, English 1-A, and do, generally, quite poorly. (My wife used to teach that class)

    The result is a nice antipodal bar-bell shaped arrangement whereby neither group sees reality, but only a simulacrum of one part or another.

    In this regard, Yasha Levine > " Weaponizing Fascism for Democracy: The Beginning " Begins in the DP camps...

    I've said before that the plans to nuke USSR were being drawn prior to the Trinity test. Levine's essay buttresses this quite well, though essentially in background...he says nothing about the bomb. He doen't have to...

    [Jan 21, 2020] Russian Hackers May Have Interfered With Vote on Church Potluck, Local Man Suspects

    Dec 23, 2019 | www.anti-empire.com

    Putin “needs to keep his commie hands” off of the sovereign Independent Baptist church’s affairs

    According to sources, local man Clarence Williams has urged his church’s lead pastor as well as local law enforcement to move forward with an investigation into Russian hacking, claiming that there was ample evidence to support the theory that malicious foreign agents infiltrated and influenced the outcome of a vote on the date for next month’s potluck at Second Baptist Church.

    ... ... ...

    The Babylon Bee 23 Dec 19 Society 625 0

    [Jan 21, 2020] BBC faces existential threat. In the 21st century, it has nobody left to lie to -- RT Op-ed

    Jan 21, 2020 | www.rt.com

    George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator.

    Whoever replaces outgoing BBC Director General Tony Hall, be sure that establishment interests will be in safe hands. But multiple scandals the broadcaster has been involved in damaged it quite possibly beyond repair.

    ... ... ...

    Corbyn had to be destroyed at almost ANY cost. Their news and current affairs output (and appointments) over the Corbyn era of 2015-2019 was as crude, and crudely effective, as any screaming, screeching Rupert Murdoch tabloid. Perhaps they were worried the ghost of Sir Alasdair Milne would return to haunt them in the form of his son Seumas Milne, Corbyn's director of communications and strategy and right-hand man. The junior Milne – also Winchester and Oxford – is a considerably harder nut to crack than anyone the BBC had ever had to deal with before

    [Jan 21, 2020] HBO hires 'king of fake news' Brian Stelter from CNN to produce documentary on the dangers of fake news

    Notable quotes:
    "... "disinformation and the cost of fake news." ..."
    "... "how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information environment," ..."
    "... To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote. ..."
    "... "HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention [Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," ..."
    Jan 21, 2020 | www.rt.com

    If you were making a documentary on fake news and wanted to get journalists involved behind the scenes, there are a few people you may want to avoid. One of those is CNN host Brian Stelter. The HBO network is rightly being mocked for putting Stelter – the host of a CNN show ironically named 'Reliable Sources' – on the team for an upcoming documentary on fake news.

    According to Stelter himself, the documentary will investigate "disinformation and the cost of fake news." The film, for which Stelter was executive producer, will dive into "how post-truth culture has become an increasingly dangerous part of the global information environment," according to WarnerMedia.

    HBO just announced something I've been working on for a couple of years: A documentary titled "AFTER TRUTH: DISINFORMATION AND THE COST OF FAKE NEWS." The film will premiere on TV and online this March. Directed by @a_rossi !

    -- Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 15, 2020

    To say Stelter's involvement in the documentary attracted mockery online would be an understatement. "This is like Harvey Weinstein doing a documentary on sexual assault," lawyer and journalist Rogan O'Handley wrote.

    "HBO has hired Brian Stelter to do a documentary on Fake News. That's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach accounting. Like hiring Michael Moore to host a fashion show. Not to mention [Stelter] is the dullest human ever on television," radio host Mark Simone added.

    [Jan 21, 2020] Putin Eliminates the Medvedev Faction From the Kremlin

    Jan 21, 2020 | www.anti-empire.com

    Putin Eliminates the Medvedev Faction From the Kremlin Putin's reorganization a huge setback for system liberals John Helmer 17 Jan 20 17 Jan 20 Politics 2051 9

    In law courts, justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. In politics, too.

    The problem with what President Vladimir Putin announced in his Federal Assembly address this week, and what he did immediately after, is that things don't look the way he says they should.

    The difference was written on Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's face. He thinks Putin has destroyed the political forces of the candidate with the best chance of winning the presidential election of 2024 -- himself. The businessmen and government officials who have depended on Medvedev are acknowledging this realization on the telephone.

    An hour after this picture was taken, at a meeting with Putin of the assembled ministers at Government House (Kremlin term for White House), Medvedev announced : "as the Government of the Russian Federation we must give the President of this country an opportunity to make all the necessary decisions for this. Under the circumstances, it would be correct for the entire Government of the Russian Federation to resign in accordance with Article 117 of the Constitution."

    He looked and sounded unconvinced that his exit was "correct".

    The constitutional provision to which Medvedev referred is a notorious relic. Article 117 was created by President Boris Yeltsin after he used the military to crush parliament's opposition in October 1993. Several hundred people inside the White House were killed.

    The new constitution was voted two months later by the disputable margin of 58% in a disputable turnout of 54%. Article 117 then gave the president the power to block a prime minister's resignation ; veto a vote of no-confidence in the government by the State Duma; and the power to decide whether and when to dissolve parliament and hold new elections.

    In Putin's speech on Wednesday, he began his proposals for a constitutional amendment with the announcement: "We have overcome the situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans." Usurpation of power by Yeltsin at the expense of the Congress of People's Deputies in 1993 was not explained then, nor since, by the operations of the oligarchs. They came later. In Russian public opinion, the oligarchs continue to be extra-constitutionally powerful today. The polls show Putin's claim is not believed.

    The proposals Putin has announced change the balance of power between the presidency and the parliament. But they also change the balance of power between the houses of parliament, and also between the central power in Moscow and the regions. The State Duma, according to Putin, will have the new power to appoint "the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the Prime Minister's recommendation. At the same time the President will have to appoint them, so he will have no right to turn down the candidates approved by the Parliament." This implies the State Duma will be able to exercise a veto over ministers' performance with votes of no-confidence the president cannot override. This is not yet certain.

    Also unclear is who would prevail if the president decides to dismiss the government which holds the confidence of parliament. Putin said he proposes to keep "the right to dismiss the prime minister, his deputies and federal ministers in case of improper execution of duties or due to loss of trust." The constitution is silent on the terms, improper execution and loss of trust. They are powder the president aims to keep dry for himself.

    The Kremlin has immediately convened what it calls a "working group on drafting proposals for amendments to the Constitution". No elected constitutional convention; no constitutional assembly provided for in Chapter 9 of the present charter; no principle of representation; no decision or voting rules for the novel body. It was hand-picked by the President's staff -- "75 politicians, legislators, scholars and public figures". The Kremlin has published photographs, but no list of the names yet.

    The oligarch class, as Putin calls them, is represented by Alexander Shokhin (centre picture above, left); the working class – to whom no one refers – is represented by the man seated by the Kremlin next to Shokhin, Mikhail Shmakov, head of the trade union federation.

    Noone in uniform is seated at the Kremlin table. The military appears to have one seat; that's occupied by retired Army General Boris Gromov (above right), 76, now titled "Chairman of the Brothers in Arms National Veteran Public Organisation". Gromov's political career after the Army rules him out as representing the General Staff or the Defence Ministry.

    Putin's proposals create a fork in the balance of power by assigning domestic policy-making, including the budget, to the parliament's appointees to government; while reserving defence, military, and security powers, and their budgets, to the executive. "The president also exercises direct command over the Armed Forces and the entire law enforcement system. In this regard, I believe another step is necessary to provide a greater balance between the branches of power. In this connection, point six: I propose that the president should appoint heads of all security agencies following consultations with the Federation Council."

    This preserves the imbalance – Putin's terminology -- let's say concentration of policy-making and enforcement powers in the Kremlin; it also guards the incumbent president during the transition between now and 2024, as well as afterwards. "I believe," said Putin, "this approach will make the work of security and law enforcement agencies more transparent and accountable to citizens." The Russian public opinion polls are very sceptical.

    The first test of what this step will mean in practice will be the names of the new ministers of defence, internal affairs, foreign affairs, the Federal Security Service, the intelligence agencies, and the two state law enforcement organs, the Prosecutor-General and the Investigative Committee. In the small print of Putin's speech, he proposes to centralize authority even more than the present by reducing the power of regional authorities to control their prosecutors. "I am confident that a greater independence of prosecution agencies from local authorities would be beneficial for citizens regardless of the region," Putin said. Public distrust of both federal and regional prosecutors, recorded in the polls, suggests otherwise.

    The Putin scheme also creates a competing source of legislative power by expanding the State Council , hitherto a talking shop; and by expanding the powers of the Constitutional Court to rule, on the Kremlin's application, against parliament, as well as against regional governors and regional parliaments.

    The State Council in its last Kremlin session, December 26, 2019. In his speech on Wednesday Putin proposed to "cardinally increase the role of governors in decision-making at the federal level . As you know, back in 2000 the State Council was restored at my initiative, where the heads of all regions participate. Over the past period the State Council has proven its high effectiveness; its working groups provide for the professional, comprehensive and qualified examination of issues that are most important for people and Russia. I believe it would be appropriate to fix the status and role of the State Council in the Russian Constitution." On Thursday he ignored the State Council by appointing a different group to consider the constitutional amendments. No Russian commentator has published the question, why

    In theory, Putin is creating more checks and balances than have existed before . Differences of view and interest between experts, parties, factions, the military, and classes – Putin's term – are inevitable and natural. The vote to adopt the proposals will, however, be an all-or-nothing one. "I believe it necessary to hold a vote of Russian citizens on the entire package of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The final decision must be made only on the basis of its results," the president concluded in his speech.

    This looks like a referendum, but Article 136 of the current Constitution is ambiguous. The 2008 amendments to the Constitution were adopted , not by referendum but by votes of the State Duma and the Federation Council. There has been no referendum under the present constitution.

    How much of the proposed scheme is a fine distinction of powers without a change in their division? Putin told Medvedev at the meeting with the outgoing ministers:

    "There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues, and there is a Government block of issues, even though the President, of course, is responsible for everything, but the presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence and the like. Mr Medvedev has always been in charge of these matters. From the point of view of increasing our defence capability and security, I consider it possible and have asked him to deal with these matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near future, introduce the position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council. As you are aware, the President is its Chairman. If we need to amend the applicable law, I will do so soon and I want State Duma deputies to support this as well. We just need the lawyers to provide assessments on this account."

    Sources in Russian business and government interpret Medvedev's new job as a gold-plated watch -- consolation prize for losing the presidential succession race. Sources are unanimous in judging what has happened to be the liquidation of the Medvedev faction.

    Politically, the rationale is obvious. Public disapproval of the government's performance, and the stress which the ongoing US war is inflicting on Russia's domestic growth, have been showing a consistent trend.

    It is equally clear that the Medvedev faction, and also the pro-American supporters behind Alexei Kudrin at the Accounting Chamber, German Gref at Sberbank, and Anatoly Chubais at the state high-technology conglomerate Rusnano, are the short-term losers of the reorganisation Putin has proposed. The short-term gainers are not so obvious. Sources among them ask why the Kremlin staff calculated that a renovation of the government ministers should be dressed up as a constitutional reform.

    These sources suggest that on the sincerity test, Putin's proposals will not be believed for what he says they are. They add they are encouraged, also hopeful, that he is acting now to restrict the damage that faction-fighting over the succession can do over the next three years. Liquidating one of the factions has been an option advocated by many for some time. On the other hand, the sources point out that if Putin were sincere in his commitment to enhanced power-sharing with the parliamentary political parties, why sack the present prime minister now, and not wait for the State Duma to vote its approval for the new man under the new rules? This is a question which answers itself, most Russians think.

    By the war test -- how the proposals will affect the regime-change strategy of the US and NATO – the combination of constitutional plans and the replacement of Medvedev by Mikhail Mishustin (lead image, in car next to Putin) is judged to be no gain, no concession to the other side. Not yet.

    That leaves the poll test. To choose Mishustin to become the prime minister is the biggest surprise of the week , and a curious selection to win public approval. If Gogol were to use the name, he would be tagging its possessor with something like the caricature, "busy baker", since to the Russian ear, the roots of the word suggest someone who makes his living mixing things, like a baker; and who is visibly busy at that work. Mishustin himself likes to identify his recreation as ice-hockey. On the rink he plays forward and back, but not goalie.

    Left: Mikhail Mishustin makes his nomination speech at the State Duma, his debut as a national political figure. Watch the speech , which was read from a paper script and lacked direct eye or any other personal contact with the deputies. They responded to the speech with brief, tepid applause. Right: Mishustin in his hockey uniform

    The Russian biographic record for Mishustin, records his long technocratic training in computer science and economics; his PhD was on tax administration. He first started in state tax agency in 1998.

    A 53-year old native of Moscow, Mishustin is reported to be part-Armenian by origin ; his Soviet birth certificate may indicate that at birth one of his parents held Armenian nationality. If so, he would automatically hold Armenian citizenship . According to Putin's constitutional proposals, the prime minister and other senior officials may "have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other document that allows them to live permanently in a foreign state."

    A protégé of Boris Fyodorov in the Yeltsin-era finance administration, Mishustin spent a brief period, 2008-2010, working in the Moscow investment banking business of UFG Partners, first established by Fyodorov. By the time Mishustin arrived, the company was owned by Deutsche Bank and run by Charles Ryan, an American; Fyodorov died of a stroke a few months into Mishustin's term at UFG. In April 2010, Mishustin returned to run the tax agency, and he has remained there for a decade. Tax evasion and embezzlement of value added tax (VAT) fill the kompromat records which have been published about Mishustin over this period.

    Mishustin told the State Duma yesterday he is in favour of reducing the regulatory burden on Russian business. The Communist Party faction announced it would abstain from voting to confirm the prime minister because it was impossible to know what policies he stands for. Suspicion that Mishustin will try to cut social welfare benefits is widespread. The confirmation vote was 383 in favour; 41 abstentions; no one opposed. For the record of the Duma vote, read this .

    One oligarch vote of confidence in Mishustin has been announced. Vladimir Lisin , head of the Novolipetsk steel and coal-mining group, told a Moscow newspaper: "We evaluate Mikhail Mishustin's work as head of the Federal Tax Service positively. Under his leadership, the service increased tax collection, virtually eliminated schemes used by unscrupulous businesses in competition, and reduced the number of on-site inspections several times by introducing a risk-based approach. Despite the fact that we had quite difficult debates, we always found a common
    civilized solution."

    Mishustin has appeared only once before this week in Putin's Kremlin office. That was on November 21, 2016, Tax Workers' Day. In their meeting Mishustin's recital of his agency's performance was unexceptional. Putin said nothing out of the ordinary. In the Russian photo archive for Mishustin, not one picture shows a smile on his face. A reluctant grin he managed for his last birthday, March 3, 2019, according to the Russian Ice Hockey Federation.

    Putin has selected factotums before, men whose technical expertise was their asset, along with their lack of political constituency and electoral ambition. Mikhail Fradkov was the first, between 2004 and 2008; Victor Zubkov the second, between 2007 and 2008. When Putin appointed them, they made no changes to the power ministries. Mishustin is the third in this line. If he announces the end of the long terms in office of Sergei Shoigu and Sergei Lavrov, and General Valery Gerasimov is replaced at the General Staff, then Putin is deciding much more than he has admitted so far.

    Source: Dances With Bears

    [Jan 21, 2020] The Middle East Strategic "Balance" Shredded -- Strategic Culture

    Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    The U.S. was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until, that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week (Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).

    Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.

    And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq. He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of war.

    This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people. It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq (and therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.

    Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen consequences soon may come home to roost.

    Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?

    Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no U.S. embassy siege 'on my watch' – unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.

    Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but much to gain.

    Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his continued tenure of the premiership.

    One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the U.S. will back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the U.S. elections? We do not know.

    So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the U.S. cross another 'red line' by striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?

    Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as "Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.

    These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct experience).

    But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be outraged by the U.S. attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?

    But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real U.S. channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?

    [Jan 21, 2020] The Many Matryoska Dolls to America's Way of Imagining Iran -- Strategic Culture

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Open Society and its Enemies ..."
    "... "Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption ..."
    "... "The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption. ..."
    "... "Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak. ..."
    "... "Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo. ..."
    "... In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis. ..."
    "... Coping with Crumbling States ..."
    "... Clean Break ..."
    Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    lastair Crooke January 20, 2020 © Photo: Flickr / DonkeyHotey On the 17 September 1656, Oliver Cromwell, a Protestant Puritan, who had won a civil war, and had the English king beheaded in public, railed against England's enemies. There was, he told Parliament that day, an axis of evil abroad in the world. And this axis – led by Catholic Spain – was, at root, the problem of a people that had placed themselves at the service of 'evil'. This 'evil', and the servitude that it beget, was the evil of a religion – Catholicism – that refused the English peoples' desire for simple liberties: " [an evil] that put men under restraint under which there was no freedom and under which, there could be 'no liberty of individual consciousness'".

    That was how the English protestant leader saw Catholic Spain in 1656. And it is very close to how key orientations in the U.S. sees Iran today : The evil of religion – of Shi'ism – subjecting (they believe) Iranians to repression, and to serfdom. In Europe, this ideological struggle against the 'evil' of an imposed religious community (the Holy 'Roman' Axis, then) brought Europe to 'near-Armageddon', with the worst affected parts of Europe seeing their population decimated by up to 60% during the conflict.

    Is this faction in the U.S. now intent on invoking a new, near-Armageddon – on this occasion, in the Middle East – in order, like Cromwell, to destroy the religious 'community known' as the Shi'a Resistance Axis, seen to stretch across the region, in order to preserve the Jewish "peoples' desire for simple liberties"?

    Of course, today's leaders of this ideological faction are no longer Puritan Protestants (though the Christian Evangelicals are at one with Cromwell's 'Old Testament' literalism and prophesy). No, its lead ideologues are the neo-conservatives, who have leveraged Karl Popper's hugely influential The Open Society and its Enemies – a seminal treatise, which to a large extent, has shaped how many Americans imagine their 'world'. Popper's was history understood as a series of attempts, by the forces of reaction, to smother an open society with the weapons of traditional religion and traditional culture:

    Marx and Russia were cast as the archetypal reactionary threat to open societies. This construct was taken up by Reagan, and re-connected to the Christian apocalyptic tradition (hence the neo-conservative coalition with Evangelists yearning for Redemption , and with liberal interventionists, yearning for a secular millenarianism). All concur that Iran is reactionary, and furthermore, the posit, poses a grave threat to Israel's self-proclaimed 'open society'.

    The point here is that there is little point in arguing with these people that Iran poses no threat to the U.S. (which is obvious) – for the 'project' is ideological through and through. It has to be understood by these lights. Popper's purpose was to propose that only liberal globalism would bring about a "growing measure of humane and enlightened life" and a free and open society – period.

    All this is but the outer Matryoshka – a suitable public rhetoric, a painted image – that can be used to encase the secret, inner dolls. Eli Lake, writing in Bloomberg , however, gives away the next doll:

    "Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption

    "The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption.

    "Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak.

    "Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo.

    In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis.

    So there it is – David Wurmser is the 'doll' within: no military invasion, but just a strategy to blow apart the Iranian Republic. Wurmser, Eli Lake reveals, has quietly been advising Bolton and the Trump Administration all along. This was the neo-con, who in 1996, compiled Coping with Crumbling States (which flowed on from the infamous Clean Break policy strategy paper, written for Netanyahu, as a blueprint for destructing Israel's enemies). Both these papers advocated the overthrow of the Secular-Arab nationalist states – excoriated both as "crumbling relics of the 'evil' USSR" (using Popperian language, of course) – and inherently hostile to Israel (the real message).

    Well ( big surprise ), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and destroy Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the Iranian leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's domestic legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and pretend that the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government.

    Eli Lake seems, in his Bloomberg piece, to think that the Wurmser strategy has worked. Really? The problem here is that narratives in Washington are so far apart from the reality that exists on the ground – they simply do not touch at any point. Millions attended Soleimani's cortege. His killing gave a renewed cohesion to Iran. Little more than a dribble have protested.

    Now let us unpack the next 'doll': Trump bought into Wurmser's 'play', albeit, with Trump subsequently admitting that he did the assassination under intense pressure from Republican Senators. Maybe he believed the patently absurd narrative that Iranians would 'be dancing in the street' at Soleimani's killing. In any event, Trump is not known, exactly, for admitting his mistakes. Rather, when something is portrayed as his error, the President adopts the full 'salesman' persona: trying to convince his base that the murder was no error, but a great strategic success – "They like us", Trump claimed of protestors in Iran.

    Tom Luongo has observed : "Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week, and it's clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate, simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place. It is [occurring because it offers] the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C. Swamp." Ah, so here we arrive at another inner Matryoshka.

    This is Luongo's point: Impeachment was the leverage to drive open a wedge between Republican neo-conservatives in the Senate – and Trump. And now the Pelosi pressure on Republican Senators is escalating . The Establishment threw cold water over Trump's assertion of imminent attack, as justification for murdering Soleimani, and Trump responds by painting himself further into a corner on Iran – by going the full salesman 'monte'.

    On the campaign trail, the President goes way over-the-top, calling Soleimani a "son of a b -- -", who killed 'thousands' and furthermore was responsible for every U.S. veteran who lost a limb in Iraq. And he then conjures up a fantasy picture of protesters pouring onto the streets of Tehran, tearing down images of Soleimani, and screaming abuse at the Iranian leadership.

    It is nonsense. There are no mass protests (there have been a few hundred students protesting at one main Tehran University). But Trump has dived in pretty deep, now threatening the Euro-Three signatories to the JCPOA, that unless they brand Iran as having defaulted on JCPOA at the UNSC disputes mechanism, he will slap an eye-watering 25% tariff on their automobiles.

    So, how will Trump avoid plunging in even deeper to conflict if – and when – Americans die in Iraq or Syria at the hands of militia – and when Pompeo or Lindsay Graham will claim, baldly, 'Iran's proxies did it'? Sending emollient faxes to the Swiss to pass to Tehran will not do. Tehran will not read them, or believe them, even if they did.

    It all reeks of stage-management; a set up: a very clever stage-management, designed to end with the U.S. crossing Iran's 'red line', by striking at a target within Iranian territory. Here, finally, we arrive at the innermost doll.

    Cui bono ? Some Senators who never liked Trump, and would prefer Pence as President; the Democrats, who would prefer to run their candidate against Pence in November, rather than Trump. But also, as someone who once worked with Wurmser observed tartly: when you hear that name (Wurmser), immediately you think Netanyahu, his intimate associate.

    Matryoshka herself?

    [Jan 21, 2020] Russia A Groundbreaking Powershift by Peter Koenig

    Jan 16, 2020 | dissidentvoice.org
    In groundbreaking news President Putin announced today, 15 January, in his annual address to the Nation, major changes in his government. First, he announced that Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and his entire cabinet resigned and will eventually be replaced by a new PM and a new cabinet. A timeline was not given. In the meantime, they would carry on with their functions as 'normal'. Well, how normal can this be for a group of "lame ducks"?

    A second important point of Mr. Putin's speech focused on shifting power away from the Presidency to the Duma, or Parliament. The Duma shall have more power in a better balancing act between the Presidency and the voice of the people; i.e., the Parliament. The possibility of referenda, with people voting, is also foreseen. A move towards more 'democracy'. Some interpret this as a reaction to western criticism of Russia being a dictatorial state and this move should alleviate Russia from this accusation. I don't think so. Western accusations are random, when it suits them, never based on facts, but on lies.

    For example, the change in government power foresees some changes in the Russian Constitution, but not a rewrite at all, as Mr. Putin stressed. The term-limitation of the Presidency should also not change, no more than two. It appears the "no more than two in a row" – should be amended, and the "in a row" deleted. That would mean, that President Putin would have to leave the Presidency definitely in 2024 when his current term is up. This may be one of those Constitutional areas to be confirmed by the Duma – or not.

    But could Mr. Putin become PM and still run Russia from behind the scene as he did from 2008 – 2012, under then President Dmitry Medvedev? This was not discussed.

    When PM Medvedev explained his resignation, he referred to Article 117 of the Russian Constitution, which states that the government can offer its resignation to the president, who, in turn, can either accept or reject it. Mr. Putin, of course, accepted it, thanking PM Medvedev and his Ministers for their good work and service to Russia. Although there was no visible hostility between Putin and Medvedev, this move has most likely been discussed and negotiated months ago.

    Mr. Medvedev was offered the post of Deputy Secretary of Russia's Security Council, a job that first had to be created, according to Mr. Putin. This rank is clearly a few steps down from Prime-Minister. PM Medvedev and President Putin are both members of the United Russia Party , but Medvedev has the reputation of being an Atlantist, meaning, leaning strongly towards the west, western political philosophy. The Russian financial sector is still infiltrated with Atlantists, some may call them Fifth Columnists.

    All the while seeking to improve relations with Europe – a logical step – President Putin is adamant to detach from the US-dollar dominated "sanction-prone" economy. And rightly so. Might this explain the departure of PM Medvedev? As of this morning, there was no mention of a favored replacement as PM. This may take a while. Seemingly no problem as all the key activities are still covered by the "caretaker" government. The entire change of government was presented as "relaxed", "no big deal", a natural process for improving the functioning of the Russian government. Yet, this has never happened in "modern" Russia, in the last 20 years, under Mr. Putin's leadership.

    Duma members interviewed saw it generally as a positive move. They will now have more power, and more responsibility. They will have a say in key appointments, including of the Prime-Minister and his cabinet, while the final decision rests still with the President.

    What is important to notice is that the present "democratization" of the Russian government comes at a time when Mr. Putin's public approval is still around 70%, a slight drop since his reelection in 2018 with 77%.

    The Duma, with its new powers, will be asked to look at some aspects of the Constitution (as of yet no details are officially defined) with a view of possibly modifying them. Given Mr. Putin's high popularity and Russia's economic and political stability, Russia's military superiority – despite the constant western interference, or attempted interferences – preserving that stability and continuous economic prosperity is important; i.e., continuity in the Presidency and the Government is crucial. Thus, wouldn't it be conceivable that the Duma might lift the term-limit for the Presidency altogether?

    Although, at this stage much of this is speculation. But assuming that some of the strategy behind this change – the "power equalizing move" – goes in this direction, then the timing is perfect. A new Decade, a new Era. And Putin remains the key player – the one who has made of Russia what she is today – a proud, independent, autonomous nation, that has despite all sanctions and western demonization not only prevailed, but come out on top brilliantly as a sovereign world super power. Why would the Russian people want to risk giving up this hard-deserved privilege?

    Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for independent media. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed - fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! - Essays from the Resistance . Read other articles by Peter .

    This article was posted on Thursday, January 16th, 2020 at 7:02am and is filed under President Vladimir Putin , Russia .

    [Jan 21, 2020] Bernie Sanders Walks Straight Into the Russiagate Trap

    Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Daniel Lazare January 20, 2020 © Photo: Wikimedia The New York Times caused a mini-commotion last week with a front-page story suggesting that Russian intelligence had hacked a Ukrainian energy firm known as Burisma Holdings in order to get dirt on Joe Biden and help Donald Trump win re-election.

    But the article was flimsy even by Russiagate standards, and so certain questions inevitably arise. What was it really about? Who's behind it? Who's the real target?

    Here's a quick answer. It was about boosting Joe Biden, and its real target was his chief rival, Bernie Sanders. And poor, inept Bernie walked straight into the trap.

    The article was flimsy because rather than saying straight out that Russian intelligence hacked Burisma, the company notorious for hiring Biden's son, Hunter, for $50,000 a month job, reporters Nicole Perlroth and Matthew Rosenberg had to rely on unnamed "security experts" to say it for them. While suggesting that the hackers were looking for dirt, they didn't quite say that as well. Instead, they admitted that "it is not yet clear what the hackers found, or precisely what they were searching for."

    So we have no idea what they were up to, if anything at all. But the Times then quoted "experts" to the effect that "the timing and scale of the attacks suggest that the Russians could be searching for potentially embarrassing material on the Bidens – the same kind of information that Mr. Trump wanted from Ukraine when he pressed for an investigation of the Bidens and Burisma, setting off a chain of events that led to his impeachment." Since Trump and the Russians are seeking the same information, they must be in cahoots, which is what Democrats have been saying from the moment Trump took office. Given the lack of evidence, this was meaningless as well.

    But then came the kicker: two full paragraphs in which a Biden campaign spokesman was permitted to expound on the notion that the Russians hacked Burisma because Biden is the candidate that they and Trump fear the most.

    "Donald Trump tried to coerce Ukraine into lying about Joe Biden and a major bipartisan, international anti-corruption victory because he recognized that he can't beat the vice president," the spokesman, Andrew Bates, said. "Now we know that Vladimir Putin also sees Joe Biden as a threat. Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections."

    If Biden is the number-one threat, then Sanders is not, presumably because the Times sees him as soft on Moscow. If so, it means that he could be in for the same neo-McCarthyism that antiwar candidate Tulsi Gabbard encountered last October when Hillary Clinton blasted her as "the favorite of the Russians." Gabbard had the good sense to blast her right back.

    "Thank you @Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know – it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine ."

    If only Sanders did the same. But instead he put out a statement filled with the usual anti-Russian clichés:

    "The 2020 election is likely to be the most consequential election in modern American history, and I am alarmed by new reports that Russia recently hacked into the Ukrainian gas company at the center of the impeachment trial, as well as Russia's plans to once again meddle in our elections and in our democracy. After our intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, including with thousands of paid ads on Facebook, the New York Times now reports that Russia likely represents the biggest threat of election meddle in 2020, including through disinformation campaigns, promoting hatred, hacking into voting systems, and by exploiting the political divisions sewn [sic] by Donald Trump ."

    And so on for another 250 words. Not only did the statement put him in bed with the intelligence agencies, but it makes him party to the big lie that the Kremlin was responsible for putting Trump over the top in 2016.

    Let's get one thing straight. Yes, Russian intelligence may have hacked the Democratic National Committee. But cybersecurity was so lax that others may have been rummaging about as well. (CrowdStrike, the company called in to investigate the hack, says it found not one but two cyber-intruders.) Notwithstanding the Mueller report, all the available evidence indicates that Russia did not then pass along thousands of DNC emails that Wikileaks published in July 2016. (Julian Assange's statement six months later that "our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party" remains uncontroverted.) Similarly, there's no evidence that the Kremlin had anything to do with the $45,000 worth of Facebook ads purchased by a St. Petersburg company known as the Internet Research Agency – Robert Mueller's 2018 indictment of the IRA was completely silent on the subject of a Kremlin connection – and no evidence that the ads, which were politically all over the map, had a remotely significant impact on the 2016 election.

    All the rest is a classic CIA disinformation campaign aimed at drumming up anti-Russian hysteria and delegitimizing anyone who fails to go along. And now Bernie Sanders is trying to cover his derrière by hopping on board.

    It won't work. Sanders will find himself having to take one loyalty oath after another as the anti-Russia campaign flares anew. But it will never be enough, and he'll only wind up looking tired and weak. Voters will opt for the supposedly more formidable Biden, who will end up as a bug splat on the windshield of Donald Trump's speeding election campaign. With impeachment no longer an issue, he'll be free to behave as dictatorially as he wishes as he settles into his second term.

    After inveighing against billionaire's wars, he'll find himself ensnared by the same billionaire war machine. The trouble with Sanders is that he thinks he can win by playing by the rules. But he can't because the rules are stacked against him. He'd know that if his outlook was more radical. His problem is not that he's too much of a socialist. Rather, it's that he's not enough.

    [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan

    Highly recommended!
    Money quote: "The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these fraudulent investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance."
    Notable quotes:
    "... For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others are tenaciously withholding evidence. ..."
    "... When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over 340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was incriminating. No rational person would believe that. ..."
    "... The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a defender of FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court. They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want. ..."
    "... Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, " there is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election ..."
    "... Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story. Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing. ..."
    Jan 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Bryce Buchanan via The Burning Platform blog,

    Many government officials with long entrenched power are unwilling to give up any of that power. In their minds, they have a right to control our lives as they see fit, with complete indifference to our wishes. To avoid rebellion, they need to hide this fact as much as possible. They want the citizens to believe the lie that we are a nation of laws with equal justice under the law. To advance this lie, they have staged many theatrical productions that they call "investigations". They try to give us the impression that they want to expose the facts and punish wrongdoing.

    Most of the big 'investigations' in the news in recent years have not been at all what they pretended to be. The sham investigations of Hillary's email, or the Clinton Foundation, or Weiner's laptop, or Uranium One, or Mueller's witch hunt, or Huber's big nothing, or the IG's whitewash, or the Schiff-Pelosi charades, have all been premeditated deceptions.

    There are three types of investigations that call for different deceptions by the Deep State.
    1. The first type is the rare honest investigation . Examples would be the attempt to find the truth about Fast and Furious (Obama's gunrunning operation), or the IRS scandal (Obama's weaponizing of government). In response to real investigations, the criminals do two things lie and hide evidence. Key evidence, even if it is under subpoena, just disappears. In the IRS case, Lois Lerner's relevant email and the email of 6 others involved in the scheme was just "lost". The IRS "worked tirelessly" to find the email, but hard drives had been destroyed and back-up drives were missing, so the subpoenaed evidence could not be provided.

      For the Deep State, hiding and destroying evidence of guilt is standard operating procedure. They simply report a "glitch" that destroyed the key evidence and that's the end of it. Or, they simply redact the portions of the record that would expose the truth. To my memory, no one ever suffers any consequences for this. Even now, Director Wray and others are tenaciously withholding evidence.

    2. The second type of 'investigation' is when the Deep State pretends to investigate the Deep State . In these 'investigations' the outcome is known in advance, but the script calls for pretending, sometimes for years, that it an honest investigation is underway.

      There was nothing about the Hillary investigations that had anything to do with finding facts. The purpose from the beginning was exoneration. Key witnesses were given immunity and many were allowed to attend each other's interviews. There were no early morning swat team raids to gather evidence. Evidence was destroyed with no consequences.

      When Anthony Weiner's laptop was found to contain over 340,000 Hillary emails in a file named "insurance", the FBI did not rejoice about finally getting the 'lost' email. No, they hid the discovery for weeks until a New York agent threatened to go public. Then, quite miraculously, Peter Strzok found a way to very quickly examine 340,000 messages and found that there was nothing at all that was incriminating. No rational person would believe that.

      The dirty cops are so comfortable about getting away with lies like this that Huber can announce that he found no corruption, when it is readily apparent that he did not interview key witnesses . He even turned away whistleblowers who wanted to submit evidence. A real investigator, Charles Ortel, could have given Huber a long list of Clinton Foundation crimes . Like the Weiner laptop fake investigation, you don't find crimes if you don't really look for them.

      The dirty cops are so confident in their ability to deceive the public that they just announced that the FISA court reforms will be managed by David Kris. Kris has been a defender of FBI misconduct and he attacked Devin Nunes for telling the truth about the FISA court. They don't even care about the appearance of fairness. They do what they want.

      IG investigations have proven to be flimsy exonerations of Deep State criminality. Any honest observer can see that there was a carefully organized plan by top officials to control the outcome of the Presidential election. This corrupt plan involved lying to the FISA court, illegal surveillance and unmasking of citizens and conspiring with media partners to make sure lies were widely circulated to voters. The government conspirators and the majority of the media were functioning as nothing more than a branch of Hillary's campaign. That's a lot of power aimed at destroying Trump.

      To an IG investigator, this monumental scandal was presented to us as nothing to be very concerned about. Yes, a few minor rules were inadvertently broken and there did appear to be some bias, but there was no reason at all to think that bias effected any actions. If the agencies involved make a training video and set aside a day for a training meeting, then that should satisfy us completely.

    3. The third type of investigation involves investigating an imaginary crime for political reasons . The Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation are two examples of this. Probably as a justification for illegal surveillance they were already doing, the conspirators pretended that there was powerful evidence that Trump was colluding with Putin to win the election. Lies about this issue propelled the country into 3 years of stories about nothing stories and investigations about something that never happened. Never in the history of nothing has nothing been so thoroughly covered.

      Because there was nothing, and because it was known from the start that, " there is no big there, there ", the Mueller Team used several irrelevant legal actions to prolong the belief that they were closing in on Trump. Mueller arranged for their media partner, CNN, to film the early morning swat team raid on 67 year old Roger Stone's home. It was very dramatic and very un-necessary. Also, some small-time Russian troll farms were indicted so that the word "Russia" could fill the news, prolonging the desired myth. One of the indicted firms did not even exist. The others did not appear to favor any one candidate and much of their activity was after the election .

      Mueller led a 40 million dollar investigation looking for a crime. That effort failed at finding any collusion, but it did play a role in the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives. That then enabled another investigation of an imaginary crime for political purposes. A scripted hearsay 'whistleblower' submitted lies that allowed Adam Schiff to continue his own campaign of lies. You know the rest of the story. Trump is being falsely charged for doing what Biden bragged about doing.

    The Deep State and the media appear to believe that we are fooled by these fraudulent investigations. We are not fooled. We are tired of the lies and the arrogance.

    We are increasingly angry that there is a double standard of justice in this country. There is a protected class of people who are not prosecuted for their crimes. This needs to end.


    insanelysane , 9 minutes ago link

    The sheeple are easily led including the opposition sheeple. Two quick examples:

    1. In the email scandal, Hillary was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, of violating the FOIA by conducting all State Department business via a personal email She was guilty. Yet her team, listen up sheeple, her team made it about whether or not classified information was transmitted. This is a gray area which could be defended. She knew she was guilty of the FOIA violation because it was the whole reason the server was set up in the first place. Yet she got away with it because everyone focused on the classifications of emails which was a gray area.

    2. In the Weiner / Abedin laptop matter, it is and was illegal for any of these emails to be on a personal computer. Again, guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet again everyone focused on what was in the emails and not the fact that just possessing the emails was illegal. So the FBI was able to say nothing new here and let it drop. If another group such as the US Marshals was in charge of this investigation, Weiner / Abedin would have been fully charged with possessing these emails. They would have been pressured to reveal why it was named Insurance and have been asked to cut a deal.

    DonGenaro , 10 minutes ago link

    Assange rots in jail, and Maxwell walks free, while Trump is busy pleasuring every Zionist in sight

    East Indian , 23 minutes ago link

    A comment in 'The Gateway Pundit':

    "Andy McCabe admits lying to the FBI and nothing happens. The FBI lies to Gen. Flynn and he faces jail time. Justice in Deep State America."

    - reader ricocat1

    hardmedicine , 38 minutes ago link

    his name was Seth Rich!

    hoffstetter , 40 minutes ago link

    The purpose of show trials is to fool those that don't pay attention. There are millions of US citizens that get their news from their neighbor or a narrow set of information that is disseminated by media that parrot their providers verbatim without challenge. Such people are quite regularly fooled and some vote.

    buckboy , 57 minutes ago link

    We, the People are free to bitch and moan.

    marlin2009 , 1 hour ago link

    The double standard justice system in America is appalling and even worse than communists. Americans really don’t have any credit to criticize communist countries. The ruling class is no better than them.

    The media and ruling classes have tried decades to brainwashed the mass to believe that the less or even not corrupted.

    Deep Snorkeler , 1 hour ago link

    Trump's Non-Crimes

    Trump University Fraud: Trump paid fine

    Trump Taj Mahal Casino Money Laundering: Trump paid fine

    Trump Foundation Fraud: Trump paid fine

    Trump Campaign Law Violations: pending

    Trump Obstruction:

    Trump Abuse of Power:

    Trump...

    Old Hippie Patriot , 1 hour ago link

    They could have never pulled off the JFK assassination had the internet existed back in 1963. Time for the Epstein *********** to be posted on the internet. Even the asleep would realize the unimaginable evil that has been controlling this world for millenia.

    HANGTHEOWL , 1 hour ago link

    I am not sure about that,,we have the net now,,and although there are many of us that pay attention and figure out their crimes and hoax's,,,,they still get away with them,,,,,,NASA still gets 59 million a day to fake the space program,,,

    monty42 , 1 hour ago link

    Why not? They pulled off 9/11. And what do we have? The same as with the JFK murder. People still arguing over how it was done, and ignoring the obvious, historically established now, of who benefited and why. Grassy knoll, 2nd shooter, or directed energy weapons or explosives, internet or not, still chasing the tail.

    HANGTHEOWL , 57 minutes ago link

    True, they murdered 3,000 of us on 9-11,,right on TV, using plainly obvious controlled demolitions, and to date they have still gotten away with it...

    [Jan 20, 2020] Important clarification about MadCow disease

    Jan 15, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    DC_rez , January 16, 2020 at 16:08

    Are you insinuating Rachel Maddow is a journalist?

    [Jan 19, 2020] Putin Proposes Changes to Constitution, Medvedev Resigns What's Going On Consortiumnews

    Jan 19, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    As I've discussed many times before, Russia was on the verge of being a failed state in 2000 when Putin took the helm. There were crises in every major area of state governance: the military was in shambles, the economy had collapsed, crime was rampant, massive poverty pervaded the country, and Russians were experiencing the worst mortality crisis since World War II.

    Putin's Three Priorities

    Having studied Putin's governance and how Russia has fared over the two decades in which he has ruled, it's clear that he's had three main priorities for Russia in the following order:

    Ensuring Russia's national security and sovereignty as an independent nation. In previous writings, I've explained the importance of national security to Russians as a result of their history and geography; Improving the economy and living standards for Russians; and, The gradual democratization of the country.

    These three priorities are reflected in this week's address to the Federal Assembly, the equivalent of the U.S. president's annual state of the union. Putin reiterated to his audience that the first priority of national security and state sovereignty had been secured:

    "For the first time ever – I want to emphasise this – for the first time in the history of nuclear missile weapons, including the Soviet period and modern times, we are not catching up with anyone, but, on the contrary, other leading states have yet to create the weapons that Russia already possesses.

    The country's defence capability is ensured for decades to come, but we cannot rest on our laurels and do nothing. We must keep moving forward, carefully observing and analysing the developments in this area across the world, and create next-generation combat systems and complexes. This is what we are doing today."

    Putin goes on to emphasize that success on this first priority enables Russia to focus even more seriously on the second priority:

    "Reliable security creates the basis for Russia's progressive and peaceful development and allows us to do much more to overcome the most pressing internal challenges, to focus on the economic and social growth of all our regions in the interest of the people, because Russia's greatness is inseparable from dignified life of its every citizen. I see this harmony of a strong power and well-being of the people as a foundation of our future."

    In light of the abysmal living conditions that Putin inherited in 2000, he did a remarkable job over the next decade of cutting poverty, improving infrastructure, restoring regular pension payments as well as increasing the amount, raising wages, etc. Russians, whether they agree with everything Putin does or not, no matter how frustrated they may get with him regarding particular issues, are generally grateful to him for this turnaround in their country. This progress on his second priority has underpinned his approval ratings, which have never dipped below the 60's.

    But his comments during his address reflected mixed success currently as economic conditions for Russians have stagnated over the past few years. One contributing factor has been the sanctions imposed by the West in response to Russia's reunification with Crimea as a result of the 2014 coup in Ukraine.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko climb the stairs in the House of Chimeras in Kyiv, Ukraine, en route to a working lunch following a bilateral meeting and news conference on July 7, 2016. (State Department)

    Putin has done a respectable job of cushioning the Russian economy from the worst effects of the sanctions and even using them to advantage with respect to import substitution in the agricultural and industrial sectors. However, polls of the population have consistently shown over the past two-to-three years that Russians are losing patience with the lack of improvement in living standards.

    Another problem that is limiting economic progress is the pattern of local bureaucrats not implementing Putin's edicts. For example, in his 2018 and 2019 addresses, Putin laid out an expensive plan for economic improvement based on infrastructure projects throughout the country as well as improving health and education. Budget allocations were made for these projects and the funds released, but many have only been partially realized. Confirming what has been reported in some quarters , Putin complained about the deficiencies in the roll-out of these policies during his address.

    I believe this is connected to the subsequent resignation of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev who will now step into the newly created role of deputy chairman of the Security Council, while his cabinet remains in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed.

    Medvedev has not been particularly effective as prime minister and has been very unpopular over the past several years as suspicions of corruption have swirled around him. He is also problematic ideologically as he has always embraced neoliberal economic policy which has no traction with most of the Russian people due to the experience of the 1990's when neoliberal capitalists ran amok. He also lacks the charisma and creative problem-solving skills of Putin.

    Dmitry Medvedev with Vladimir Putin in 2008. (Wikimedia Commons)

    But in all fairness, no prime minister will have an easy job in Russia if significant changes are needed or a transition is still in progress. Throughout Russia's history, whenever leaders wanted to reform the system, they've always encountered the problem of implementation in terms of the bureaucracy. Whether out of malevolence, fear of losing perceived benefits, inertia, or incompetence, bureaucrats lower down the chain don't always put the reforms effectively or consistently in place. Putin has complained at various times of local bureaucrats' intransigence and its negative effects on average citizens whom they are supposed to be serving.

    Mikhail Mishustin. (Wikimedia Commons)

    Not much is known about Medvedev's immediate replacement , Mikhail Mishustin , except that he is a former businessman and has served as head of Russia's Tax Service since 2010. In his capacity leading the tax agency, he is held in positive regard, credited with modernizing and streamlining the historically onerous tax collection system.

    The third priority of Putin has been gradual democratization of the country. Putin is often characterized in the west as an autocrat and a dictator. However, as I've written before, there are many democratic reforms that have been implemented under Putin's rule that are often ignored by Western media and analysts. It is not that democracy has not been a priority for Putin, it's that it was to be subordinated to the other two priorities. Putin, as well as many other Russians, have been nervous about possible instability. With their history of constant upheaval over the past 120 years – two revolutions, two world wars, numerous famines, the Great Terror, and a national collapse – this is understandable.

    Putin inherited a system of governance that featured a strong president and a weak parliamentary system as reflected in the 1993 constitution ushered in by Yeltsin – the origins of which are explained here . Putin has used this system effectively throughout his 20 years in power – 16 of them as president – to try to solve the various crises mentioned earlier. Such strong, centralized power is necessary when a state is dealing with multiple existential emergencies.

    At this point, I think Putin realizes that Russia, though it still has significant problems to be addressed, is no longer in a state of emergency. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to keep quite the same level of power concentrated in the office of the presidency, which is open to abuse by future occupants. Here is what Putin said about this:

    "Russian society is becoming more mature, responsible and demanding. Despite the differences in the ways to address their tasks, the main political forces speak from the position of patriotism and reflect the interests of their followers and voters."

    The constitutional reforms Putin goes on to discuss include giving the parliament the right to appoint the prime minister and his/her cabinet, no foreign citizenship or residency of major office holders at the federal level (president, prime minister, cabinet members, parliamentarians, national security agents, judges, etc.), expanding the authority of local governmental bodies, and strengthening the Constitutional Court and the independence of judges. He also mentioned codifying certain aspects of socioeconomic justice into the constitution:

    "And lastly, the state must honour its social responsibility under any conditions throughout the country. Therefore, I believe that the Constitution should include a provision that the minimum wage in Russia must not be below the subsistence minimum of the economically active people. We have a law on this, but we should formalise this requirement in the Constitution along with the principles of decent pensions, which implies a regular adjustment of pensions according to inflation."

    In other words, Putin realizes that the system as it is currently constructed has outlived its usefulness and some modest changes are needed to keep the country moving forward. Despite the constant nonsense that passes for news and analysis of Russia in the west, civil society is alive and well in Russia. Putin is aware of the citizen-led initiatives that have been occurring throughout the country to improve local communities and it appears that he is ready to allow more space for this new participation of average Russians to solve problems for which the official bureaucracy seems to be stuck:

    "Our society is clearly calling for change. People want development, and they strive to move forward in their careers and knowledge, in achieving prosperity, and they are ready to assume responsibility for specific work. Quite often, they have better knowledge of what, how and when should be changed where they live and work, that is, in cities, districts, villages and all across the nation.

    The pace of change must be expedited every year and produce tangible results in attaining worthy living standards that would be clearly perceived by the people. And, I repeat, they must be actively involved in this process."

    How these changes will actually be instituted and what the results will be is, of course, unknown at this time. Putin suggested that the eventual package of constitutional amendments will be voted on by the Russian people. It also appears that Putin will indeed step down at the end of his presidential term in 2024, but it is still very likely that he will remain in an active advisory role.

    Unlike the knee-jerk malign motives that are automatically attributed to anything Putin does by the western political class, I see this as a calculated risk that Putin is ready to take to make further progress on his second and third priorities for Russia.

    Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations." She is co-author of "Ukraine: Zbig's Grand Chessboard & How the West Was Checkmated." She has traveled throughout western Russia since 2015 and has written several articles based on her conversations and interviews with a cross-section of Russians. She blogs at natyliesbaldwin.com .

    This article is from natyliesbaldwin.com .

    Eddie S , January 19, 2020 at 17:03

    Good analysis/deep-background article! It's SO refreshing to read something about Russia here in the US press that isn't the simplistic 'Russia bad! US good! Anything else is Putin-stooge talk or what-about-ism'. I'm sure that the US & British MSM will attribute only evil motives by Putin for all of this and will somehow try to ascribe Russian world-domination designs to it, no-matter how much contortion and out-of-left-field fantasizing that requires, after all that's their job, they've had a lot of practice, and they get amply rewarded

    ranney , January 19, 2020 at 16:29

    Thank you Natalie ( and CN for publishing this); your explanations are extremely helpful . Also what a relief to finally read something that isn't filled with hate and false assumptions about Russia. When Rachel at MSNBC starts in on Putin I start to feel sick and I have to turn off the TV Her hatred is frightening.
    I hope we'll see more of your writing, Natalie.

    [Jan 19, 2020] Johnson was probably one of the architects of Skripal fake poisoning and now can't admit that this false flag operation failed

    Jan 19, 2020 | www.politico.eu

    https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-vladimir-putin-uk-russia-relations-still-poisoned/

    In a statement , No. 10 Downing Street said: "He was clear there had been no change in the U.K.'s position on Salisbury, which was a reckless use of chemical weapons and a brazen attempt to murder innocent people on U.K. soil. He said that such an attack must not be repeated."

    There was no immediate statement by the Kremlin, but Putin has rejected the British allegations as baseless and Russian officials repeatedly demanded that U.K. authorities come forward with hard evidence.

    In its statement, No. 10 portrayed Johnson as unbudging in his insistence that Russia end its extra-territorial mischief and said he had reiterated the two countries' responsibilities as world powers.

    "The Prime Minister said that they both had a responsibility to address issues of international security including Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran," the statement said. "The Prime Minister said there will be no normalization of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends the destabilizing activity that threatens the U.K. and our allies and undermines the safety of our citizens and our collective security."

    Johnson and Putin were in the German capital for an international conference aimed at achieving a cease-fire to end a long-running civil war in Libya.

    [Jan 19, 2020] Why Neocons Hate Russia Even More Than They Hate Any Other Nation

    Jan 19, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Eric Zuesse July 27, 2018 © Photo: Public domain

    Neoconservatism started in 1953 with Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the Democratic Party US Senator from the state of Washington (1953-1983), who became known as a 'defense' hawk, and as "the Senator from Boeing," because Boeing practically owned him. The UK's Henry Jackson Society was founded in 2005 in order to carry forward Senator Jackson's unwavering and passionate endorsement of growing the American empire so that the US-UK alliance will control the entire world (and US weapons-makers will dominate in every market).

    Later, during the 1990s, neoconservatism became taken over by the Mossad and the lobbyists for Israel and came to be publicly identified as a 'Jewish' ideology, despite its having -- and having long had -- many champions who were 'anti-communist' or 'pro-democracy' or simply even anti-Russian, but who were neither Jewish nor even focused at all on the Middle East. Republicans Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and John McCain; and the Democrat, CIA Director James Woolsey -- the latter of whom was one of the patrons of Britain's Henry Jackson Society -- were especially prominent neoconservatives, who came to prominence even before neocons became called "neoconservatives." What all neocons have always shared in common has been a visceral hatred of Russians. That comes above anything else -- and even above NATO (the main neocon organization).

    During recent decades, neocons have been hating Iranians and more generally Shiites -- such as in Syria and in Lebanon, and now also in Yemen -- and not only hating Russians.

    When the Israel lobby during the 1990s and after, pumped massive resources into getting the US Government to invade first Iraq and then Iran, neoconservatism got its name, but the ideology itself did not change. However, there are a few neoconservatives today who are too ignorant to know, in any coherent way, what their own underlying beliefs are, or why, and so who are anti-Russians (that's basic for any neocon) who either don't know or else don't particularly care that Iran and Shia Muslims generally, are allied with Russia. Neoconservatives such as this, are simply confused neocons, people whose underlying ideology is self-contradictory, because they've not carefully thought things through.

    An example is Vox's Alex Ward, who built his career as an anti-Russia propagandist , and whose recent ten-point tirade against Russia I then exposed as being false on each one of its ten points , each of those points having been based upon mere allegations by US neocons against Russia without any solid evidence whatsoever. Indictments, and other forms of accusations, are not evidence for anything. But a stupid 'journalist' accepts them as if they were evidence, if those accusations come from 'the right side' -- but not if they come from 'the wrong side'. They don't understand even such a simple distinction as that between an indictment, and a conviction. A conviction is at least a verdict (though maybe based on false 'evidence' and thus false itself), but all that an accusation is an accusation -- and all accusations (in the American legal system) are supposed to be disbelieved, unless and until there is at least a verdict that gives the accusation legal force. (This is called "innocent unless proven guilty.")

    Earlier, Mr. Ward had headlined as if he were an anti -neocon, when he posted his "America is fueling the war in Yemen. Congress is finally pushing back." What can account for that seemingly incongruous article?

    Mr. Ward is a Democrat -- an heir to Senator Jackson's allegedly anti-communist though actually anti-Russian ideology -- but, since Ward isn't as intelligent as the ideology's founder was, Ward becomes anti -neocon when a Republican-led Administration is doing things (such as Ward there criticizes) that are even more-neocon than today's Democratic Party itself is. In other words: 'journalists' (actually, propagandists) such as he, are more partisan in favor of support of Democratic Party billionaires against Republican Party billionaires, than in support of conquering Russia as opposed to cooperating with Russia (and with all other countries). They're unaware that all American billionaires support expansion of the US empire -- including over Yemen (to bring Yemen in, too -- which invasion Ward incongruously opposes). But politicians (unlike their financial backers) need to pretend not to be so bloodthirsty or so beholden to the military-industrial complex. Thus, an American doesn't need to be intelligent in order to build his or her career in 'journalism', on the basis of having previously served as a propagandist writing for non-profits that are mere fronts for NATO and for Israel, and which are fronts actually for America's weapons-manufacturing firms, who need those wars in order to grow their profits. Such PR for front-organizations for US firms such as Lockheed Martin, is excellent preparation for a successful career in American 'journalism'. If a person is stupid, then it's still necessary to be stupid in the right way, in order to succeed; and Ward is, and does.

    This, for example, is how it makes sense that Ward had previously been employed at the War on the Rocks website that organized the Republican neoconservative campaign against Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primaries : the mega-donors to both US Parties are united in favor of America conquering Russia. And that's why War on the Rocks had organized Republican neocons to oppose Trump: it was done in order to increase the chances for Trump's rabidly anti-Russia and pro-Israel competitors such as Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio to win that nomination instead, which would then have produced the billionaires' dream contest, between Hillary Clinton versus an equally neoconservative Republican nominee. A bipartisan neoconservatism controls both of the American political Parties. A 'journalist' who displays that sort of bipartisanship can't fail in America, no matter how incompetent at real journalism he or she might be. (However, they do have to be literate . Stupid, maybe; but literate, definitely.)

    The core of America's form of capitalism has come to be the US aristocracy's bipartisan, liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican, form of capitalism, which isn't merely fascist (which includes privatizing everything that can be privatized) but which is also imperialist (which means favoring the country's perpetration of invasions and coups in order to expand that nation's empire). The United States is now a globe-spanning empire, controlling not merely the aristocracies in a few banana republics such as Guatemala and Honduras, but also the aristocracies in richer countries such as France, Germany and UK, so as to extract from virtually the entire world -- by means mainly of deception but also sometimes public threats and clearly coercive -- unfair advantages for corporations that are within its borders, and against corporations that are headquartered in foreign countries. America's billionaires -- both the Democratic ones and the Republican ones -- are 100% in favor of America's conquering the world: this ideology is entirely bipartisan, in the United States. Though the billionaires succeeded, during the first Cold War -- the one that was nominally against communism -- at fooling the public to think they were aiming ultimately to conquer communism, George Herbert Walker Bush made clear, on the night of 24 February 1990, privately to the leaders of the US aristocracy's foreign allies, that the actual goal was world-conquest, and so the Cold War would now secretly continue on the US side , even after ending on the USS.R. side. When GHW Bush did that, the heritage of US Senator Jackson became no longer the formerly claimed one, of 'anti-communism', but was, clearly now and henceforth, anti-Russian. And that's what it is today -- not only in the Democratic Party, and not only in the Republican Party, and not only in the United States, but throughout the entire US alliance .

    And this is what we are seeing today, in all of the US-and-allied propaganda-media. America is always 'the injured party' against 'the aggressors'; and, so, one after another, such as in Iraq, and in Libya, and in Syria, and in Iran, and in Yemen, and in China, all allies (or even merely friends) of Russia are 'the aggressors' and are 'dictatorships' and are 'threats to America', and only the US side represents 'democracy' . It's actually an aristocracy , which has deeply deceived its public, to think it's a democracy. Just as every aristocracy is based on lies and on coercion, this one is, too -- it is no exception; it's only that this particular empire is on a historically unprecedentedly large scale, dominating all continents. Support that, and you're welcomed into the major (i.e., billionaire-backed) 'news' media in America, and in its allied countries. This is America's 'democracy' . (Of course, an article such as this one is not 'journalism' in America and its allied countries; it's merely "blogging." So, it won't be found there though it's being submitted everywhere. It will be accepted and published at only the honest news-sites. A reader may Web-search the headline here in order to find out which ones those are. Not many 'news'media report the institutionalized corruptness of the 'news'media; they just criticize one-another, in the way that the politicians do, which is bipartisan -- the bipartisan dictatorship. But the rot that's actually throughout the 'news'media, is prohibited to be reported about and published, in and by any of them. It is totally suppressed reality. Only the few honest news-sites will publish this information and its documentation, the links here.)

    However, actually, the first time that the term either "neoconservatism" or "neo-conservatism" is known to have been used, was in the British magazine, The Contemporary Review , January 1883, by Henry Dunkley, in his "The Conservative Dilemma" where "neo-conservative" appeared 8 times, and was contrasted to traditional "conservatism" because, whereas the traditional type "Toryism" was pro-aristocratic, anti-democratic, and overtly elitist; the new type was pro-democratic, anti-aristocratic, and overtly populist (which no form of conservatism honestly is -- they're all elitist): "What is this new creed of yours? That there must be no class influence in politics? That any half-dozen hinds on my estate are as good as so many dukes? That the will of the people is the supreme political tribunal? That if a majority at the polls bid us abolish the Church and toss the Crown into the gutter we are forthwith to be their most obedient servants?" "No: from whatever point of view we consider the question, it is plain that the attempt to reconstruct the Tory party on a Democratic basis cannot succeed." "The Tories have always been adepts at conservation, but the things they have been most willing to conserve were not our liberties but the restrictions put upon our liberties." "The practical policy of Conservatism would not alter, and could not be altered much, but its pretensions would have to be pitched in a lower key." "Here we seem to get within the smell of soup, the bustle of evening receptions, and the smiles of dowagers. The cares which weigh upon this couple of patriot souls cannot be described as august. It is hardly among such petty anxieties that the upholders of the Empire and the pilots of the State are bred." "The solemn abjuration which is now proposed in the name of Neo-conservatism resembles a charge of dynamite." He viewed neo-conservatives as being let's-pretend populists, whose pretense at being democrats will jeopardize the Empire, not strengthen it. Empire, and its rightness, were so deeply rooted in the rulers' psyche, it went unchallenged. In fact, at that very time, in the 1880s, Sir Cecil Rhodes was busy creating the foundation for the UK-US empire that now controls most of the world .

    The modern pro-Israel neoconservatism arose in the 1960s when formerly Marxist Jewish intellectuals in New York City and Washington DC, who were even more anti-communist than anti-nazi, became impassioned with the US empire being extended to the entire world by spreading 'democracy' (and protection of Israel) as if this Israel-protecting empire were a holy crusade not only against the Soviet Union, which was demonized by them, but against Islam, which also was demonized by them (since they were ethnocentric Jews and the people whose land the 'Israelis' had stolen were overwhelmingly Muslims -- and now were very second-class citizens in their own long-ancestral and also birth-land). This was how they distinguished themselves from "paleoconservatism" which wasn't nearly so Messianic, but which was more overtly ethnocentric, though ethnic Christian, instead of ethnic Jewish. The "paleoconservatives" were isolationists, not imperialists. They originated from the opponents of America's entry into WW II against the imperialists of that time, who were the fascists. Those American "isolationists" would have given us a world controlled by Hitler and his Axis allies. All conservatism is absurd, but there are many forms of it, none of which makes intelligent sense.

    The roots of neoconservatism are 100% imperialistic, colonialist, supremacist, and blatantly evil. They hate Russia because they still crave to conquer it , and don't know how, short of nuclear annihilation, which would be extremely dangerous, even for themselves. So, they endanger everyone.

    [Jan 18, 2020] Putin plants to prohibit dual citizens to serve in government

    Highly recommended!
    Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Peripatetic Commenter , says: Show Comment January 17, 2020 at 9:43 pm GMT

    I don't think it will be long before we see Congress in the US calling for invasion of Russia on the grounds of a lack of diversity, lack of respect for LGBTP and so forth.

    [Jan 18, 2020] Patrick Armstrong on the Russian Reshuffle -- Strategic Culture

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    (Written on the evening of. So subject to reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we learn more.)

    I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither does anyone else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As we've just seen.)

    What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council ( Rus ) ( Eng ) and started off with how important it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he wants more Russians on the planet, the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite a few more but there are still more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after all, not everything works out as we hoped does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is – especially the MENA – and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is except against lunatics addicted to the Book of Revelation .)

    Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks. Important officials should really be Russians and not people with a get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in their vests. Reasonable enough: they should "inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea? We vote for X but who does he vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by the " Rules-Based International Order" (" we make the rules , you follow our orders "). The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty big change, actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries the head of state is The Boss – USA, Russia (now), France – in others the head of government is The Boss – Germany, Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question here that has to be worked out in detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a referendum. The President either should or should not be bound by the no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure out what "этим" refers to in "Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим. Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)

    So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But I'm confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20 years that they don't make things up on the fly.

    Then we learned that the entire government had resigned – but individuals to stay in place until replaced. Then we learned – a fast few hours indeed! – that Dmitri Medvedev was replaced by somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever heard of: Mikhail Vladimirovich Mishustin. ( Russian Wiki entry – none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal (something predicted and hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this: not tossed out into ignominy and shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that there is a clear distinction between government and presidential concerns; defence and security are clearly in the latter. But Medvedev has always been closely following defence and security issues and it is suitable and appropriate that he continue to do so. So a new position, deputy heard of the security council, will be created for him. So what are we to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a sinecure? Or he's been given a crucial job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?

    After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any younger. Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ; within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge? Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting smaller, are they? Washington is certainly недоговороспособны – it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so, it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up – is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the Imperium Americanum.

    So, maybe Moscow needs more people on the job.

    So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing the Transition? (To say nothing of the – what's the word? – Thucydides trap ? ). Mishustin looks after the nuts and bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev looks after defence and security – something not likely to get smaller -- while Putin looks after the big picture?

    But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.

    NOTE 16 January. The Presidential website now has the actual words on the issue of defence and security:

    There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues, and there is a Government block of issues, even though the President, of course, is responsible for everything, but the presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence and the like.

    Mr Medvedev has always been in charge of these matters. From the point of view of increasing our defence capability and security, I consider it possible and have asked him to deal with these matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near future, introduce the position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council. As you are aware, the President is its Chairman.

    patrickarmstrong.ca The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Russia Vladimir Putin Print this article January 18, 2020 | Editor's Сhoice Patrick Armstrong on the Russian Reshuffle Patrick ARMSTRONG

    (Written on the evening of. So subject to reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we learn more.)

    I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither does anyone else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As we've just seen.)

    What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council ( Rus ) ( Eng ) and started off with how important it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he wants more Russians on the planet, the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite a few more but there are still more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after all, not everything works out as we hoped does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is – especially the MENA – and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is except against lunatics addicted to the Book of Revelation .)

    Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks. Important officials should really be Russians and not people with a get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in their vests. Reasonable enough: they should "inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea? We vote for X but who does he vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by the " Rules-Based International Order" (" we make the rules , you follow our orders "). The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty big change, actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries the head of state is The Boss – USA, Russia (now), France – in others the head of government is The Boss – Germany, Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question here that has to be worked out in detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a referendum. The President either should or should not be bound by the no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure out what "этим" refers to in "Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим. Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)

    So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But I'm confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20 years that they don't make things up on the fly.

    Then we learned that the entire government had resigned – but individuals to stay in place until replaced. Then we learned – a fast few hours indeed! – that Dmitri Medvedev was replaced by somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever heard of: Mikhail Vladimirovich Mishustin. ( Russian Wiki entry – none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal (something predicted and hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this: not tossed out into ignominy and shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that there is a clear distinction between government and presidential concerns; defence and security are clearly in the latter. But Medvedev has always been closely following defence and security issues and it is suitable and appropriate that he continue to do so. So a new position, deputy heard of the security council, will be created for him. So what are we to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a sinecure? Or he's been given a crucial job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?

    After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any younger. Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ; within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge? Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting smaller, are they? Washington is certainly недоговороспособны – it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so, it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up – is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the Imperium Americanum.

    So, maybe Moscow needs more people on the job.

    So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing the Transition? (To say nothing of the – what's the word? – Thucydides trap ? ). Mishustin looks after the nuts and bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev looks after defence and security – something not likely to get smaller -- while Putin looks after the big picture?

    But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.

    NOTE 16 January. The Presidential website now has the actual words on the issue of defence and security:

    There is a clear-cut presidential block of issues, and there is a Government block of issues, even though the President, of course, is responsible for everything, but the presidential block includes primarily matters of security, defence and the like.

    Mr Medvedev has always been in charge of these matters. From the point of view of increasing our defence capability and security, I consider it possible and have asked him to deal with these matters in the future. I consider it possible and will, in the near future, introduce the position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council. As you are aware, the President is its Chairman.

    patrickarmstrong.ca © 2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Also from EDITOR'S CHOICE EDITOR'S CHOICE Friedman's Hapless Fear-Mongering How the President Became a Drone Operator Cracks Appear in U.S.-China "Détente" Deal US to Iraq: 'Vote All You Want, We're Not Leaving!' #CNNIsTrash Trends As Pushback Grows Against Oligarchic Election Meddling Sign up for the Strategic Culture Foundation Newsletter Subscribe


    To the top
    © 2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. <div><img src="https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/10970266" alt=""/></div>

    [Jan 18, 2020] Major Political Changes in Russia

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Major announcements in this State of the Nation speech on Jan 15, 2020.

    Here is a very brief summary to get the conversation started.

    Immediate politics :

    who reduced uncollected VAT from 20% to 1%. Source tells me FM Sergey Lavrov rumored to be permanently retiring.

    Constitutional changes :

    Demographics :

    continued fall in Russia's fertility rates to 1.5 children per woman this year (up from post-Soviet peak of close to 1.8 in mid-2000s), setting 1.7 children per woman as the new target for 2024. Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority. Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.

    ***

    Some very tentative thoughts :

    (1) I have long thought now that Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role, along the model of Lee Kuan Yew/PAP in Singapore [see 1 , 2 , 3 ]. This appears to be the final confirmation that this is happening.

    (2) Questions about the succession revolved around (a) The Belarus variant, in which it effectively constitutes a new state with Russia, allowing Putin to become the supreme head of that state; (b) A constitutional reshuffle such as the one we're seeing here. This question has also been answered.


    utu , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:16 pm GMT

    " Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role" – Not always does it work: King Lear, Benedict 16.

    "Lear gave up a God-given duty and right to rule his people. His tragic flaw 'hamartia' is presumptuousness. He presumes that he can divest himself of what God invested him with (the Elizabethan idea of the divine rights of the ruler), he grows in tragic stature as the play progresses." – found on google.

    AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT

    Putin's end game is to transition into an overseeing "elder statesman" role

    Looks more like he plans to become a powerful Prime Minister after 2024, rather than elder statesman. Might be good in the medium term: politicians of his caliber are rare. Still, in the longer term Russia needs a real successor: rule by committee never works, even in smaller and simpler countries.

    Anatoly Karlin , says: Website January 15, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT
    @AnonFromTN I think (and it's already been said for years) that's he too tired for the role of PM, which is more intensive than the Presidency and involved dealing with boring domestic crap whereas the Presidency, at least, offers more in the way of Grand Strategy, diplomacy, etc.

    I think the likeliest game plan is for him to chair a much more empowered State Council after 2024. (This is what Nazarbayev did with the Security Council after retiring last year).

    Felix Keverich , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT

    Presidential candidates should have been resident in Russia for 25 years (previously 10 years) and never had a foreign citizenship. (This rules out a large proportion of Atlanticists and crypto-Atlanticists).

    Does this imply, that they'll allow an actual election in 2024? I'm getting excited

    Speaking of constitutional changes, they should just get rid of the entire Yeltsin's text, and write a new one. Yeltsin's constitution is a mishmash of French and American constitutions, completely detached from the country's realities and tradition.

    So union with Belarus is still on the table right? But if that happens it would be Belarus joining a continuous RF, under the newly modified constitution?

    My take on this is that Lukashenka told Putin to piss off, and he did. So no union.

    JPM , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:44 pm GMT

    Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority.

    How about not importing all of Central Asia, so that wages aren't depressed. Higher wages might boost that low TFR.

    Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.

    Will that will help subsidize the Chechens, Avars, Laks etc. the most relative to their population size because Russia is a "Multinational" state with equality for all of its "constituent" nations?

    Speaking of which will Uzbek and Tajik guests be able to get in on that too? A future Russian Duma might need to grant more rights to them because Russia will need more workers to support its aging population. They speak Russian after all, and there is a shared history. So, they will integrate well into society. I feel like that is what a future Russian PM will be arguing a few years down the line.

    AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:46 pm GMT
    @Boswald Bollocksworth s everything that is going to befall it.
    Second, Lukashenko himself is a problem. He might be qualified to run a small agrobusiness, but certainly nothing greater than that. Yet his outsized ego (common among morons, think Bush Jr) won't let him fade away peacefully.
    Third, Belarus is subsidized by Russia, and many Russian citizens believe that the money would be much better spent inside Russia or helping countries that deserve this aid, like Syria.
    Maybe Putin thinks differently, but he does a lot to remain popular. So, after pension reform hit to his support I don't think he is going to do something most people disapprove of.
    Anatoly Karlin , says: Website January 15, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
    @JPM Fortunately, there's very little Central Asian breeding going on it Russia – the pattern is for them to make their money (5-10x what they can make at home) and raise families at home.

    Chechens, Avars, etc. will benefit disproportionately, but the program is after all primarily intended as an incentive. Personally, I think a childlessness tax will be much more effective, since people react better to penalties than rewards – plus it will rake in a net profit – but I don't suppose its politically feasible in the modern age.

    Thulean Friend , says: January 15, 2020 at 5:53 pm GMT
    Seems like a good balance between a liberal direction – limiting any one president to two absolute terms while substantially increasing the say of the parliament – and some common sense requirements (like on citizenship).

    Putting it to a referendum is also welcome. The will of the people should not only be heard but increased.

    Putin bemoaned continued fall in Russia's fertility rates to 1.5 children per woman this year (up from post-Soviet peak of close to 1.8 in mid-2000s), setting 1.7 children per woman as the new target for 2024.
    Reaffirmed demographics as the first national priority.
    Maternity capital to be increased by further 150,000 rubles and constitute 616,617 rubles (≈$10,000) for a family with two children, to be annually indexed.

    I doubt this will work.

    The biggest problem for fertility all over the world is housing. As long as the housing sector is neoliberalised, it will be a major impediment. Affordable housing is per definition low-margin and hence not interesting to private developers. For them, a perpetual housing shortage pushes up the profit margin. All firms are constantly seeking to maximise profits, so their behaviour is rational from a purely market fundamentalist point of view. That's why market fundamentalism need to be overthrown. There has to be a massive building spree to lower the cost of housing to no more than 4-5 years of annual (net) wages for a median worker to buy without debt. That would be the real game changer. Import the churkas and get it done.

    The second problem is ideology and religiosity. If you look at Israel, a major component of their high fertility is the massively increasing Haredi sector. Even outside the Haredis, they have a high share of genuinely religious jews. For the seculars, TFR is still a respectable 2.5, which is likely explained by nationalism. Whatever Russian nationalism is, it isn't very fecund. Russians aren't very religious either, though Putin seems to be. Church attendence in Russia is quite low. At this stage, I don't believe high fertility can be solved without going into artificial wombs and more exotic solutions. A cultural revolution doesn't seem to be on the cards.

    (2) Questions about the succession revolved around (a) The Belarus variant, in which it effectively constitutes a new state with Russia, allowing Putin to become the supreme head of that state; (b) A constitutional reshuffle such as the one we're seeing here. This question has also been answered.

    I still think Belarus will be swallowed by Russia within this decade.

    [Jan 18, 2020] The new role of Russian Federation State Council in Putin plan

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Mitleser , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:13 pm GMT

    @Aly so Chairman of the State Council.

    The State Council includes the following members: the Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the Speaker of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoys to the federal districts, senior officials (heads of the highest executive agencies of state power) in Russia's federal constituent entities, and the heads of the political parties in the State Duma.

    http://en.kremlin.ru/structure/state-council

    [Jan 18, 2020] Mishustin is a genius at reforming bureaucracies with IT systems

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Philip Owen , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:28 pm GMT

    Mishustin is a genius at reforming bureaucracies with IT systems. He is also an economist who thinks Russia should be less autarkic. He is in the Kudrin camp. For example, he is still scheduled to speak at the Gaidar forum. Shoigu seems to have fallen back. M is associated witht he Union of Right Forces.

    There has been a huge Twitter storm of people/trolls posting this a Putin's effort to stay in power.

    [Jan 18, 2020] More power to Parliament means Oligarchy control, like all western countries.

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    nickels , says: January 15, 2020 at 6:59 pm GMT

    More power to Parliament means Oligarchy control, like all western countries.
    Not good.
    Maïkl Makfaïl , says: January 15, 2020 at 11:47 pm GMT
    @nickels Exactly . Kudrin and his friends want parliament to have more power so that the russian people have less of it. They know they have 0 legitimacy , that the people hate them and that they would never survive at the top of the political elite if a real and intelligent nationalist comes to power in Russia one day ( Putin is a half-disapointment whose main merit is to have benefited from the work of Primakov ). They want the presidency to be paralysed . I hope they wont succeed and that there will always be a strong statesman on their way in Russia.
    Thulean Friend , says: January 16, 2020 at 4:50 am GMT
    @nickels control away from oligarchs, but that is more due to his own force of personality rather than the system itself.

    In brief, whether a country will be beholden to oligarchs is less due to the governance structure and more about the general culture. Some countries have a very corrupt citizenry/culture and that will produce bad outcomes in most situations in the long run regardless of the political system. This can only be suspended temporarily by a very strong leader – but you only get them infrequently.

    The only hope to reduce power of oligarchs when Putin leaves power is to attack corruption in society, at both high levels and ground levels.

    nickels , says: January 16, 2020 at 3:17 pm GMT
    @Thulean Friend 'The only institution ever devised by men for mastering the money powers in the state is the Monarchy.'
    Napolean.

    Belloc, for one, writes over and over on this theme.

    Most European histories are Whig histories, and, hence, worthless on this topic. Which is not to discount your valid point about princes becoming indebted to jews. Aristocracy had this problem to a greater extent.

    Daniel Chieh , says: January 16, 2020 at 5:30 pm GMT
    @nickels advantage. Contrary to Thulean, I believe that universal rule of law actually weakens the state and its ability to control merchantile factions. Of course, casual acceptance of "rule of power" is a form of corruption and if it isn't limited to the strongman himself, results in wasteful factionalism.

    However, this essential snubbing of the merchantile factions has the very obvious result of them working against the state, for "rule of law"(which benefits them), and of course, not helping their rivals in the warrior factions. In the long run, lack of access to liquidity can severely cripple governments that don't play well with potential creditors.

    nickels , says: January 16, 2020 at 7:56 pm GMT
    @Daniel Chieh

    I believe that universal rule of law actually weakens the state and its ability to control merchantile factions.

    Yes, I think this is the key factor. Government by committee is no government, which means the parasites will rise to take over.

    Additionally, the western stupidity of tying everything to high flown abstractions, i.e. universal law and principles, is both idiotic and impossible. History demands the intervention of the intellect, i.e. the mind of the monarch or the autocrat.

    Thulean Friend , says: January 16, 2020 at 8:06 pm GMT
    @nickels e was not particularly involved in planning the conquest and the company self-financed much of the early stages of the conquest itself, ironically enough often from wealthy Indians who were given attractive financing options. The company innovated many things we take for granted today, such as the joint stock company. Of course, the British state did step in eventually but by that time much of the groundwork had already been set. Adjusted for inflation, the EIC was many times larger than either Google or Apple is today at its peak, closer to 4+ trillion USD.

    Too much of history blindly focuses on kings and rulers while ignoring many non-state actors.

    nickels , says: January 16, 2020 at 9:01 pm GMT
    @Thulean Friend Sounds interesting, thx.
    'Why War' by Frederic Clemson Howe had a similar theme about how the 'flag followed the dollar' in the lead up to WWI.
    Philip Owen , says: January 17, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT
    @Thulean Friend money from private trading as company employees were allowed to do. The less rich one commanded three regiments of cavalry at the 3rd siege of Seringapatam. He was elected Prize Officer and thus had an extra share.

    They returned and with other East India men built a canal to a coal mine they opened on the hill above an iron works eventually connecting Clydach Gorge to the sea thus launching the industrial revolution in South Wales. So there are very direct links between profits from trade and the industrial revolution. They fed off each other. South Wales at one time produced most of the world's copper. This was in great demand in India for making brass.

    [Jan 18, 2020] Today's Russia is a product of several factors

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Today's Russia is a product of several factors:

    [Jan 18, 2020] I mostly found Dimka to be that rarity in Russian politics a western-leaner with obvious admiration for western ways and the western lifestyle, but who genuinely loved Russia and wanted to do the best by it.

    Jan 18, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Mark Chapman January 15, 2020 at 7:10 pm

    "The evening network news shows described the change as a naked grab for power so typical of Putin."

    Well, they would, because if he were a western leader that's what it would be; since they don't really understand anything about Russia and view it as an enemy which nonetheless governs itself more or less by western rules, they are consistently wrong. Never seems to teach them anything, though, and they're always leaning into their next opportunity to be wrong again.

    I mostly found Dimka to be that rarity in Russian politics – a western-leaner with obvious admiration for western ways and the western lifestyle, but who genuinely loved Russia and wanted to do the best by it. He couldn't really hold the highest office because he was still too easily seduced by the west, which had only to frame something as a tremendous gift to Russia to have him eagerly grab at it, but I don't think any of his decisions were ever meant to hurt the country. Some suggest Putin kept him on to make him serve out a sentence in which western bait would be constantly dangled in front of him, but he didn't have enough power to snatch it, but I don't think so and his service was mostly commendable as long as he was not allowed to make any decisions involving the west himself. I don't know anything about the new guy beyond what others have posted here, but you can be sure he is already the focus of intense western interest.

    The bottom line is that whatever they were hoping, Putin is not going to disappear from politics and the very next day, Washington finally gets its man in charge. The succession will be carefully managed to ensure there are no regime-change loopholes.

    Mark Chapman January 15, 2020 at 8:07 pm
    Yes, that's all true, which is why western regime-changers would be more likely to put their money on a politically-savvy oligarch like Prokhorov, who I am only using as an example. Such a person follows national politics closely and would be much more likely to know the insider information the western influencers would like to know, but do not.

    Mind you, that kind of meddling was always a risk, including under the previous system. And it didn't work very well then. Then, though, Khodorkovsky did not seem to have Putin fooled for one second. It remains to be seen if that perspicacity will survive him.

    [Jan 18, 2020] Putin is putting forward several changes:

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

    Putin is putting forward several changes :

    A two-term limit for Presidential candidates Barring dual citizens, or those born outside Russia, from running for President Increasing the powers of the Duma (Russian legislative body) Having the Prime Minister selected by the Duma, rather than the President Enshrining the Russian Security Council in the constitution That the Russian constitution takes precedence over International Law, especially where it might infringe the legal rights of Russian citizens

    These changes are to be put to the Russian people in a referendum by the end of the year "if it all is solved quickly", according to Russia's Central Election Commission.

    Immediately following these announcements, the entire Russian government resigned – including Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev – though he will be offered a new job, reports RT :

    So, what happens next?

    Why have Medvedev and his government resigned en masse? Will the proposed reforms pass a referendum? What is the overall aim behind these changes? Does Putin plan to stay on past 2024, or is he strengthening the role of PM with an eye to taking that job, as some western commentators seem to think? Who will be the next President of Russia? Rhys Jaggar Given the Russia-bashing by US warmongers the past 20 years, it's been a jolly good thing for Russians that they had a very strong President for 20 years. Otherwise, they would have been back in the 1990s with declining birth rates, mass poverty and bloodsucking foreign oligarchs nicking everything Russian in sight.

    As for the future, you can read this one of two ways:

    The first option is that Putin now genuinely believes that Russia as a state is ready for democracy, and thus he is seeking to weaken the Presidency and strengthen the Duma as a key plank in that.

    The second option is that he thinks that he needs to stay on for quite a bit longer as long as lunatics are running the DC asylum, so he is making plans to be Prime Minister post 2024.

    It could of course be that he thinks both will be true, just that democracy may only be strong enough to repel Western rapaciousness after he has been in power for another decade or so.

    What can honestly be said about Putin is that he has acted in the interests of Russia, not Zionazi oligarchs.

    And as he answers to the Russian people not to Western imperialists, that is precisely what he should have been doing.

    OH but Boris Johnson, his predecessors and his successors could do the same for Britain . 13 -2 Reply Jan 16, 2020 6:29 PM Gall Gall I totally agree with your assessment Rhys. I've been reading RI, RT, Fort-Russ etc and contrary to the Western "Media's" sensationalism this transition of power seems to be fully supported by the Russian people.

    What's hysterical is that once again CIA was left out of the loop but that's no surprise. Putin once again used the idiotic Russiaphobic morons to his advantage.

    Too bad he was born in Russia and not the US because he'd make a great President.

    "Putin for President" 🙂 4 -1 Reply Jan 16, 2020 9:26 PM Vierotchka Vierotchka Had Putin been born in the US, he would have made a great Presiden only for ten years, though, not enough time to do for the US what he has done for Russia. 0 0 Reply Jan 16, 2020 9:36 PM Gall Gall Actually 8 or 2 terms due to 22 Amendment ratified after Roosevelt won 4 terms. That said I think the Russian voters are more intelligent than the voters in the US who exist on a diet of MSM pap served up regularly rather than any thing substantive and live under the delusion that they have a "free press". You know 'cause the Constitution says so which aside from the Declaration of Independence has to be the most disingenuous document ever written in history. It took me decades to come to this conclusion.

    Whereas the Russian's are pretty savvy having lived under Communism and know what a controlled media looks like up close and personally.

    Unfortunately Tocqueville was right about the place and still is today. 2 -1 Reply Jan 16, 2020 11:36 PM Vierotchka Vierotchka Correction – 8 and not 19 years. 0 0 Reply Jan 17, 2020 1:32 AM Vierotchka Vierotchka Drat, that darned age-related macular degeneration
    8 and not 10 years. 0 0 Reply Jan 17, 2020 1:33 AM wardropper wardropper Agreed, Rhys and Gall.
    The pathetic thing about today's U.S. is that there are plenty of shrewd, perceptive, imaginative and morally decent Americans who would also make great Presidents, and they shouldn't have to look to Russia to find role models either.
    But the simpleton-owned media routinely stop such people in their tracks. 0 0 Reply Jan 17, 2020 2:27 AM Berlin beerman Berlin beerman To me, it seems Mr. Putin is shifting strength internally to limit the power of the PM as evident with the appointing of Mr. Mishustin.

    If I were running the show I would want to transfer more power to the General Security Council , place my confidant and trusted number two beside me ( Mr. Medvedev – as evident by creating the new post and appointing him to it ) and then steer the ship from that helm.

    Mr. Putin is already the director of the RGSC and with the new changes proposed – he will keep that position at the end of his term.

    Most Western reporters like the CBC's man in Russia will report blundering reports.

    I predict the referendum will have the complete opposite outcome to the one Mr. Cameron tried.

    This is a win win for the Russian people and the country unless Mr. Putin turns senseless and senile. 5 -1 Reply Jan 16, 2020 4:58 PM Dungroanin Dungroanin It all sounds pretty sensible.

    Meanwhile over here WE are getting started on removing the Supreme Courts legal authority over 'political' issues.

    So as many illegal prorogations as JRM & the Queen wants!

    I think when the prewar german elections resulted in letting in a bunch of beerhall bullies their Parliament didn't last.

    Our Weatherspoon parkbench bullies seem to be going the same way and as the ancient parliament crumbles it becomes likely that it may never be restored!

    It seems our establishment has decided it wants Nandy as the safe Blairite leader of the Opposition – and are setting the ground incase another wronguns get in. 1 -1 Reply Jan 16, 2020 12:35 PM Dungroanin Dungroanin Ooh er upset someone eh? Get back to your park bench.

    1. Dual Nationality – there is no record of how many dual (or more) nationals are in government in the US or the UK.

    It is evident that having more than one master leads to treachery.

    2. Russia, like China,are evolving governing systems don't forget they didn't exist 100 years ago – they appear to be dovetailing towards a system less subject to the vagaries of 'western democracies' – corporatists; aristocratic; pork-barrelled; lobbied; media manufactured; owned by bankers.

    Given that the systems of both countries have delivered massive growth, elimination of poverty and greater benefits for its populations allowing free-markets, entrepreneurs and billionaires to emerge, whilst preserving their resources from the usual global robber barons – it is not surprising that they look to preserve this legacy beyond personal human age limits by institutionalising such oversight. Compare India with it's legacy system and mass poverty still.

    Putin & co are looking at strengthening their nwo that will encompass two thirds of the worlds land mass and the majority of the planets Humans – many still unnecessarily in poverty and being robbed blind as they havd been for centuries by the cover of western 'democracies'. 4 0 Reply Jan 16, 2020 3:59 PM Seamus Padraig I'm sure Putin'll be PM again after his presidential term expires. He was already PM once, from 2008-2012. Personally, I find that reassuring. Putin is the greatest statesman alive–probably the greatest since Bismarck. Francis Lee Much talk of a 'demographic' crisis needs further analysis. Russia's population fell during the Yeltsin years but has stabilised at the present time. Fertility rate is 1.76 but needs to be at least 2.1 for population growth. But this is true of the whole of Europe, East and West and even a fortiori , Japan. The real demographic crisis, however, is taking place in the ex-Soviet republics and Eastern Europe ex-satellites, the figures from the Baltics and Ukraine are frankly disastrous and only marginally better in Romania and Bulgaria. Low birth rates, emigration, increased death rates, drugs and health problems are a real and present threat to the future of these states.

    The substantive problem facing Russia is the ongoing struggle between the Atlantic integrationists and the Eurasian sovereignists represented respectively on the one hand by the oligarch in chief and ultra-liberal Alexei Kudrin, and, in the Red corner, Russia's answer to Michael Hudson, Sergei Glazyev. Putin himself balances precariously between these two factions. But this cannot go on. To quote W.B.Yeats 'Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.'

    The type of long-term nation-building strategy – state capitalism from above – has been the proven route out of semi-peripheral status and which is imperative for Russia is, however, being thwarted by the existence of a cosmopolitan oligarch class whose interests run counter to any such strategy and, moreover, who are perfectly content take profits from extractive exports and then invest them back into the centre of the capitalist system, usually in the shape of paper assets like US Treasury Bills and/or property. Cronyism, corruption, incompetence are endemic characteristics of this powerful group and they are unfortunately firmly ensconced in positions of influence and power in Russia.

    It would be reasonable to surmise that a political, parasitic system of Yeltsin-lite is now extant in Russia and that a domestic head of steam is, judging by its internal critics, building up in opposition. For every action there is a reaction. (Boris Kargalitsky) 7 -1 Reply richard le sarc Obviously I hope that the Baltics and Ukraine quickly enjoy a decent form of governance, but at present I fear that they are getting their just desserts for returning the spawn of WW2 fascists from emigre' communities in the West to power, and embracing neo-liberal capitalism and licking the boots of the Empire. Jen The case of Maria Butina, imprisoned for 18 months for supposedly being a foreign unregistered agent of Russia, and apparently subjected to full body searches during the five months she was in jail every time after she met with lawyers and Russian consular officials, comes to mind.

    This and other cases where Russian citizens were detained and imprisoned without correct due process in the US and other nations, and denied consular access – the case of Sergei and Julia Skripal comes to mind – may have been the instigation for this proposal. 30 -2 Reply Jan 16, 2020 1:58 AM richard le sarc richard le sarc Sexual humiliation through forced nakedness and 'body searches' is a favourite tactic of the Israelis, to humiliate and terrorise the Palestinians. There it is used against civilians, even children, and, with added viciousness, like the smearing of 'menstrual blood' was gifted to the US as torture tactics in Abu Ghraib ec. And, can you believe it, it has traveled to Australia, where strip searches of young people going to music festivals, have become a frequent and preferred tactic of State police forces. Roberto Perhaps, or maybe undoubtedly, Mr Putin is familiar with the example of Sulla, who exercised power as dictator for 6 months as allowed under Roman Law, then relinquished the dictatorship, then served as Consul. The time frame differs, and Putin is a strong leader but no dictator; he did have an awful mess to clean up and restored Russia to self-reliant productive and stable growth and enterprise from the looted ruins that existed at the end of the '90s.

    The stated aim of these changes is to restore more power to the Duma, which cannot be a bad thing. The resignation of the entire government allows the new Prime Minister to restructure the government. It may be that many of the preceding actors are restored in different ministries, or not.

    [Jan 18, 2020] Curbs to Presidential power could be intended to preserve Russia from a West-backed President

    Notable quotes:
    "... The economic/social model in the neo-liberal West is one of outright parasitism driving ever increasing inequality and elite wealth, which is the expression in real life of the psychopathic elites' INTENSE hatred of others. For Russia to follow China in creating a society of utilitarian concern for ALL the population, of poverty reduction and of social solidarity between all levels of the population, increases the risk of what Chomsky called 'the good example' ..."
    "... 'He might be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch'. Surely a 'Yeltsin' must replace or join 'Quisling' in the popular lexicon as a title for a traitor, in future. ..."
    Jan 18, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    The US/NATO/EU bloc is eagerly awaiting the chance to replace Putin with a pro-Western neo-liberal. One who will increase national debt, implement austerity, privatise industry, gut the public sector, and open up Russia to the IMF just like has been done all over the Western world.

    Search Jan 18, 2020 15 Russian Reforms: Is Putin planning for his successor? Curbs to Presidential power could be intended to preserve Russia from a West-backed President Kit Knightly Kit Knightly

    Last week, after Putin put forward constitutional reforms that would "empower the legislative branch" and his entire government resigned, the Western press (and the West-backed "opposition" in Russia) went on at length about how Putin was preparing to "extend his power", to move to an office "without term limits", or something along those lines.

    After years complaining about the amount of power the President of Russia has, the MSM decided that limiting those powers was ALSO bad (or perhaps, never even actually read the speech itself at all).

    This isn't deliberate deception on their part, they are just trained animals after all. Criticising Putin is a Pavlovian response to the man saying, or doing absolutely anything.

    There's no point in gain-saying it, or analysing it. It is dogs howling at the moon. Instinctive, base and – to a rational mind – entirely meaningless.

    Forget what our press says. It is white noise. They have no insight and no interest in acquiring any.

    However, even the alternative media are confused on this one. MoA is a good analyst, but he's not sure what's at play here .

    .so what IS going on in Russia? Why the constitutional reforms?

    Let's take a look at the headline proposals:

    Limit the Presidency to a two-term maximum Empower the Duma to appoint the Prime Minister and cabinet, in place of the President Anyone running for President has to have lived in Russia for 25 years Dual-nationals are forbidden from holding public offices

    Are these really steps designed centralize the power of the state in an individual? Do they logically support the argument "Putin wants to be in power for life"?

    Given that list, I would say "no". I would say, quite the opposite.

    The first two points limit the powers of the Presidency, whilst empowering the legislative branch. Why would Putin limit the powers of the President if he intends a third term?

    Western "analysts" argue Putin plans to stay on as Prime Minister, but these rule changes don't empower the PM, they only empower the Duma to choose the PM.

    If he were going to change the constitution to keep himself in power, why not just scrap term limits? Or increase the Presidental term length?

    The third proposed change is interesting – "prevent dual nationals from holding public offices" – is this a way of limiting possible Western interference in Russian politics?

    In the days of the Roman Empire, upon conquering a province the Romans would take children of members of the ruling class to back to Rome, to be fostered in Roman families and raised as Romans. Then, when they reached adulthood, the new Romanised Celts or Assyrians or Goths would be sent back to the land of their birth and rule as the province in Rome's name, serving Rome's interests.

    The modern Rome, the United States, does exactly the same thing.

    Juan Guaido is Venezuela's "acting President". He was educated at Georgetown University in Washington DC . Alexey Navalny is the "leader of the Russian opposition", he was a "world fellow" at Yale .

    The US/NATO/EU bloc is eagerly awaiting the chance to replace Putin with a pro-Western neo-liberal. One who will increase national debt, implement austerity, privatise industry, gut the public sector, and open up Russia to the IMF just like has been done all over the Western world.

    So: We have rules limiting the power of the office of President, and a rule clearly aimed at making it impossible for a US-backed puppet to be inserted into said office.

    Here's where we get into some hardcore speculation:

    I think, having done the hard work to fix many of Russia's societal and security-related problems, Putin is seeking to make systemic changes that prevent this work being undone.

    I think Putin wants to go – or is at least considering it – and is trying to put rules in place to protect Russia from his possible successors.

    To demonstrate my point, we should take a look at the other parts of Putin's speech – the parts no one in the Western press is interested in discussing.

    In many ways, it was a speech you could have heard coming out of Jeremy Corbyn's mouth. Laying out a vision of Russia with improved healthcare, free (hot) school meals for all children, internet access for all Russian citizens. (You can read the whole thing here .)

    If a British politician made this speech, it would be considered "radical". If an American had done so, they would be called a crazy socialist. But there's more to this than just socialist economic policies.

    Here is Putin on pensions:

    We have a law on this, but we should formalise this requirement in the Constitution along with the principles of decent pensions, which implies a regular adjustment of pensions according to inflation.

    On minimum wage:

    Therefore, I believe that the Constitution should include a provision that the minimum wage in Russia must not be below the subsistence minimum of the economically active people.

    On local government:

    the powers and practical opportunities of the local governments, a body of authority that is closest to the people, can and should be expanded and strengthened.

    On the Judiciary:

    The country's fundamental law should enshrine and protect the independence of judges, and their subordination only to the Constitution and federal law

    On Russian sovereignty:

    requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution.

    On Constitutional law:

    extending the powers of the Constitutional Court to evaluate not only laws, but also other regulatory legal acts adopted by various authorities at the federal and regional levels for compliance with the Constitution.

    Is there a pattern here?

    Enshrining economic reforms in the constitution Decentralizing the power for the federal government Legally protecting the independence of the courts Protecting Russian law from international bodies Reviewing future laws to make sure they don't breach the constitution

    These could be interpreted as legal backstops. Safeguards on the progress Russia has made under Putin.

    We've been over the numbers a lot. There's no need to repeat them. Suffice to say, under Putin Russian life expectancy, income, employment rate and birth rate are up. Violent crime, poverty, alcoholism and debt are down .

    Under Yeltsin, Russia was a borderline failed state. Putin pulled them back from that brink.

    Yeltsin's 1993 Constitutional Referendum drastically enhanced the powers of the President, he doesn't wield quite as supreme executive power as the office of POTUS, but it's comparable:

    The referendum approved the new constitution, which significantly expanded the powers of the president, giving Yeltsin the right to appoint the members of the government, to dismiss the Prime Minister and, in some cases, to dissolve the Duma.

    It could be argued Putin has used that power as it was intended – for the benefit of the Russian people. Perhaps he feels he cannot rely on anyone who comes after him to be as diligent.

    By disempowering the role of President before he leaves office, he ensures that anyone who follows – be they a US-educated plant, a corrupt billionaire, or a hardline hawkish nationalist – can't undo all the good his administration has accomplished.

    Whether or not Putin wants to be in "power for life" is an answer known only to the man himself, but there's nothing to suggest it in this speech, and none of the reforms put forward would appear to help in that regard at all. It looks more like a man securing his legacy.

    Perhaps the question becomes not "does Putin want another term?", but rather does Putin even intend to serve all of this one?


    Baron ,

    (1) What he proposed isn't the final word, the proposals will be debated, (2) the danger of Navalny's getting in even with a strong push by the Americans, or their NGO poodles, is minimal, the greater risk is the communist and their fellow travellers gaining power, (3) the last twenty years have shown Putin may not be the ideal leader, but he's as close to an ideal as the Russians may ever hope to get, his remaining in a position of some power after his Presidency term expires should be a positive for Russia.

    Putin infuriates the Western Governing Elites (GEs) because he totally contradicts their progressive, PC, woke agenda and, to make matters worse, his stance resonates with the Western unwashed. That's unforgivable for the GEs, but one hopes he'll continue doing so. Just as our Parliament functions best if the opposition has some muscle, so the world also needs a strong opposition to keep the GEs of the nation of the "exceptional people" in check.

    Jen ,

    The answer to KK's second question, that is, whether Putin intends to serve out his current term, is that any constitutional reforms such as what he proposed in his speech to the Federal Assembly need time to be discussed, analysed, put to referendum, approved and included in the Constitution. Also a succession plan needs to be in place by 2024 when Putin leaves the Presidency. By then we'll know if Mishustin or anyone else (Rogozhin? Glazyev?) might replace him as President....

    richard le sarc ,

    The economic/social model in the neo-liberal West is one of outright parasitism driving ever increasing inequality and elite wealth, which is the expression in real life of the psychopathic elites' INTENSE hatred of others. For Russia to follow China in creating a society of utilitarian concern for ALL the population, of poverty reduction and of social solidarity between all levels of the population, increases the risk of what Chomsky called 'the good example', like Cuba has been for sixty years as the rest of the Latin American continent, under US terror, descended into a charnel-house and mass immiseration. So 'Russia delenda est', and Putin is Hannibal, and, thankfully, the rotten cadaver called the 'Home of Free', in a fit of malignant self-delusion, ain't gonna produce no Scipios any time soon. They've been reduced to creating Pompeo Adiposus Minors.

    Brianeg ,

    ...Watching a documentary about poverty and homelessness in America by Deutsche Welle, it is criminal what is going on in that country especially when it seems fit to up the military budget to $750 billion. Surely at some point civil war will come to that country to correct the gross imbalance.

    Reading about the strange actions of the liquid magma going on deep underground, you almost wish that nature might intervene and deflect America away from its constant onslaught of war and interference in other countries politics.

    RobG ,

    Boris Yeltsin, (western installed) Russian President from 1991 to 1999, during which the former Soviet Union was totally plundered

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/v9YnDirqwT4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    richard le sarc ,

    'He might be a son-of-a-bitch, but he's OUR son-of-a-bitch'. Surely a 'Yeltsin' must replace or join 'Quisling' in the popular lexicon as a title for a traitor, in future.

    [Jan 18, 2020] In a way the brainwashed Americans and neoliberal propagandists hatred of Russia is hilarious

    Jan 18, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Wezz Gary Sellars a day ago

    "Russiagate is a hoax" Where did I hear that before?

    Oh yes, from Trump about 1000 times... strange that even though he said he was innocent he had to keep telling us every time he opened his mouth... it makes me suspicious for some reason. That and the fact that Trump has been caught lying a few times.

    Antiphon Wezz a day ago
    I usually assess the validity of such claims on something more substantial than OrangeManBad.
    Aker Wezz a day ago • edited
    Your hatred of Russia is hilarious. Doubly when Amerilards have a history of interference in other country's governments.

    America is objectively a more violent country than Russia. It isn't Russia that has ridicously high violent crime scores despite its wealth. Invaded Afghanistan, attacked Iraq, provided aid for Islamists who'd go on to build ISIS.

    I don't recall Putin's regime achieving a higher bodycount than America under Bush with Obama. Keep pretending Putin's some villain from childish stories like Harry Potter or Black Panther.

    Aker Aker 20 hours ago • edited
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

    America's homicide level is Notably higher than West Europe's and Far Eastern lands like Japan. Russia's is only somewhat higher, and is notably less wealthy.

    thelastindependentYankee Aker 6 hours ago
    The Gulags were resorts I know.
    Aker thelastindependentYankee 4 hours ago
    Tell us when you plan to shut down Guantanamo Bay and end your dysfunctional prison system. Also, Murica supported enough regimes.
    EliteCommInc. Wezz 21 hours ago
    It would be interesting if had as much veracity as a hoax ---

    but it lacks even that.

    Aker Wezz 20 hours ago
    https://www.washingtontimes...

    https://www.nytimes.com/200...

    Apologize for American interference in other countries' governments.

    John Mann Wezz 12 hours ago
    A stopped clock is right twice a day. Hey, Saddam Hussein turned out to be telling the truth about WMDs.
    Aker Gary Sellars 20 hours ago
    It's an attempt to assuage a failed presidential candidate and give a target to blame for how society is. If not Trump himself, then Russia.

    [Jan 17, 2020] Russia fertility rate problem

    Jan 17, 2020 | www.unz.com

    Beckow says: January 15, 2020 at 7:12 pm GMT 200 Words @Anatoly Karlin All advanced countries need a no-children tax on free-loaders to survive. It is easy to implement and mostly fair (there are a few corner cases). It is not a penalty since it is a personal choice to be a parasite on the society and consume instead of raising children.

    It can easily be implemented by including a number of children in retirement formula and in taxes. The no-kids parasites, the assorted barren women and gays, feminists and male scoundrels who abandon their families, would pay for the long-term support they get from the society – for the children that they will need to get pensions, medical care, etc Or we can just cut them off once they no longer work. No kids – no old-age benefits, unless you pay for them. This would be automatic in a normal society in the past.

    Most modern people don't have children because they are lazy and because raising children is hard. It is a core role of any society to have families, so those who don't participate need to pay up.


    Philip Owen , says: January 15, 2020 at 7:19 pm GMT

    @Beckow The Soviet Union did have a tax on childless (or unmarried?) men for a while. It wasn't popular and didn't last.
    Beckow , says: January 15, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMT
    @Philip Owen opular with the parasites who have to pay, but all taxes are unpopular.

    It is fundamentally the most fair way to handle generational issues – those who choose to be free-loaders, can't expect others' children to take care of them. This will happen regardless, all the pension obligations are imposed on people who never agreed to them, they will re-structure them in the future to benefit their own families.

    In the West this is complicated by the diversity-migrant issue in the next generation – why should they pay for people who invited them for cheap labor? There is an assumption that they will pay, but why should they? This issue is coming.

    AnonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:08 pm GMT
    @Philip Owen In Stalin's times that tax was imposed an all and gradually reduced with the number of children, so that only people who had three or more children did not pay "childless" tax. In Brezhnev's USSR that tax was on childless men and married childless women (on the assumption that marriage is male's choice, so a woman cannot be penalized when no one marries her).
    inertial , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:23 pm GMT
    @AnonFromTN Too many women whose potential husbands were killed in the war. Penalizing them with a tax on top of everything would've been heartless.
    Abelard Lindsey , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:26 pm GMT
    @Beckow The US already has this. One look at the IRS 1040 form and instructions will confirm this.
    nonFromTN , says: January 15, 2020 at 8:30 pm GMT
    @songbird Frankly, I don't know. I never lived in Stalin's times and never had enough siblings or three children. What I remember in the 1960s and 1970s, every school child in grade 1 (maybe 1 and 2) received a glass of free milk at school daily, and children from poorer families received free lunch (I never did).
    Philip Owen , says: January 15, 2020 at 9:43 pm GMT
    @AnonFromTN In the UK we had a small bottle, about a third of a pint, of free milk. The ones who needed it most never drank it. (My school was in a small town and contained all social classes). School meals were paid for by most but some had them free.

    The Russian government has just introduced free school meals for all for certain years. I forget which.

    [Jan 17, 2020] Putin plan will make US control of the positions of Russian President and Russian PM more difficult. It takes time, effort and money to build up a lobbying presence in a large parliament

    Jan 17, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Jen January 15, 2020 at 7:55 pm

    I should think that the transfer of powers from the Presidency to the position of Prime Minister, and the holders of executive power being chosen by holders of legislative power, will make US control of the positions of Russian President and Russian PM more difficult. It takes time, effort and money to build up a lobbying presence in a large parliament; for one thing, the West needs to know who are the most significant organizations and agencies in Russia to penetrate and infiltrate, and then influence. Then these people need to know which politicians and which parties in the Federal Assembly to target. A parliamentary system where the holders of executive power are not chosen directly by the public but by political peers is likely to be more resistant to foreign infiltration if only because there are more people to target. The Russian language and alphabet, and current political culture are also likely to be barriers to penetration.

    It was much easier in the Yeltsin period when Yeltsin appropriated powers that should have belonged to the Federal Assembly, for the US to control the Presidency; Yeltsin was moving the country's political structure to a centralized one that to some extent the Americans could relate to, because then it began to resemble the structures they knew and had experience with.

    Like Like

    [Jan 16, 2020] Battle of the Ages to stop Eurasian integration by Pepe Escobar

    Jan 16, 2020 | www.asiatimes.com

    Battle of the Ages to stop Eurasian integration

    Coming decade could see the US take on Russia, China and Iran over the New Silk Road connection

    The Raging Twenties started with a bang with the targeted assassination of Iran's General Qasem Soleimani.

    Yet a bigger bang awaits us throughout the decade: the myriad declinations of the New Great Game in Eurasia, which pits the US against Russia, China and Iran, the three major nodes of Eurasia integration.

    Every game-changing act in geopolitics and geoeconomics in the coming decade will have to be analyzed in connection to this epic clash.

    The Deep State and crucial sectors of the US ruling class are absolutely terrified that China is already outpacing the "indispensable nation" economically and that Russia has outpaced it militarily . The Pentagon officially designates the three Eurasian nodes as "threats."

    Hybrid War techniques – carrying inbuilt 24/7 demonization – will proliferate with the aim of containing China's "threat," Russian "aggression" and Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism." The myth of the "free market" will continue to drown under the imposition of a barrage of illegal sanctions, euphemistically defined as new trade "rules."

    Yet that will be hardly enough to derail the Russia-China strategic partnership. To unlock the deeper meaning of this partnership, we need to understand that Beijing defines it as rolling towards a "new era." That implies strategic long-term planning – with the key date being 2049, the centennial of New China.

    The horizon for the multiple projects of the Belt and Road Initiative – as in the China-driven New Silk Roads – is indeed the 2040s, when Beijing expects to have fully woven a new, multipolar paradigm of sovereign nations/partners across Eurasia and beyond, all connected by an interlocking maze of belts and roads.

    The Russian project – Greater Eurasia – somewhat mirrors Belt & Road and will be integrated with it. Belt & Road, the Eurasia Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank are all converging towards the same vision.

    Realpolitik

    So this "new era", as defined by the Chinese, relies heavily on close Russia-China coordination, in every sector. Made in China 2025 is encompassing a series of techno/scientific breakthroughs. At the same time, Russia has established itself as an unparalleled technological resource for weapons and systems that the Chinese still cannot match.

    At the latest BRICS summit in Brasilia, President Xi Jinping told Vladimir Putin that "the current international situation with rising instability and uncertainty urge China and Russia to establish closer strategic coordination." Putin's response: "Under the current situation, the two sides should continue to maintain close strategic communication."

    Russia is showing China how the West respects realpolitik power in any form, and Beijing is finally starting to use theirs. The result is that after five centuries of Western domination – which, incidentally, led to the decline of the Ancient Silk Roads – the Heartland is back, with a bang, asserting its preeminence.

    On a personal note, my travels these past two years, from West Asia to Central Asia, and my conversations these past two months with analysts in Nur-Sultan, Moscow and Italy, have allowed me to get deeper into the intricacies of what sharp minds define as the Double Helix. We are all aware of the immense challenges ahead – while barely managing to track the stunning re-emergence of the Heartland in real-time.

    In soft power terms, the sterling role of Russian diplomacy will become even more paramount – backed up by a Ministry of Defense led by Sergei Shoigu, a Tuvan from Siberia, and an intel arm that is capable of constructive dialogue with everybody: India/Pakistan, North/South Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

    This apparatus does smooth (complex) geopolitical issues over in a manner that still eludes Beijing.

    In parallel, virtually the whole Asia-Pacific – from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean – now takes into full consideration Russia-China as a counter-force to US naval and financial overreach.

    Stakes in Southwest Asia

    The targeted assassination of Soleimani, for all its long-term fallout, is just one move in the Southwest Asia chessboard. What's ultimately at stake is a macro geoeconomic prize: a land bridge from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean.

    Last summer, an Iran-Iraq-Syria trilateral established that "the goal of negotiations is to activate the Iranian-Iraqi-Syria load and transport corridor as part of a wider plan for reviving the Silk Road."

    There could not be a more strategic connectivity corridor, capable of simultaneously interlinking with the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the Iran-Central Asia-China connection all the way to the Pacific; and projecting Latakia towards the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

    What's on the horizon is, in fact, a sub-sect of Belt & Road in Southwest Asia. Iran is a key node of Belt & Road; China will be heavily involved in the rebuilding of Syria; and Beijing-Baghdad signed multiple deals and set up an Iraqi-Chinese Reconstruction Fund (income from 300,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for Chinese credit for Chinese companies rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure).

    A quick look at the map reveals the "secret" of the US refusing to pack up and leave Iraq, as demanded by the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister: to prevent the emergence of this corridor by any means necessary. Especially when we see that all the roads that China is building across Central Asia – I navigated many of them in November and December – ultimately link China with Iran.

    The final objective: to unite Shanghai to the Eastern Mediterranean – overland, across the Heartland.

    As much as Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea is an essential node of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and part of China's multi-pronged "escape from Malacca" strategy, India also courted Iran to match Gwadar via the port of Chabahar in the Gulf of Oman.

    So as much as Beijing wants to connect the Arabian Sea with Xinjiang, via the economic corridor, India wants to connect with Afghanistan and Central Asia via Iran.

    Yet India's investments in Chabahar may come to nothing, with New Delhi still mulling whether to become an active part of the US "Indo-Pacific" strategy, which would imply dropping Tehran.

    The Russia-China-Iran joint naval exercise in late December, starting exactly from Chabahar, was a timely wake-up for New Delhi. India simply cannot afford to ignore Iran and end up losing its key connectivity node, Chabahar.

    The immutable fact: everyone needs and wants Iran connectivity. For obvious reasons, since the Persian empire, this is the privileged hub for all Central Asian trade routes.

    On top of it, Iran for China is a matter of national security. China is heavily invested in Iran's energy industry. All bilateral trade will be settled in yuan or in a basket of currencies bypassing the US dollar.

    US neocons, meanwhile, still dream of what the Cheney regime was aiming at in the past decade: regime change in Iran leading to the US dominating the Caspian Sea as a springboard to Central Asia, only one step away from Xinjiang and weaponization of anti-China sentiment. It could be seen as a New Silk Road in reverse to disrupt the Chinese vision.

    Battle of the Ages

    A new book, The Impact of China's Belt and Road Initiativ e , by Jeremy Garlick of the University of Economics in Prague, carries the merit of admitting that, "making sense" of Belt & Road "is extremely difficult."

    This is an extremely serious attempt to theorize Belt & Road's immense complexity – especially considering China's flexible, syncretic approach to policymaking, quite bewildering for Westerners. To reach his goal, Garlick gets into Tang Shiping's social evolution paradigm, delves into neo-Gramscian hegemony, and dissects the concept of "offensive mercantilism" – all that as part of an effort in "complex eclecticism."

    The contrast with the pedestrian Belt & Road demonization narrative emanating from US "analysts" is glaring. The book tackles in detail the multifaceted nature of Belt & Road's trans-regionalism as an evolving, organic process.

    Imperial policymakers won't bother to understand how and why Belt & Road is setting a new global paradigm. The NATO summit in London last month offered a few pointers. NATO uncritically adopted three US priorities: even more aggressive policy towards Russia; containment of China (including military surveillance); and militarization of space – a spin-off from the 2002 Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.

    So NATO will be drawn into the "Indo-Pacific" strategy – which means containment of China. And as NATO is the EU's weaponized arm, that implies the US interfering on how Europe does business with China – at every level.

    Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005, cuts to the chase: "America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is doing right now, as Esper is doing right now and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it. And that's the agony of it."

    Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are working on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from all forms of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.

    For the US, this is indeed an existential battle – against the whole Eurasia integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those Russian hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt against US policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US dollar. What's certain is that the Empire won't go quietly into the night. We should all be ready for the battle of the ages.

    [Jan 16, 2020] There is a silver lining to that. If another term of Trump inspires the Europeans to abrogate NATO and put an end to that alliance and create their own NEATO ( North East Atlantic Treaty Organization)

    Jan 16, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    drumlin woodchuckles , , January 14, 2020 at 7:29 pm

    There is a silver lining to that. If another term of Trump inspires the Europeans to abrogate NATO and put an end to that alliance and create their own NEATO ( North East Atlantic Treaty Organization) withOUT America and withOUT Canada and maybe withOUT some of those no-great-bargain East European countries; then NEATO Europe could reach its own Separate Peace with Russia and lower that tension point.

    And America could bring its hundred thousand hostages ( "soldiers") back home from not-NATO-anymore Europe.

    [Jan 16, 2020] After Putin: Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly

    Jan 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    Search Jan 15, 2020 14 TRANSCRIPT: Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly Editor Below is a full (translated) transcript of Vladimir Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly on Wednesday the 15th of January 2020. It is taken from the Kremlin's official website , and presented here for Western audiences who are curious to read it, but aren't likely to be bothered trawling the Kremlin's website looking for it.

    Members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, fellow Russians,

    The Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly is delivered at the very beginning of the year for the first time. We need to address large-scale social, economic and technological tasks facing the country more quickly and without delay.

    Their content and guidelines are reflected in the national projects, whose implementation will require a new quality of state governance and work on the part of the Government and state bodies at all levels, as well as direct dialogue with citizens.

    Our society is clearly calling for change. People want development, and they strive to move forward in their careers and knowledge, in achieving prosperity, and they are ready to assume responsibility for specific work. Quite often, they have better knowledge of what, how and when should be changed where they live and work, that is, in cities, districts, villages and all across the nation.

    The pace of change must be expedited every year and produce tangible results in attaining worthy living standards that would be clearly perceived by the people. And, I repeat, they must be actively involved in this process.

    Colleagues,

    Russia's future and historical perspective depend on how many of us there are (I would like to start the main part of my Address with demography), how many children are born in Russian families in one, five or ten years, on these children's upbringing, on what kind of people they become and what they will do for the country, as well as on the values they choose as their mainstay in life.

    There are nearly 147 million of us now. But we have entered a difficult, a very difficult demographic period. The measures we took starting in the mid-2000s have had a positive effect on demography. We have even reached a stage of natural increase. This is why we have more children at schools now.

    However, new families are being created now by the small generation of the 1990s. And the birth rate is falling again. This is the main problem of the current demographic period in Russia.

    The aggregate birth rate, which is the key index showing the number of births per woman, was only 1.5 in 2019, according to tentative estimates. Is this few or many? It is not enough for our country. It is approximately equal to the figure reported in many European countries. But it is not enough for Russia.

    I can tell you by way of comparison that the figure was 1.3 in 1943, during the Great Patriotic War. It was only lower in the 1990s: 1.16 in 1999, lower even than during the Great Patriotic War. There were very few families with two children, and some couples had to put off starting a family.

    I want to say once again that we are alarmed by the negative demographic forecasts. It is our historic duty to respond to this challenge. We must not only get out of this demographic trap but ensure a sustainable natural population growth by 2025. The aggregate birth rate must be 1.7 in 2024.

    Demography is a sector where universal or parochial solutions cannot be effective. Each step we take and each new law or government programme we adopt must be scrutinised from the viewpoint of our top national priority – the preservation and increase of Russia's population.

    As we build a long-term policy to support families, it must be based on specific life situations. We need to look closely at difficulties faced by new families, families with many children or single-parent families.

    The most sensitive and crucial issue is the opportunity to enrol one's child in a day nursery. Earlier, we allocated funds from the federal budget to help the regions create 255,000 new places in day nurseries by the end of 2021. However, in 2018 to 2019, instead of 90,000, 78,000 new places were created, out of which only 37,500 places can actually be provided to kids. Other places are unavailable simply because an educational licence is still not obtained. This means that these nurseries are not ready to enrol children.

    Governors, heads of other constituent entities, my dear colleagues, this is not how work is done. Come on! It means we have created 77,700 places that are still not fully available. Half of them cannot operate – and we must create 177,300 by 2021. I am asking you to do everything (although it will be very difficult now, however, it needs to be done) to close this gap. Once again, we must work across all areas of family support.

    But there is a daunting challenge that directly threatens our demographic future and it is the low income of a significant part of our citizens and families.

    According to various estimates, roughly 70 to 80 percent of low-income families are families with children. You are well aware of this. It often happens that even when not one but both parents work, the income of such a family is still very modest.

    What decisions have already been made? From January 2020, families with incomes below two subsistence minimums per person will receive monthly benefits for their first and second child. Moreover, these benefits will be paid until the child reaches the age of three rather than 18 months as was the case before. The benefit amount will depend on the subsistence minimum in a specific region. The nationwide average is over 11,000 rubles per child per month. Once again, this is an average and depends on a specific region.

    Additionally, with the support of the federal budget we have started paying benefits for the third child and subsequent children in 75 constituent entities, now including all regions in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East.

    All of this amounts to substantial support. But the following thought has crossed my mind, and I believe that you also realise this. Parents stop receiving payments when their child turns three, and this means that their family can immediately face financial problems. To be honest, this is happening already. We must prevent this, especially since I realise that mothers often find it hard to combine working and caring for their children before they start school.

    We know from the experience of our own children and grandchildren that they often fall ill. Their mothers are therefore unable to work. In this connection, I suggest we introduce monthly payments for children aged between three and seven starting already from January 1, 2020.

    Who will be covered by this measure, and how is it supposed to function?

    Families whose incomes do not exceed per-capita subsistence minimum will receive these payments. That is, it concerns families facing a very difficult situation.

    To obtain these payments, they will only have to file an application and list their official legal incomes. I would like to note that this procedure must become as convenient and simple as possible, so that people would be able to apply without queuing and clearing hurdles. Or they should do this online on the relevant state website.

    As I have already said, incomes may vary from region to region. First stage payments will amount to 5,500 rubles, or 50 percent of the subsistence minimum. But that is not all. We will have to analyse and assess the operation of this system. And we will take the next step, if we see that some families are unable to achieve the subsistence minimum while receiving 5,500 rubles. From 2021, we will pay the subsistence minimum in full, or over 11,000 rubles, that will vary from region to region. I repeat, the specific sums will vary, but on average it will amount to 11,000 rubles per child per month.

    We will need substantial resources for implementing the proposed measure, and we will also have to adjust the federal budget. I ask the Government and members of the Parliament to do this as quickly as possible. The regions should also complete their share of regulatory work.

    What else should we do equally quickly?

    In my Address last year I said that we should expand the system of social contracts. It should become an individual programme whereby every low-income family will be able to increase their income and enhance their quality of life. Under these contracts, the state will make regular payments to such families, finance retraining and advanced training and help them to find employment or start a small business.

    While providing comprehensive assistance to low-income people, society and the state have a right to expect them to take steps as well to deal with their problems, including finding employment and taking a responsible attitude to their children and other family members.

    The regions are already introducing the mechanism of social contracts. But it is not sufficiently effective yet, and it is not helping much to fight poverty or to increase family incomes.

    Therefore, first of all I would like to ask the Government to analyse the experience of the pilot projects and revise the principles of social contracts. Second, we must increase financial assistance to the regions so that all of them introduce this mechanism in 2021.

    I would like all our colleagues, including the regional heads, to note that we will assess their performance not by the number of social contracts signed but by poverty decline figures.

    Colleagues,

    Back in 2006, I said the following in my Address to the Federal Assembly: "And now for the most important matter. Indeed, what I want to talk about is love." It was then that I proposed launching the maternity capital programme aimed at helping the families that decided to have their second child.

    This programme will expire on December 31, 2021. I know than many people wonder what the state will do after that. We will extend this programme to December 31, 2026 at the least. We must do this without fail. But this measure only is no longer enough.

    We must support young people who are starting their families and, I am sure, dreaming about having children. In this sense, I would like to introduce new, additional decisions concerning the maternity capital, which should also come into effect on January 1, 2020.

    Even when the first child is born, the family will have the right to the full amount of the maternity capital, which is 466,617 rubles after the indexation in January 2020. This is the sum that was paid when the second or the next child was born. This support will give families a chance to prepare for the birth of their second child.

    But I believe that this is still not enough in today's conditions, considering the demographic challenges Russia is facing. We can and must do even more. I suggest increasing the maternity capital by a further 150,000 rubles. Families will have the right to this additional money for the maternity capital when their second child is born.

    This means that the total amount of the maternity capital for a family with two children will amount to 616,617 rubles. It will be indexed annually in the future.

    At the same time I believe that if a family already has a child, we must provide the new, increased maternity capital when the second child is born, which is, as I have already said, 616,617 rubles.

    Let me add that we have already made the decision that when the third child is born, the government pays 450,000 rubles towards the family's mortgage loan. This means that overall a family with three children will be able to invest over one million rubles to solve their housing problems with the help of the government. In many regions, cities, and even regional capitals this amounts to almost half of the cost of a house or a flat.

    Let me also remind you that a reduced mortgage interest rate, six percent per year, for families with two or more children has been extended for the entire time of the loan, which resulted in the number of people using this support measure growing almost 10-fold at once.

    A social programme for young families has been launched in the Far East: mortgage loans at 2 percent interest rate. I ask the banks, and not just the banks with state capital, to become more actively involved in its implementation.

    And here is another highly important matter. I have already mentioned a new payment for children aged between three and seven. But this is not all that we can and must do. Yes, when children start attending school, their parents, especially mothers, get more opportunities to work and earn an additional income. However, families have to pay more in order to send their children to school, they face extra problems, and we have to support them at that stage. In this connection, I suggest providing free hot meals to all primary school students from grade one through four.

    I will not conceal the fact that we have had heated discussions on this subject. On the whole, some colleagues do not object, but they say that it would not be very fair that people with decent incomes and low incomes should receive the same amount of support from the state. They are not saying this because they do not want to support the children. Indeed, this argument has its own logic. But there is another logic that prevails in our society: everyone must have equal opportunities, and children and their parents who are often demeaned by the current situation must not think that they are even unable to feed their children.

    I believe that this is very important for our society. Yes, they tell me that these benefits were not available even during the Soviet period, when there was large-scale social support for the people. But there was no great social stratification at that time either. I believe that this measure will be justified.

    In order to provide free hot and, most importantly, healthy meals, I suggest channelling funding from three sources: the federal, regional and local budgets. But money is not the only thing that matters. We need to create the required infrastructure at schools, set up cafeterias and lunchrooms and put in place a system for supplying high-quality food. I would like to note that this was not done even during Soviet times, as I have already said. This, of course, will require time. But free hot meals must be provided starting from September 1, 2020 in those regions and schools that have the required level of technical equipment. I ask our colleagues to expedite this work. Primary school students must start receiving high-quality hot meals free of charge in all regions from September 1, 2023.

    So colleagues, here is the point I want to make, in short. I would like to emphasise – all the steps we are taking are aimed at creating a streamlined, large-scale and, most importantly, an effectively working family support programme, so that people's incomes, especially for those raising children, are high enough for a decent life.

    Secondly, what I said at the beginning of the Address: the steps that we took in previous years in the field of demographic development have already brought results. They have yielded results back then: a large generation is growing up in Russia. I am referring to children who are in preschool and primary school now. It is very important that they adopt the true values ​​of a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and successful country.

    Colleagues,

    Supporting families and family values ​​is always a forward-looking strategy addressing the generations that are to live in an age of tremendous technological and social changes, and something that will determine Russia's fate in the 21st century. So, to have these new generations participate in creating this future even now, to have them fully reveal their potential, we must create the necessary conditions for them, primarily for every child in every region of Russia to get a good education.

    In the middle of the coming decade, Russia will have about 19 million schoolchildren, which is 6 million more than in 2010. Some say it is too difficult to influence objective demographic processes, so it is unadvisable to channel large resources for demographic development. However, in reality, we can see direct evidence of the opposite: family support policies are working, and sometimes their results even exceed our wildest expectations. It is great that there are so many children in our schools again. On the other hand, this situation should not affect the comfort and quality of their learning.

    I ask the Government to coordinate with the regions, consider the demographic and other factors, estimate how many more children the schools need to serve, and make the necessary changes to the Education National Project. That will require flexible solutions: not only to build more schools, but also to efficiently use the entire educational and other infrastructure we have for these purposes, as well as the benefits of modern technology for education.

    Almost all schools in Russia have internet access now. In 2021, they should no longer just be connected, but have high-speed internet access to fully embrace the digital transformation in national education; teachers and students should have access to advanced educational programmes; individual approach to teaching should be practiced to reveal each child's talents.

    Our network of extracurricular technology and engineering centres is developing dynamically. Our children should also benefit from a modern environment for practicing music, art, and other forms of creativity.

    Russia is allocating more than 8 billion rubles for equipment and musical instruments for children's art schools as part of the Culture National Project. But the problem is much wider. More than 1,000 art school premises are dilapidated and not fit for use as intended. I would like to ask the Government to help the regions improve them. And I ask the regional authorities not to forget that this is their responsibility.

    Furthermore, a modern school implies forward-looking teaching staff enjoying high social status and prestige. By the middle of the next decade, the national professional advancement system should canvas at least half of the country's teachers, in the future including additional professional training, along with general education workers.

    Class teachers are closest to their pupils. Their ongoing daily work including mentoring children and teaching them the right ways is a huge responsibility, and definitely requires special training and special support for these mentors. In this regard, I consider it necessary to introduce, from September 1, at least 5,000 rubles in additional payment to them financed from the federal budget.

    There is a lot of controversy about this decision, because this is actually the responsibility of the regions. Those present in this room are well aware of this. But what is a class teacher? A mentor and supervisor, and those are federal functions.

    But, of course, I would like to point this out: all current regional payments to class teachers should continue, colleagues; I am calling your attention to this. And I will definitely look at what will be happening in practice, in real life.

    I pointed out more than once that the pay parameters for teachers, doctors and other public sector employees set out in the May 2012 Executive Orders must be strictly complied with. There is a reason why I keep returning to this subject. If we slacken control of this matter, this will create the temptation to neglect these provisions, as many of those present here know. This must not be allowed. I would like to emphasise that the issue concerns professionals working in the spheres of vital significance for society and the country, and they must receive good and fair pay for their work.

    The number of school graduates will be increasing in the next few years. In light of this, we must ensure equal and fair access to free intramural university education. Therefore, I suggest that the number of university scholarships be increased every year. Moreover – what I am going to say next is very important, the priority in this matter must be given to regional universities, especially the regions that are lacking doctors, teachers and engineers.

    Of course, we must not simply enrol more students but boost the development of regional universities with support from businesses and employers. In particular, we must strengthen their training, research and social infrastructure, as well as improve the system of training and advanced training of teachers for regional universities so that students receive up-to-date knowledge and can have successful careers in their regions.

    The employment market is changing rapidly, with new professions appearing and higher requirements made to the existing ones. Our universities must be able to respond to these changes flexibly and quickly. I believe that third-year students must be offered an opportunity to choose a new path or curriculum, including related professions. This is not easy to do, but we must indeed do this. To ensure that talented and decent people play a major or leading role in our national development, we have launched the Russia – Land of Opportunity project. Over 3.5 million people have taken part in its competitions and Olympiads. We will continue to improve this system.

    Colleagues,

    Last year life expectancy in Russia exceeded 73 years for the first time, which is eight years longer than in 2000. This is the result of social and economic changes in Russia, the development of mass sports and promotion of healthy lifestyles. And, of course, the entire healthcare system made a significant contribution, especially the programmes of specialised, including high-tech aid, as well as maternity and childhood welfare and protection of health of mother and child.

    The rate of infant mortality has reached a historic low. This indicator is even better than in some European countries. I am well aware that the public in many developed countries is very critical of the state of their national healthcare system, and you also know this. In fact, almost everywhere – no, everywhere – people criticise their healthcare system, however well organised it looks from here.

    Still our achievements in this area show that if we set certain goals, we can achieve results. However, let me repeat this, people do not judge the healthcare system by figures and indicators. A person who has to travel dozens of kilometres to a polyclinic or spend a whole day waiting in line for an appointment with a specialist is not very interested in how life expectancy has grown on the average. People think about their lives, their health, about how to get high-quality and timely medical aid without obstacles and when they need it. This is why now we must focus our efforts on primary care, which all people and all families have to deal with. This is where we have the worst and most sensitive problems.

    This year we are to fully complete the creation of a network of rural paramedic centres, as stipulated in the related national project. This does not mean, however, that all the problems of these rural paramedic centres have been settled. I would like to point out that the mission of these centres is not to make out prescriptions or refer patients to regional medical centres. Local specialists must be able to really help people by using modern equipment and high-speed internet. I would like to ask the Russian Popular Front to monitor the provision of equipment, construction and repair of rural paramedic centres.

    On July 1 we will also launch a programme to modernise the system of primary healthcare. We will have to repair and provide new equipment to outpatient clinics, rural hospitals and first-aid stations in all our regions. We have allocated an additional 550 billion rubles for this purpose, more than 90 percent of which will come from the federal budget.

    At the same time, I ask the regional authorities to find additional funds for providing housing to doctors and paramedics, in particular in villages, settlements and small towns, and to use all the available instruments towards this end, including employer-rented housing and private housing projects.

    Training and recruitment are key elements of medical education. By 2024, all levels of healthcare, but first of all the primary healthcare level, must have the necessary number of specialists. In this connection, I suggest that the admission procedure to medical universities be changed significantly. For example, 70 percent of scholarships in the field of general medicine and 75 percent in paediatrics will be awarded to prospective students who will return to their native regions upon graduation. The quotas will be distributed based on requests filed by the regions, which must subsequently provide employment to the graduates who must be able to work where people need their services.

    As for residency training, I suggest that almost 100 percent of scholarships be given to medical graduates in critically important spheres. Priority during enrolment will be given to those with practical experience in the field of primary healthcare, especially in rural areas. This system should be also stipulated for federal medical centres.

    And lastly, just as we agreed, a new system of remuneration will be gradually introduced in healthcare starting this year. It is based on clear, fair and understandable rules, with a fixed share of salary in the overall income and a uniform list of compensation payments and commercial incentives for all regions.

    I am aware that the implementation of all these goals requires extensive resources. If you go back to where I started, every goal needs a great deal of money. In this regard, I ask the Government to once again consider identifying priorities for our development while retaining the budget's stability. This is an advantage we have achieved in the past few years, and we must maintain it.

    I know that last year a number of regions saw a disruption in medication supplies as the regions' purchases were not made, with certain officials treating it as if it were some sort of office supplies purchases claiming it was not a big deal and new tenders would be announced. But people were left without essential and vitally important medications. I should point out that such cases must never happen again.

    This year, efforts will be made to launch an integrated comprehensive register of recipients of medications that are provided to citizens free of charge or with a considerable discount through a federal or regional subsidy to avoid any confusion in this regard in the future.

    Also, certain legislative decisions have already been adopted that will allow for official and centralised imports of certain medications to Russia that are yet to receive regulatory approval. I ask the Government to promptly organise this work so that people, particularly the parents of sick children, do not find themselves in a desperate situation when they cannot legally find the necessary medications.

    Control over pharmaceutical drugs will also significantly change. It will be tightened both at pharmaceutical companies and during all stages of medication circulation, including at pharmacy networks.

    Colleagues,

    In recent years, we have focused on strengthening macroeconomic sustainability, and it is something I just mentioned. The federal budget has had a surplus again. Our government reserves confidently cover our gross external debt. And here I am not talking about some abstract or theoretical indicators – I would like to emphasise that these figures are directly influencing the life of each and every person in our country, and have to do with the fulfilment of our social commitments. We can see the problems, even shocks that citizens of other states face, where government had no such cash cushion and their financial position turned out to be unstable.

    The consistent work of the Government and the Bank of Russia has led to a stabilisation of prices. Last year, inflation stood at 3 percent, which is below the target level of 4 percent. True, the prices of certain goods and services have risen slightly, but overall, I repeat, inflation is at a predictably low level. The situation fundamentally differs from what it was five or ten years ago, when double-digit inflation was a tax on all citizens of the country, being an especially hard burden for those on a fixed salary or pension – retired people and workers in the public sector.

    Now, relying on a stable macroeconomic foundation, we need to create conditions for a substantial increase in people's real incomes. Again, this is the most important responsibility of the Government and the Central Bank. To meet it, the national economy needs structural changes and higher efficiency. In 2021, Russia's GDP growth rates should be higher than the global ones.

    To have this kind of dynamics, it is necessary to launch a new investment cycle, to seriously increase investment in the creation and upgrading of jobs, in infrastructure, in the development of industry, agriculture and the services sector. Starting this year, annual investment growth should be at least 5 percent, and investment share in the country's GDP, 25 percent by 2024 from the current 21 percent.

    What needs to be done to encourage investment?

    First of all, we agreed not to change the tax treatment for businesses over a period of the next six years and thus provide a wider horizon for investment planning. The deputies and the Government should speed up the adoption of a package of draft laws on protecting and promoting investment. As you are well aware, tax treatment for major important projects should remain unchanged for up to 20 years, and the requirements and standards for building production sites should remain the same for three years. These investor guarantees should become standard law.

    Of course, in addition to major projects, small- and medium-sized businesses' initiatives should be supported as well. Today, the regions are entitled to provide an investment-based tax deduction and a three-year revenue tax break, but they rarely use them. It is clear why: they do so because regional budgets thus lose revenue. In this regard, we would like federal funds to compensate the regions for two-thirds of the lost revenue stemming from the use of an investment-related tax deduction.

    Second, the reform of the oversight and supervisory activities must be completed in 2020, and businesses should thus see improvements in their operating environment.

    Third, I have already submitted to the State Duma the amendments to remove vague criminal law provisions in part related to so-called frauds. Thus, entrepreneurs have repeatedly mentioned Article 210 of the Criminal Code, under which any company whose senior executives violated the law could qualify as an organised criminal group, meaning that almost all of its employees were liable. Tougher restrictive measures and punishment were put in place. Law enforcement agencies will henceforth be required to prove that an organisation or a company was initially deliberately created with an illegal purpose in mind.

    Fourth. It is estimated that as soon as this summer the foreign currency reserves of the National Welfare Fund will pass the mark of 7 percent of GDP. We have accumulated these reserves to guarantee our stability and security, which means we can invest our additional revenue in development and the national economy.

    Cost-effective projects that remove infrastructure restrictions for our territories must become our priority. This includes bypass roads for big cities, arterial roads between regional capitals and exit roads to federal motorways. These projects will inevitably bring about the growth of small businesses, tourism and social activity in the regions and locally.

    Fifth. For investment to grow steadily, our economy needs long-term money. We all know this very well. This is a direct responsibility of the Central Bank. I appreciate its consistent course for making loans for the real sector of economy more accessible.

    Of course, businesses, companies (especially large ones) must remember about their social and environmental responsibility. I would like to thank our parliament members for demonstrating integrity during their work on the emission quota law.

    Obviously, it is necessary to act upon our plans faster. Our next steps include testing and implementing the air quality monitoring system and subsequently expanding this control system to cover the entire country. It is necessary to monitor not only the condition of air but also water and soil – that is, to develop a comprehensive environmental monitoring system.

    Next. By the end of this year, at least 80 out of the 300 largest industrial facilities must complete the transition to best available technology and obtain complex environmental permits, which means a consistent reduction of hazardous emissions. Sixteen permits have been issued as of now but overall this work is on schedule. No matter what, we must not allow any disruptions here. It is necessary to drastically cut the amount of waste ending up in landfills, implement waste sorting and generally move towards the circular economy. By 2021, we must already launch the mechanism of extended producer responsibility when producers and importers of goods and packaging are responsible for recycling costs. To put it simply, contaminators must pay.

    Colleagues,

    I would like to stress that Russia is ready to support Russian and foreign scientists' joint research on ecology, climate change, environmental and ocean pollution. These are global development challenges shared by everyone.

    Today the speed of technological change in the world is increasing manifold, and we must create our own technologies and standards in areas that define our future, such as, first of all, artificial intelligence, genetics, new materials, energy sources and digital technology. I am confident that we can reach a breakthrough here, as we did in defence. I will speak about this later.

    In order to solve difficult technological tasks, we will continue to develop research infrastructure, including megascience-class facilities. I am sure that an opportunity to work with unique equipment and tackle the most ambitious tasks will encourage talented young people to work in science. This is already happening. According to estimates, by the middle of the decade every second scientist in Russia will be under 40.

    We should give researchers, engineers and entrepreneurs the freedom they need to do their work and to conduct innovative scientific research. I ask the Government and State Duma deputies to fast-track the discussion of the technological legislative package. This year we must launch a flexible mechanism of experimental legal modes to design and introduce new technologies in Russia and establish up-to-date regulation of the big data turnover.

    Next, we should establish a mechanism of social support for direct and venture finance tools based on the best global practices. The technological entrepreneur should have the right to take a risk, so that failing to implement an idea will not automatically mean inappropriate use of funds and a possible criminal prosecution. I mean that we should establish such legal and financial conditions that as many start-ups and pioneer teams as possible could become strong and successful innovative companies.

    We need to support the export of high-tech products and, of course, to boost domestic demand for innovative products. In this context, I believe it would be right to fast-track the digital transformation of the real economy. A requirement should be set that national projects are largely carried out using domestic software.

    We have already put in place, say, major digital television infrastructure, which, in terms of its technical characteristics, is one of the most advanced in the world. Currently, the digital television coverage in Russia is more expanded than, for example, in France, Austria or Switzerland.

    The internet has become a must-have for people today. Russia is one of few countries in the world which has its own social networks, messengers, e-mail and search engines and other national resources.

    Given all the things I've just mentioned, I suggest that the Affordable Internet project be developed and carried out and that free access to socially important domestic internet services be available across Russia. I repeat that in this case people will not have to pay for the internet service, for internet traffic.

    Colleagues,

    The high availability of the internet should become Russia's and our citizens' competitive advantage and create, across the board, an environment conducive to education, creative work, communications and the implementation of social and cultural projects. Of course, this means new opportunities for people to get involved in the life of the country. We appreciate every creative initiative of our citizens, public associations, non-profit organisations, as well as their willingness to contribute to national development.

    It is very important that the volunteer movement is becoming more popular, and it unites schoolchildren, university students, and people of different generations and ages. The Victory Volunteers project embodies the tradition of mutual assistance and respect for older generations and our history.

    This year, we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. For Russia, May 9 is the greatest and sacred holiday. We are proud of the generation of victors and honour their feat, and our memory is not only a tribute to our heroic past, but it also serves our future, inspires us and strengthens our unity.

    It is our duty to defend the truth about the Victory; otherwise what shall we say to our children if a lie, like a disease, spreads all over the world? We must set facts against outrageous lies and attempts to distort history. Russia will create the largest and most complete set of archival documents, film and photo materials on the Second World War, accessible both for our citizens and for the whole world. This work is our duty as a winning country and our responsibility to the future generations.

    Colleagues,

    We can see how unpredictably, uncontrollably events are developing in the world, what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa literally in recent weeks and recent days, how regional conflicts can rapidly grow into threats to the entire international community.

    I am convinced that it is high time for a serious and direct discussion about the basic principles of a stable world order and the most acute problems that humanity is facing. It is necessary to show political will, wisdom and courage. The time demands an awareness of our shared responsibility and real actions.

    The founding countries of the United Nations should set an example. It is the five nuclear powers that bear a special responsibility for the conservation and sustainable development of humankind. These five nations should first of all start with measures to remove the prerequisites for a global war and develop updated approaches to ensuring stability on the planet that would fully take into account the political, economic and military aspects of modern international relations.

    Russia is ready to enhance cooperation with all interested parties. We are not threatening anyone or seeking to impose our will on anyone. At the same time, I can assure everyone that our efforts to strengthen national security were made in a timely manner and in sufficient volume. For the first time ever – I want to emphasise this – for the first time in the history of nuclear missile weapons, including the Soviet period and modern times, we are not catching up with anyone, but, on the contrary, other leading states have yet to create the weapons that Russia already possesses.

    The country's defence capability is ensured for decades to come, but we cannot rest on our laurels and do nothing. We must keep moving forward, carefully observing and analysing the developments in this area across the world, and create next-generation combat systems and complexes. This is what we are doing today.

    Reliable security creates the basis for Russia's progressive and peaceful development and allows us to do much more to overcome the most pressing internal challenges, to focus on the economic and social growth of all our regions in the interest of the people, because Russia's greatness is inseparable from dignified life of its every citizen. I see this harmony of a strong power and well-being of the people as a foundation of our future.

    Colleagues,

    We can move towards this goal only with the active participation of society, our citizens and, of course, intense and productive work of all branches and levels of government, the potential of which should be expanded.

    In this regard, I would like to spend a moment discussing state structure and domestic policy, which are defined by the Fundamental Law of our country – the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I keep getting these questions all the time, including at the most recent annual news conference.

    Clearly, we cannot but agree with those who say that the Constitution was adopted over 25 years ago amidst a severe internal political crisis and the state of affairs has completely overturned since then. Thank goodness, there is no more armed confrontation in the capital or a hotbed of international terrorism in the North Caucasus.

    Despite a number of acute unsolved problems that we talked about today, the socioeconomic situation has stabilised, after all. Today some political public associations are raising the issue of adopting a new Constitution.

    I want to answer straight off: I believe there is no need for this. Potential of the 1993 Constitution is far from being exhausted and I hope that pillars of our constitutional system, rights and freedoms will remain the foundation of strong values for the Russian society for decades to come.

    In the meantime, statements regarding changes to the Constitution have already been made. And I find it possible to express my view and propose a number of constitutional amendments for discussion, amendments that, in my opinion, are reasonable and important for the further development of Russia as a rule-of-law welfare state where citizens' freedoms and rights, human dignity and wellbeing constitute the highest value.

    Firstly, Russia can be and can remain Russia only as a sovereign state. Our nation's sovereignty must be unconditional. We have done a great deal to achieve this. We restored our state's unity. We have overcome the situation when certain powers in the government were essentially usurped by oligarch clans. Russia has returned to international politics as a country whose opinion cannot be ignored.

    We created powerful reserves, which multiplies our country's stability and capability to protect its citizens' social rights and the national economy from any attempts of foreign pressure.

    I truly believe that it is time to introduce certain changes to our country's main law, changes that will directly guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in our legal framework.

    What does it mean? It means literally the following: requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution.

    Second, I suggest formalising at the constitutional level the obligatory requirements for those who hold positions of critical significance for national security and sovereignty. More precisely, the heads of the constituent entities, members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, the prime minister and his/her deputies, federal ministers, heads of federal agencies and judges should have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other document that allows them to live permanently in a foreign state.

    The goal and mission of state service is to serve the people, and those who enter this path must know that by doing this they inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances.

    Requirements must be even stricter for presidential candidates. I suggest formalising a requirement under which presidential candidates must have had permanent residence in Russia for at least 25 years and no foreign citizenship or residence permit and not only during the election campaign but at any time before it too.

    I know that people are discussing the constitutional provision under which one person cannot hold the post of the President of the Russian Federation for two successive terms. I do not regard this as a matter of principle, but I nevertheless support and share this view.

    I have already said before that our goal is to ensure high living standards and equal opportunities for all throughout the country. It is towards this goal that our national projects and development plans are aimed.

    At the same time, you know about the problems to do with education, healthcare and other fields created by a divide between the federal and municipal authorities – I have pointed this out more than once. This divide and, at the same time, the complex system of powers are having a negative effect above all on the people.

    The rights, opportunities and guarantees, that are legally equal for all citizens, are not provided equally in different regions and municipalities. This is unfair to people and is directly threatening our society and national integrity.

    I believe that the Constitution must seal the principles of a unified system of public authority and effective interaction between the federal and municipal authorities. At the same time, the powers and practical opportunities of the local governments, a body of authority that is closest to the people, can and should be expanded and strengthened.

    And lastly, the state must honour its social responsibility under any conditions throughout the country. Therefore, I believe that the Constitution should include a provision that the minimum wage in Russia must not be below the subsistence minimum of the economically active people. We have a law on this, but we should formalise this requirement in the Constitution along with the principles of decent pensions, which implies a regular adjustment of pensions according to inflation.

    Fourth, Russia is a huge country, and every region has its specifics, problems and experience. Of course, this must be taken into account. I believe it is necessary to cardinally increase the role of governors in decision-making at the federal level. As you know, back in 2000 the State Council was restored at my initiative, where the heads of all regions participate. Over the past period the State Council has proven its high effectiveness; its working groups provide for the professional, comprehensive and qualified examination of issues that are most important for people and Russia. I believe it would be appropriate to fix the status and role of the State Council in the Russian Constitution.

    Fifth, Russian society is becoming more mature, responsible and demanding. Despite the differences in the ways to address their tasks, the main political forces speak from the position of patriotism and reflect the interests of their followers and voters.

    At the same time, almost all the parties represented in the State Duma – and you know that I have regular meetings with their leaders – believe that the Federal Assembly is ready to take more responsibility for forming the Government. (Applause.) I expected this round of applause, but I think you will have another opportunity for applause now; please listen until the end.

    More responsibility for forming the Government means more responsibility for the Government's policy. I completely agree with this position.

    What is the situation like now? In accordance with articles 111 and 112 of the Russian Constitution, the President only receives the consent of the State Duma to appoint the Prime Minister, and then appoints the head of the Cabinet, his deputies and all the ministers. I suggest changing the procedure and allowing the State Duma to appoint the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, and then all deputy prime ministers and federal ministers at the Prime Minister's recommendation. At the same time the President will have to appoint them, so he will have no right to turn down the candidates approved by the Parliament. (Applause.)

    All of this means drastic changes to the political system. However, let me repeat, considering the maturity of our main political organisations and parties as well as the reputation of civil society, I believe these proposals are justified. This will increase the role and importance of the State Duma and parliamentary parties as well as the independence and responsibility of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members and make cooperation between the representative and executive branches of government more effective and substantive.

    Colleagues,

    I would like to emphasise that our country, with its vast territory, complex federal and administrative division and diverse cultural and historical traditions, cannot properly advance and even exist sustainably as a parliamentary republic.

    Russia must remain a strong presidential republic. The president must undoubtedly retain the right to determine the Government's tasks and priorities, as well as the right to dismiss the prime minister, his deputies and federal ministers in case of improper execution of duties or due to loss of trust. The president also exercises direct command over the Armed Forces and the entire law enforcement system. In this regard, I believe another step is necessary to provide a greater balance between the branches of power.

    In this connection, point six: I propose that the president should appoint heads of all security agencies following consultations with the Federation Council. I believe this approach will make the work of security and law enforcement agencies more transparent and accountable to citizens.

    The principle of appointment following consultations can be applied to regional prosecutors as well. Currently they are appointed in coordination with regional legislative assemblies. Colleagues, this may lead to certain, including informal, obligations towards local authorities and ultimately to the risk of losing objectivity and impartiality.

    As to the territories' position regarding a prosecutor candidacy in the constituent entities of the Federation, it can be considered during consultations in the Federation Council, which is in fact the chamber of the regions. We cannot have different local legislative systems in different regions; the prosecutor is a supreme authority who exercises control over the execution of laws irrespectively of any regional circumstances.

    I am confident that a greater independence of prosecution agencies from local authorities would be beneficial for citizens regardless of the region. Colleagues, let us always be governed by the interests of our people.

    And my seventh and final point: the judicial system – the Constitutional and Supreme courts – plays a key role in ensuring legality and citizens' rights. I would like to emphasise, along with judges' professionalism, their credibility should be unconditional as well. Being fair and having a moral right to make decisions that affect people's lives have always been considered of paramount importance in Russia. The country's fundamental law should enshrine and protect the independence of judges, and their subordination only to the Constitution and federal law.

    At the same time, I consider it necessary to stipulate in the Constitution the Federation Council's authority to dismiss, on the proposal from the President, Constitutional and Supreme Court judges in the event of misconduct that defames a judge's honour and dignity, as well as in other cases provided for by federal constitutional law, that make it impossible for a person to maintain the status of a judge. This proposal is derived from the established practice. This is something Russia definitely needs today.

    Furthermore, to improve the quality of domestic legislation, to reliably protect citizens' interests, I propose strengthening the role of the Constitutional Court, namely: to verify, at the President's request, the constitutionality of draft laws adopted by the Federal Assembly before they are signed by the head of state. We might also think about extending the powers of the Constitutional Court to evaluate not only laws, but also other regulatory legal acts adopted by various authorities at the federal and regional levels for compliance with the Constitution.

    Colleagues,

    Again, the proposals made today, by no means limit the discussion around possible amendments to the Constitution. I am sure that public associations, parties, regions, the legal community, and Russian citizens will express their ideas. The broadest public discussion is needed. But, opening this discussion, I would like to give it a start in a certain direction, or at least to show what challenges we are facing.

    Please, do not forget what happened to our country after 1991. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we still had the same ambitions and of course have preserved the colossal potential – the human, intellectual, resource, territorial, cultural and historical potential, and so on. But there were also threats, dangers of a magnitude no one could have imagined ever before. And that was a pity, as they should have thought about it in due time.

    Therefore in our further state building efforts, we are facing seemingly contradictory tasks that serve as a guideline for values and may appear incompatible at first sight. What am I referring to? We must create a solid, reliable and invulnerable system that will be absolutely stable in terms of the external contour and will securely guarantee Russia's independence and sovereignty. At the same time, this system must be organic, flexible and capable of changing quickly in line with what is happening around us, and most importantly, in response to the development of Russian society. This system must ensure the rotation of those who are in power or occupy high positions in other areas. This renewal is indispensable for the progressive evolution of society and stable development that may not be infallible but ensures that the most important thing – Russia's interests ­– remains immutable.

    What else do I consider important and would like to emphasise? The amendments that we will discuss do not concern the foundations of the Constitution and, hence, can be approved by Parliament in line with the existing procedure and law through the adoption of relevant constitutional laws.

    At the same time, considering that the proposed amendments concern substantial changes in the political system and the work of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, I believe it necessary to hold a vote of Russian citizens on the entire package of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The final decision must be made only on the basis of its results.

    The opinion of people, our citizens as the bearers of sovereignty and the main source of power must be decisive. In the final analysis everything is decided by the people, both today and in the future. I am referring to both the choice of national development strategy and daily issues in each region, city or village. We will be able to build a strong, prosperous and modern Russia only on the basis of unconditional respect for the opinions of the people, the opinions of the nation.

    The current year of 2020 is a landmark in many respects. It is a transition to the third decade of the 21st century. Russia is faced with breakthrough historical tasks and everyone's contribution is important for resolving them. Working together we are bound to change our lives for the better. I often mention the word "together" because Russia means all of us. I am referring not to the people present in this hall or rather not only to the people present in this hall but all citizens of this country because I believe that success is determined by our will for creation and development, for the implementation of the most ambitious plans, our labour for the sake of our families and loved ones, our children and their future, and hence, for the sake of Russia's greatness and the dignity of its citizens.

    Thank you for your attention.

    Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: latest , Russia Tagged with: Kremlin , reform , russia , Speech , transcript , Vladimir Putin can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

    OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

    Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of


    Stephen Morrell ,

    Putin clearly is the most informed and visionary bourgeois politician in the world today, by a country mile. He not only is attempting to address the very real real social, demographic and economic needs of Russia, in his usual comprehensive manner, but also and cannily is co-opting many of the expectations that the USSR used to fulfil, attempting to neutralise any socialist political sentiments in the Russian population. Putin is the Bismarck of Russia.

    richard le sarc ,

    Russia's economic situation, within the global capitalist system, with its large reserves, much in gold, no exposure to the toilet paper of US Treasuries, and substantial local self-sufficiency in agriculture (thank-you sanctions)means that when the Western debt Ponzi Himalaya implodes, the Russians will be pretty much immune to the consequences.

    BigB ,

    Fantastic set of propositions: of which there is nothing comparable – that I know of – in the West.

    The problem is that I strongly suspect that no one can see the problem?

    Our minds have become so dematerialised, idealised, and ecologically sanitised that I doubt anyone will agree? There are two things we cannot do going forward in the 21st century – exponentially grow the economy and/or exponentially grow the population. We have to degrow both – as compassionately and quickly as possible. We have too many people to sustain with depleting fossil fuels. We could sustain them agroecologically without: but we are not doing that. They may not be in the right places: but if Russia and China both try to correct demographic problems by increasing population the knock on effect is poverty and misery elsewhere.

    As for material throughput: Russia's is quite large. In fact, they are the fourth primary energy consumer on the planet. With a pathetic renewables penetration of 3.6% of which only 1% is wind and solar. So good luck with decarbonisation and emissions targets. Which means only one thing: increased GDP is a function of increased hydrocarbon extraction and pollution. Russia faces another problem: its barely cured Dutch Disease a still high correlation of GDP to fossil fuel trading. An exogenous shock to the energy market will hit Russia badly as it did in 2008. They have diversified since then, only not enough.

    With other countries set to decarbonise (barely disguised laughter) the overall market for fossil fuels will theoretically decrease which will hit the producers badly. And then there is the depression of global markets and the already extant oil glut. Good plan and beautiful state socialist sentiment only, has anyone got a spare planet?

    Increasing hydrocarbon consumption plus all the other material resources allied to an industrial high-speed capitalist economy is another fossil relict. That is, if the ecological rationale is to survive. Growth is not an option. And population growth is irresponsible. What seems like a good state socialist plan falls apart ecologically. Of course, Russia is not isolated – the entire developed world wants to develop more 'sustainably'. Which is a form of insanity from a planetary perspective which too few have.

    Consider, all those socialised benefits are equally viable if delinked from exponential GDP growth and thus delinked from exponential fossil fuel consumption. The best parts of socialisation are essentially free including the fucking for Mother Russia! Degrowth, decentralisation, decarbonisation do not mean less socialisation. They are totally dependent on holistic socialisation and cooperative social relations. Which are potentially permanent and truly sustainable with a just transition away from capitalism.

    Why grow when it makes you vulnerable to exogenous market shocks? Russia has the resources to be quasi-self-sufficient internal to its own borders. There is no need to trade fossil fuels and prospect for more. We have too much carbon as it is: of which most should remain in the ground as 'unburnable carbon'. And there is definitely no need to make deals with despots and dictators like el-Sisi, Kagame, Museveni – who have murdered conservatively 12 million souls for corporate profit. Who now get their arms from Russia and their troops trained for free. And I could add Netanyahu and Erdogan, despots and murderers in their own right.

    It has to start somewhere. Some group of people have to break ecological extinction's stranglehold and demand less. To transition monetised social relations to actual real social relations – independent of exponential fossil fuel extractivism, exponential market expansion, exponential GDP expansion, exponential population expansion (when the correct demographic is reached: will the population debreed?). It's a progressive plan: for the wrong planet at the wrong time.

    But we will continue to grow – not degrow – both global economies and populations (with regional variations). Until we can't. When all those contingent and precarious market state socialisms will disappear. When we may live to rue the day we made our plans for social integration market and fossil fuel contingencies. We could have had it all if we were more savvy. If only everyone could see how.

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    Whilst I understand the gist of your argument (and you could not make it any more understandable, so please don't try) I still hold that the world is a better place because of Putin. With any other leader, the world would have been rendered uninhabitable by the Pentagon crazies. Russia has acted as the essential check on their warped ambitions to rule the Earth. The biggest threat to the planet is the US Military for the amount of oil they burn, the toxins they produce in their chemical warfare, their attempted theft of Ukraine for industrial farming, and their never-ending wars. Imagine if all the monies wasted on wars had gone to peaceful ends and proper support for renewable energy.
    On the question of GDP, I would refer only to the speech by Robert Kennedy, in which he totally destroys the whole sordid concept of GDP as being a worthwhile measure of anything.

    BigB ,

    The world will be rendered uninhabitable by Russian extractivism, ecological expropriation, and human exploitation. Because Russian extractivism is not isolated: the entire globalist system is extractivist. Which is why ecologists use 'dynamic systems theory' to conceive of the emergent planetary 'super-organism' or 'fossil fuel amoeba'. When we isolate a bounded portion of the global extinction system; compare it with other isolated portions, and give it a human face we are invisibilising the ecological roots and genesis of capitalism's 'wealth' – oil and the exponential depletion of resources.

    So what do we do when the life-ground of the planet no longer supports life? Celebrate the unequal distribution of rubles, pounds, yuan, and dollars? Or wish we had come to find a greater source of wealth in who we really are, when we are not destroying the planet and extracting surplus value from others less fortunate?

    We live in a strange world when we cannot imagine life without capitalism and look beyond to see that the real source of wealth is humanity itself in its completeness. A completeness we will never know because of extractivism, ecological unequal exchange, and our own abdication of our self-alienated powers that make capitalism the taken-for-granted vehicle of extinctionism. If there is to be life after capitalism – and on the planetary scale there will be, though *homo economicus* is technologically fast bent on curtailing its species viability – some provision for systems transition has to be made now. The techno-dream bubble we can grow our way to humanism is about to burst then what?

    richard le sarc ,

    I agree entirely, but Putin has no alternative. Any chink in his armour and the USA will destroy Russia and break it up into fragments as they did in Yugoslavia, the USSR and wish to do in China. I rather think that Putin knows full well how dire is the global ecological situation, but he needs to balance less enlightened forces at home, and the 'Atlanticist' Quislings.

    BigB ,

    I don't disagree either: but that is not my point. The Atlanticists are waiting in the wings for another four years. Last time I checked: they still command 80% of Russian private property. And were expropriating $25bn pa annum in capital flight which has slowed slightly in the last few years. I read the Saker too. There is a deadlock and uneasy power sharing arrangement internally. But you may have missed the time when the Saker admitted "Putin is a neoliberal"?

    It may be difficult to disentangle our vision from the neoliberal-statist-market ontology we are being repressed by but that is what we must do. We cannot expect neoliberal capitalist social inclusivity to save us from ecological catastrophe. Nor can we expect to grow economically into humanism: when exponential growth is what is destroying any lasting chance of a purely sustainable human-emancipatory freedom. Putin may not have a choice: but we do. The neoliberal-statist-market ontology is globally self-determined to produce total failure as its inevitable and only possible outcome. This is known a 'parametric determinism' when we automatically follow a maladaptive 'rational' self-optimising behaviour pattern long after it failed as it did in 2007. There is no recovery possible, and technology only speeds total failure whilst masking the ecological destruction it is accelerating.

    States have to think and act in a pre-determined way that is true. But we do not have to think like that. Not if there is to be any alternative or succession of humanity ex-post the neoliberal-statist-market ontology which is morally, ecologically, humanistically and most importantly *actually* bankrupt at this point.

    Do we exit a 350 year process of exponentially disproportionate wealth distribution, deliberate maldevelopment and global dehumanisation with all the wealth in the hands of those who benefited from the expropriation? Or do we attempt a redistribution and develop a new, hitherto unknown (and unknowable under capitalist alienation), value set where everyone globally has equal access to resources and a right to life as a birthright?

    The decision is not beyond you or I: but it will take the development of the assessment of capitalism on other than its own neoliberal-statist-market ontological terms. No state or state leader can develop humanity on the path of less-is-more it needs to take but the people can. That's all.

    richard le sarc ,

    Putin is either a believing neo-liberal, in which case he is part of the problem you identify, or he is using it through necessity. I could not agree more with your diagnosis of the omnicidal nature of capitalism, and the inability of so many to visualise the end of capitalism-they more easily can conceive of the end of humanity. In fact I rather think that that is the way in which the ruling parasites intend to save their own bacon, by allowing the ecological Holocaust to cull the 90% of 'useless eaters' that the ruling elites fear and despise, and who they see only as a threat. Their labour is no longer required in an age of automation, robotisation and computerisation, and even their consumption is today superfluous. The ecological Holocaust has passed numerous tipping-points and points of no return, while the IPCC downplays the extremity of our situation, the Right still denies it is even happening, and the public is slowly waking up, too late of course. We've just experienced a fire Holocaust, yet the Pentecostal thug PM, 'Smoko' Morrison, who is surely seeing it all as God's Will and the sign of the coming End Times that his cult so longs for, utterly refuses to reduce CO2 emissions beyond a ludicrous 28% by 2030 from 2005 (base-line creep)levels, 'target', that we will not come close to. And now it is raining, a little, so the Great Austrayan Mediocracy can go back to their slumber. But they'll 'Wake in Fright', again, soon.

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    "It is very important that they adopt the true values ​​of a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and successful country."

    I know very little of Russia alas, but the over-riding impression I take from this speech is President Putin's depth and breadth grasp of detail and concern for every aspect of Russian society – and his frustration that decisions made at federal level do not transform into concrete action at regional levels. The curse of bureaucracy and local fiefdoms jealous of their power and autonomy.

    I was fully expecting him to come up a resonating phrase like: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask instead what you can for your country." For Russia to have (seemingly) escaped the rapacious talons of the vulture capitalists unleashed by the Yeltsin puppet ought to be a lesson for us all.

    Finally, in international politics, he remains impeccably diplomatic, restrained and wise. Would that there were more world leaders of such calibre.

    Vierotchka ,

    Would that there were more world leaders of such calibre.

    Imagine if the USA had a president like Putin

    For starters, the Department of Defense would be just that, and not the Department of Offence with lipstick on.

    Then, ponder this:

    Just imagine if there was a Putin-like President of the USA

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    Leadership and Learning are indispensable to each other. Looking at the calibre of Presidents since JFK, it seems that all the best candidates were either killed off or scared off. All the Unspeakable can do is kill in answer to any and all problems.

    richard le sarc ,

    Imagine the money freed if US military expenditure was not 90% graft and inefficiency.

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    In the quote I used above, how often do we hear world leaders – other than the Pope – speak of love? Twisted minds might dismiss Putin's call for more Russian children as to provide cannon fodder for the Russian military, but why would he also wish to ensure their creativity and their arts education? It is quite refreshing to hear Humanity discussed as a desirable asset, rather than non-stop pro-death, pro-abortion as a Human Right brigade, "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" hatred. I expect a bit of flak for defending the unborn. I can take it.

    richard le sarc ,

    His manifest virtues are precisely why the vermin of the Western ruling elites hate him so psychotically.

    [Jan 16, 2020] This article from RT says Putin leaving 2024, and is also taking2 away a lot of the powers of the President

    Jan 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Debs , Jan 16 2020 1:48 utc | 204

    This article from RT says Putin leaving 2024, and is also taking2 away a lot of the powers of the President

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/478381-russian-government-resignation-mishustin/

    [Jan 16, 2020] RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 16 JANUARY 2020 by Patrick Armstrong - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Jan 16, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 16 JANUARY 2020 by Patrick Armstrong

    Russian flag

    THE GREAT RESHUFFLE . I do expect Putin to retire and assume him to be working on a succession plan to keep the team's aims in operation. He's due to go in about four years. I would not be surprised if we see something à la Kazakhstan where Nazarbayev still has a significant advisory authority.

    1. NEW PM. Mikhail Mishustin, head of Tax Service . Is he the chosen one? (Would be a blow to the Hirsute Analytical Tool , though.) ( Мишустин bio on Russian Wikipedia.)

    2. CONSTITUTION. Putin suggested constitutional tweaks. A ban on any form of dual citizenship for certain positions: they must "inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances". The Duma should appoint the PM and the PM the government although little was said about exactly how responsibilities were to be divvied up. (Did he support removing the two consecutive term rule? Don't know – depends on what you think " этим " refers to.)

    3. PRECEDENCE. Back when the world was simpler and happier and Russians naïve, the Constitution (Art 15.4) said "If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes rules other than those stipulated by the law, the rules of the international treaty apply." Brutal reality has taught Moscow the true nature of the " Rules-Based International Order" and Putin has proposed to reverse the authority.

    4. MEDVEDEV. Deputy Chairman of the Security Council . I think it's a real job and not a sinecure.

    WHAT'S IT MEAN? My take . Doctorow . MacDonald . We are broadly in step. Robinson discusses possibilities. Those who see Russia as one man and many robots of course see this as Putin hanging onto power forever . But their predictive track record is pretty pathetic, isn't it?

    FEDERAL ASSEMBLY ADDRESS. In addition to the constitutional matters above, Putin's address ( Rus ) ( Eng ), touched on other subjects. He began with population – the births per woman were 1.5 and he wants to raise that to 1.7 and proposes more day care places and greatly extending existing financial support programs as well as spending to improve healthcare. All this is possible because "The federal budget has had a surplus again" and inflation is low. ( Robinson points out, quite correctly, that there's a gap between what The Boss decrees and what actually happens . Nonetheless I'd say Putin has been much more successful than most leaders.) Foreign matters received the barest mention: situation in MENA threatening, Russia ready to cooperate, "defence capability is ensured for decades to come".

    RUSSIA INC. Awara does a study of Russian and American earnings and demonstrates that, in purchasing power, they're a lot closer than you would think. It's not just money: health, housing and education – big expenses in the USA – are negligible in Russia.

    CORRUPTION. After an investigation, the Russian Academy of Sciences has forced the retraction of hundreds of scientific articles for plagiarism and other forms of fraudulent behaviour.

    RUSSIA, SPORTS AND DRUGS. It's all fakery – Mark Chapman takes the trouble to put it all together .

    USN ALWAYS HAS RoW. Again the US accuses the Russian Navy of dangerous behaviour, again it was the USN ship that should have given way . ( Give way to starboard vessel .) Speaking of rules-based.

    IRAQ. It is reported that that Baghdad is in talks with Moscow on buying S-300 SAM systems . Baghdad orders Americans out; they refuse; Baghdad might need air defence that's independent of US backdoor programming.

    TURKSTREAM . Formally launched by the two presidents in Turkey .

    NOT IN YOUR "NEWS" OUTLET. Helmer discusses a German parliamentary report that shows that there really isn't any evidence that Russia "invaded" Ukraine or controls the rebels: "few reliable facts and analyses aside from the numerous speculations". It calls it a "civil war" (bürgerkriegs). Which is what it actually is (with assistance from NATO and Russia, to be sure). ( Report, German only ).

    TROUBLE IN PARADISE. A contested presidential election led to pretty strong protests with the Supreme Court changing its ruling. The long and the short is that Raul Khajimba , an important player and President for six years, resigned on Monday . New elections will be held in March. Independent Abkhazia has not been very stable and I don't have any good sources to guide me on what's happening. Although I have been told it is determined on real independence, joining neither Russia nor Georgia.

    NEW NWO. Iran has just demonstrated it belongs to the rather small club of countries which can precisely strike a target from far away . At least somebody got the message .

    [Jan 16, 2020] Russia has risen in the ranking of the best countries in the world.

    Jan 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile

    January 15, 2020 at 4:45 am
    Жить стало легче: Россия поднялась в рейтинге лучших стран мира
    Россия поднялась в рейтинге лучших стран мира на одну строчку

    15.01.2020, 14:10

    Life has become easier: Russia has risen in the ranking of the best countries in the world.
    Russia has moved up one point in the ranking of the best countries in the world.

    Russia has moved up one place in the ranking of the best countries in the world according to the American magazine US News & World Report, occupying a position in the third ten best ranked. At the same time, the authors of the list stressed that amongst the most powerful of world powers, our country was in second place, behind only the USA. Tourists, according to the study, have begun to go more willingly to Russia, and the growth rate of the Russian economy only appears below 11 countries in the world.

    According to the 2019 results, Russia is still second amongst the world's strongest powers. The US News & World Report reports that Russia is second only to the US in terms of power, overtaking China.

    Amongst the best countries in the world there are 73 states. The rating is compiled every year by the publication on the basis of a variety of criteria.

    The magazine's main rating is "The Best Countries in the World". First place, according to the American edition, was taken by Switzerland, second by Canada, third by Japan. A year ago, Japan was second.

    The first five "best countries" also included Germany and Australia. Russia is in 23rd place. Our country has risen one place.

    So its true!!!!!

    Rasha weeeeeaaaak!!!!!!

    Amerika stronk!!!!!

    Of all the countries that are "better" and "stronker" than "Rasha", I wonder how many of them have had sanctions hurled against them by "stronk Amerika" and its lickspittle vassals?

    And how many of them lost more than 22 million citizens in WWII?

    And how many of them had to endure an 80-year-old experiment whose aim was to create socialism?

    Cue you-know-who .

    [Jan 16, 2020] Seems like the Yeltsin/USA constitution is being s-canned for something that gives more power to the Duma. We can expect less cooperation with the West.

    Jan 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Patient Observer January 15, 2020 at 7:55 am

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/202001151078046470-russian-government-101-how-did-it-work-and-whats-about-to-change/

    How does the Russian government work?

    According to the current Constitution, adopted in 1993, the government exercises executive power; it drafts and implements the federal budget and carries out the national policy in the sphere of finance, foreign policy, education, healthcare, culture, science, and so on.

    The government may submit its resignation to the President who also has the power to dissolve it. Another way to dissolve the government is for the Duma, the lower house of parliament, to pass a motion of no confidence, which can be vetoed by the President.

    The President appoints the Prime Minister with the Duma's consent; Vladimir Putin appointed Dmitry Medvedev as prime minister twice, in 2012 and in 2018, after winning presidential elections.

    The President also appoints the deputy heads of government (there are 10 of them in the current cabinet) and the federal ministers at the Prime Minister's suggestion. It is in the President's power to dismiss both the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers.
    What is to change?

    In a move that looks set to significantly boost the power of parliament, Vladimir Putin called for changes to the Constitution that would enable the Duma to select the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers instead of the President.

    Having announced the redistribution of power, Putin has stressed that Russia still needs to remain a "strong presidential republic". According to Russian law, Putin now has two weeks to appoint a new Prime Minister.

    Lawmakers have already started drafting the legislation to put Putin's proposals into practice.

    Seems like the Yeltsin/USA constitution is being s-canned for something that gives more power to the Duma. We can expect less cooperation with the West. Also, it will undoubtedly be reported in the West, that Putin is trying to handcuff his successor by giving more power to the Duma.

    All in all, it would seem to bode well for greater Russian independence as Putin will be less hampered by the Western-leaning faction.

    James lake January 15, 2020 at 8:25 am
    It will depend on who is in the Duma – if they elect people with good qualities it will be positive.

    (Although looking at the parliament here in the Uk. In my lifetime I have see a real sharp decline in the quality of people who become Members of parliament. I'm not sure why

    Patient Observer January 15, 2020 at 8:30 am
    The US has the same problem. Some of our congresspeople are devoid of common sense, intelligence or relevant knowledge on important issues. I think that Russians are too pragmatic to elect similar buffoons.
    Mark Chapman January 15, 2020 at 2:26 pm
    Voters only have the choice of those who stand for office. If the field consists of Clowns A through D, the winner is bound to be a Clown. The quality, altruism and dedication of the candidate pool has indeed receded, and that is throughout the western democracies.
    Moscow Exile January 15, 2020 at 10:32 am
    He's already chosen a replacement for Dimka:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has invited the head of the Federal Tax Service (FTS), Mikhail Mishustin, to become the new prime minister, TASS reports citing the Kremlin's press service.

    source: Путин выбрал нового премьер-министра
    19:12, 15 января 2020

    Putin has chosen a new prime minister

    Moscow Exile January 15, 2020 at 11:10 am
    For Woden's sake! Kudrin is now spouting at the Gaidar Forum being held at RANEPA (The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, the largest federal state-funded institution of higher professional education located in Moscow, and where my elder daughter, Yelena Denisovna is now studying and who is going to be the first Madam President of Russia), as is Dimka, another Western wannabe -- always was and still is.

    Ye gods, I wouldn't be seen dead at a meeting that has Gaidar's name attached to it!

    And that other '90s prick Chubais was spouting today, saying what they did wrong in the '90s.

    I tell you what they did wrong, arsehole: they didn't put you in prison!

    Mark Chapman January 15, 2020 at 3:40 pm
    Refreshing, at least, even bracing to hear someone who was in the liberal vanguard in the 90's actually say that things were done wrong in the 90's, if that's actually what he said. Normally the liberal elite of Russia affect to believe the only thing that went wrong in the 90's was that Russian weakness caused her to falter without seeing the golden time through to its capitalist conclusion. Some would not have made it to the celebration party, of course, but that's reality, innit? You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

    [Jan 16, 2020] Russia's new proposed PM Mikhail Mishustin.

    Jan 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    yalensis January 15, 2020 at 3:55 pm

    Russia's new (proposed) PM Mikhail Mishustin. Never heard of him before, but did quickie research. According to VZGLIAD reporters Andrei Rezchikov and Natalia Makarova:

    This guy totally reformed the Russian tax system and implemented electronic automated system (woo hoo!), also implemented electronic signatures and other high-tech bling-blang.
    A 100% pure-blooded technocat (yay! my kinda guy!)

    Born 3 March 1966 in Moscow. Graduated from super-duper tech school in 1989. With certification as "Engineer – System Technician."
    In 2003 successfully defended his dissertation on the topic of "The mechanics of governmental tax administration in Russia." Almost won a Pulitzer for that.

    Continued on as geeky tax specialist. In 2008-2010 entered the realm of private investment business, with UFG Capital Partners and UFG Asset Management.

    Hobbies: Mishustin enjoys playing hockey, as does President Putin. One speculates they may have encountered one another on the ice.
    Religious views: Very religious, and was awarded the Order of Serafim Sarovsky.
    That was the nice Russian saint who lived with a bear. I wrote about him on my blog – little plug there, sorry

    Jen January 15, 2020 at 4:58 pm
    Checked his bio on Wikipedia: Mishustin did indeed attend a technological university and graduated with an engineering degree. This suggests he had no exposure to competing political and economic ideologies in his youth apart from what was required of him as a student living in Soviet times.

    Not quite as dramatic as living in a cave as a teenager, then digging ditches and later picking up a chemical engineering degree.
    https://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/xi-jinping-cave/

    Patient Observer January 15, 2020 at 5:18 pm
    I thought only in America could the humble ever reach the top. My my, what a world we live in.
    Patient Observer January 15, 2020 at 7:03 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/SAYuR2jlzp0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Seems like a can-do technocrat. Still good.

    Patient Observer January 15, 2020 at 5:45 pm
    Definitely not an Atlanticist – all good so far.
    Moscow Exile January 15, 2020 at 9:43 pm
    And Dimka's gone! That's good enough for me!
    Moscow Exile January 15, 2020 at 9:47 pm
    re. the pingback below:

    I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending.

    Yeah, Kremlin-Watchers, Kremlin Experts, Kremlinologists -- call them what you will -- they know sweet FA!!!!

    I remember when the SU "fell" and none of these "experts" had any idea.

    Of course, they al knew it was going to happen in hindsight.

    [Jan 16, 2020] TRANSCRIPT Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly

    Jan 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    This is about fight with fifth column... The time for those changes is long overdue.

    I truly believe that it is time to introduce certain changes to our country's main law, changes that will directly guarantee the priority of the Russian Constitution in our legal framework.

    What does it mean? It means literally the following: requirements of international law and treaties as well as decisions of international bodies can be valid on the Russian territory only to the point that they do not restrict the rights and freedoms of our people and citizens and do not contradict our Constitution.

    Second, I suggest formalising at the constitutional level the obligatory requirements for those who hold positions of critical significance for national security and sovereignty. More precisely, the heads of the constituent entities, members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, the prime minister and his/her deputies, federal ministers, heads of federal agencies and judges should have no foreign citizenship or residence permit or any other document that allows them to live permanently in a foreign state.

    The goal and mission of state service is to serve the people, and those who enter this path must know that by doing this they inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances.

    Requirements must be even stricter for presidential candidates. I suggest formalising a requirement under which presidential candidates must have had permanent residence in Russia for at least 25 years and no foreign citizenship or residence permit and not only during the election campaign but at any time before it too.

    I know that people are discussing the constitutional provision under which one person cannot hold the post of the President of the Russian Federation for two successive terms. I do not regard this as a matter of principle, but I nevertheless support and share this view.

    I have already said before that our goal is to ensure high living standards and equal opportunities for all throughout the country. It is towards this goal that our national projects and development plans are aimed.


    Stephen Morrell ,

    Putin clearly is the most informed and visionary bourgeois politician in the world today, by a country mile. He not only is attempting to address the very real real social, demographic and economic needs of Russia, in his usual comprehensive manner, but also and cannily is co-opting many of the expectations that the USSR used to fulfil, attempting to neutralise any socialist political sentiments in the Russian population. Putin is the Bismarck of Russia.

    richard le sarc ,

    Russia's economic situation, within the global capitalist system, with its large reserves, much in gold, no exposure to the toilet paper of US Treasuries, and substantial local self-sufficiency in agriculture (thank-you sanctions)means that when the Western debt Ponzi Himalaya implodes, the Russians will be pretty much immune to the consequences.

    richard le sarc ,

    I agree entirely, but Putin has no alternative. Any chink in his armour and the USA will destroy Russia and break it up into fragments as they did in Yugoslavia, the USSR and wish to do in China. I rather think that Putin knows full well how dire is the global ecological situation, but he needs to balance less enlightened forces at home, and the 'Atlanticist' Quislings.

    BigB ,

    I don't disagree either: but that is not my point. The Atlanticists are waiting in the wings for another four years. Last time I checked: they still command 80% of Russian private property. And were expropriating $25bn pa annum in capital flight which has slowed slightly in the last few years. I read the Saker too. There is a deadlock and uneasy power sharing arrangement internally. But you may have missed the time when the Saker admitted "Putin is a neoliberal"?

    It may be difficult to disentangle our vision from the neoliberal-statist-market ontology we are being repressed by but that is what we must do. We cannot expect neoliberal capitalist social inclusivity to save us from ecological catastrophe. Nor can we expect to grow economically into humanism: when exponential growth is what is destroying any lasting chance of a purely sustainable human-emancipatory freedom. Putin may not have a choice: but we do. The neoliberal-statist-market ontology is globally self-determined to produce total failure as its inevitable and only possible outcome. This is known a 'parametric determinism' when we automatically follow a maladaptive 'rational' self-optimising behaviour pattern long after it failed as it did in 2007. There is no recovery possible, and technology only speeds total failure whilst masking the ecological destruction it is accelerating.

    States have to think and act in a pre-determined way that is true. But we do not have to think like that. Not if there is to be any alternative or succession of humanity ex-post the neoliberal-statist-market ontology which is morally, ecologically, humanistically and most importantly *actually* bankrupt at this point.

    Do we exit a 350 year process of exponentially disproportionate wealth distribution, deliberate maldevelopment and global dehumanisation with all the wealth in the hands of those who benefited from the expropriation? Or do we attempt a redistribution and develop a new, hitherto unknown (and unknowable under capitalist alienation), value set where everyone globally has equal access to resources and a right to life as a birthright?

    The decision is not beyond you or I: but it will take the development of the assessment of capitalism on other than its own neoliberal-statist-market ontological terms. No state or state leader can develop humanity on the path of less-is-more it needs to take but the people can. That's all.

    richard le sarc ,

    Putin is either a believing neo-liberal, in which case he is part of the problem you identify, or he is using it through necessity. I could not agree more with your diagnosis of the omnicidal nature of capitalism, and the inability of so many to visualise the end of capitalism-they more easily can conceive of the end of humanity. In fact I rather think that that is the way in which the ruling parasites intend to save their own bacon, by allowing the ecological Holocaust to cull the 90% of 'useless eaters' that the ruling elites fear and despise, and who they see only as a threat. Their labour is no longer required in an age of automation, robotisation and computerisation, and even their consumption is today superfluous. The ecological Holocaust has passed numerous tipping-points and points of no return, while the IPCC downplays the extremity of our situation, the Right still denies it is even happening, and the public is slowly waking up, too late of course. We've just experienced a fire Holocaust, yet the Pentecostal thug PM, 'Smoko' Morrison, who is surely seeing it all as God's Will and the sign of the coming End Times that his cult so longs for, utterly refuses to reduce CO2 emissions beyond a ludicrous 28% by 2030 from 2005 (base-line creep)levels, 'target', that we will not come close to. And now it is raining, a little, so the Great Austrayan Mediocracy can go back to their slumber. But they'll 'Wake in Fright', again, soon.

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    "It is very important that they adopt the true values ​​of a large family – that family is love, happiness, the joy of motherhood and fatherhood, that family is a strong bond of several generations, united by respect for the elderly and care for children, giving everyone a sense of confidence, security, and reliability. If the younger generations accept this situation as natural, as a moral and an integral part and reliable background support for their adult life, then we will be able to meet the historical challenge of guaranteeing Russia's development as a large and successful country."

    I know very little of Russia alas, but the over-riding impression I take from this speech is President Putin's depth and breadth grasp of detail and concern for every aspect of Russian society – and his frustration that decisions made at federal level do not transform into concrete action at regional levels. The curse of bureaucracy and local fiefdoms jealous of their power and autonomy.

    I was fully expecting him to come up a resonating phrase like: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask instead what you can for your country." For Russia to have (seemingly) escaped the rapacious talons of the vulture capitalists unleashed by the Yeltsin puppet ought to be a lesson for us all.

    Finally, in international politics, he remains impeccably diplomatic, restrained and wise. Would that there were more world leaders of such calibre.

    Hugh O'Neill ,

    Leadership and Learning are indispensable to each other. Looking at the calibre of Presidents since JFK, it seems that all the best candidates were either killed off or scared off. All the Unspeakable can do is kill in answer to any and all problems.

    richard le sarc ,

    Imagine the money freed if US military expenditure was not 90% graft and inefficiency.

    richard le sarc ,

    His manifest virtues are precisely why the vermin of the Western ruling elites hate him so psychotically.

    [Jan 16, 2020] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/jan/07/freedom-without-constraints-how-the-us-squandered-its-cold-war-victory

    Jan 16, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

    Skip to main content

    News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle The long read Freedom without constraints: how the US squandered its cold war victory cwt Composite: Guardian Design/Getty The US believed the American way of life was humankind's ultimate destiny. But unrestrained greed has led to an era of injustice and division. By Andrew Bacevich

    Tue 7 Jan 2020 01.00 EST Last modified on Thu 16 Jan 2020 06.09 EST

    Shares 1,002 'W ithout the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, the novelist John Updike's late-20th-century everyman, posed that question just as the "long twilight struggle" was winding down. More than quarter of a century later, the plaintive query still awaits a definitive answer.

    Indeed, the passage of time has only sown confusion about whether there is a point to being an American. Even as the cold war was ending, Updike's everyman was not alone in feeling at a loss. By the 1980s, the cold war had become more than a mere situation or circumstance. It was a state of mind.

    ss="rich-link tone-news--item rich-link--pillar-news"> Lose yourself in a great story: Sign up for the long read email

    ss="rich-link tone-news--item rich-link--pillar-news"> Read more

    Most Americans had come to take its existence for granted. Like the polar ice cap or baseball's status as the national pastime, it had acquired an appearance of permanence. So its passing caught citizens unaware. Those charged with managing the cold war were, if anything, even more surprised. The enterprise to which they had devoted their professional lives had suddenly vanished. Here was a contingency that the sprawling US national security apparatus, itself a product of the anti-communist crusade, had failed to anticipate.

    On one level, of course, the surprise could not have been more gratifying. In the epic competition pitting west against east, the god-fearing against the godless and democracy against totalitarianism, "our side" had won. All-out nuclear war had been averted. The cause of freedom, which Americans felt certain they themselves embodied, had prevailed. Victory was decisive, sweeping and unequivocal.

    In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev , had warned: "We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an enemy."

    As the Soviet Union passed out of existence, Americans were left not just without that enemy, but without even a framework for understanding the world and their place in it. However imperfectly, the cold war had, for several decades, offered a semblance of order and coherence. The collapse of communism shattered that framework. Where there had been purposefulness and predictability, now there was neither.

    Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that confronting the lucky person who wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential for monumental disaster. Putting that money to good use while avoiding the pitfalls inherent in suddenly acquired riches calls for prudence and self-awareness – not easily demonstrated when the big house, luxury car and holiday home you have always wanted are yours for the asking.

    Similarly, the end of the cold war might have given Americans pause, especially since the issues at hand were of considerably greater significance than homes and cars. At least in theory, the moment might have invited reflection on some first-order questions, such as: what is the meaning of freedom? What does freedom allow? What obligations does it impose? Whom or what does it exclude?


    O f course, Americans had been wrestling with such questions since well before 1776 , the answers evolving over time. During the several decades of the cold war, however, the exigencies of the east-west rivalry had offered a reason to throttle down impulses to explore freedom's furthermost boundaries. Except on the fringes of American politics, most citizens accepted the word from Washington that their way of life was under grave threat. In the pecking order of national priorities, addressing that threat – defending freedom rather than enlarging it – tended to take precedence over other considerations.

    This is not to suggest that cold-war Americans were a compliant lot. They were not. From the 1950s, misleadingly enshrined as a decade of conformity, through the Ronald Reagan-dominated 80s, domestic crises and controversies were constants. Among the issues energising or enraging Americans were civil liberties, the nuclear arms race, mismanaged wars of dubious provenance, challenges to artistic tradition, leftwing and rightwing radicalism, crass materialism that coexisted with widespread poverty and a host of simmering issues connected to race, sex and gender. Yet through it all, a common outlook, centred on resistance to the "red threat", endured. For most citizens most of the time, the cold war itself sufficed to explain "the point of being an American".

    The collapse of the Soviet empire between 1989 and 1991 robbed that outlook of its last vestiges of authority. Rarely, if ever, had the transition from one historical period to another occurred quite so abruptly, with such a precise set of demarcations, and with such profound implications. As if in an instant, the discipline that the cold war had imposed vanished. The absurdity of defining reality as an either/or choice – red or dead, slave or free, good v evil – now became blazingly apparent. The impact on American ambitions and expectations was akin to removing the speed limiter from an internal combustion engine. Suddenly the throttle opened up. The future appeared uniquely promising, offering Americans a seemingly endless array of choices, while confronting them with few evident constraints. Everything seemed possible.

    Confident that an era of unprecedented US economic, military and cultural ascendancy now beckoned, members of an intoxicated elite threw caution to the winds. They devised – and promulgated – a new consensus consisting of four elements.

    Germans on top of the Berlin Wall in front of the Brandenburg Gate on 10 November 1989. Photograph: Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters

    The first of these was globalisation or, more precisely, globalised neoliberalism. Stripped to its essence, globalisation was all about wealth creation: unconstrained corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale in a world open to the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people would create wealth on a hitherto unimagined scale.

    The second element was global leadership, a euphemism for hegemony or, more simply still, for empire. At its core, global leadership was all about order: unchallengeable military might would enable the US to manage and police a postcolonial yet implicitly imperial order favourable to American interests and values. Through the exercise of global leadership, the US would enforce globalisation. Order and abundance would go hand in hand.

    The third element of the consensus was freedom, an ancient word now drastically revised. The new conception of freedom emphasised autonomy, with traditional moral prohibitions declared obsolete and the removal of constraints maximising choice. Order and abundance together would underwrite freedom, relieving Americans of existential concerns about safety and survival to which those less privileged were still obliged to attend.

    The final element of the consensus was presidential supremacy, with the occupant of the Oval Office accorded quasi-monarchical prerogatives and status. Implicit in presidential supremacy was a radical revision of the political order. While still treated as sacred writ, the constitution no longer described the nation's existing system of governance. Effectively gone, for example, was the concept of a federal government consisting of three equal branches. Ensuring the nation's prosperity, keeping Americans safe from harm, and interpreting the meaning of freedom, the president became the centre around which all else orbited, the subject of great hopes, and the target of equally great scorn should he fail to fulfil the expectations that he brought into office.

    All these elements together constituted a sort of operating system. The purpose of this operating system, unseen but widely taken for granted, was to cement the primacy of the US in perpetuity, while enshrining the American way of life as the ultimate destiny of humankind. According to the calendar, the end of the 20th century, frequently referred to as the American century, was then drawing near. Yet with the cold war concluding on such favourable terms, the stage appeared set for a prolonged American epoch.

    This, however, was not to be.


    T he US wasted little time in squandering the advantages it had gained by winning the cold war. Events at home and abroad put the post-cold war consensus to the test, unmasking its contradictions and exposing its premises as delusional. Although globalisation did enable some to acquire great wealth, it left behind many more, while fostering egregious inequality. The assertion of global leadership provided American soldiers with plentiful opportunities to explore exotic and unfamiliar lands, but few would mistake the results for even an approximation of dominion, much less peace and harmony.

    Instead, Americans came to accept war as habitual. And while the drive for individual empowerment removed constraints, it did little to promote the common good. An enlarged conception of freedom brought with it a whiff of nihilism. As for exalting the chief executive as a visionary leader, it yielded a succession of disappointments, before imploding in November 2016.

    The post-cold war moment, dating from the early 90s and spanning the administrations of Bill Clinton , George W Bush and Barack Obama, turned out to be remarkably brief. By 2016, large numbers of ordinary Americans had concluded, not without reason, that the post-cold war consensus was irretrievably defective. Globalised neoliberalism, militarised hegemony, individual empowerment and presidents elevated to the status of royalty might be working for some, but not for them. They also discerned, again not without cause, that establishment elites subscribing to that consensus, including the leaders of both political parties, were deaf to their complaints and oblivious to their plight.

    https://www.theguardian.com/email/form/plaintone/the-long-read

    By turning their country over to Donald Trump , those Americans signalled their repudiation of that very consensus. That Trump himself did not offer anything remotely like a reasoned alternative made his elevation to the presidency all the more remarkable. He was a protest candidate elected by a protest vote. In that regard, the 2016 presidential election marked a historical turning point comparable in significance to the fall of the Berlin Wall a quarter of a century earlier.

    As the cold war had evolved from the late 40s into the 80s, the rhetoric of freedom remained central to American political discourse. Among members of the intelligentsia, fads came and went, but none displaced freedom as the defining issue of the age. As the designated "leader of the free world", each US president was in turn expected to talk the talk. From Truman through to Reagan, with differing levels of eloquence, none failed to do so.

    The way it ended – with euphoric young Germans dancing on the wall – imparted to the entire cold war a retrospective moral clarity that it did not deserve. The cold war tainted everything it touched. As an episode in world history, it was a tragedy of towering proportions. So its passing ought to have called for reflection, remorse, repentance, even restitution. Yet the prevailing mood allowed for none of these, at least as far as most Americans were concerned. Instead, out of an era punctuated throughout by anxiety and uncertainty came a sense that a dazzling future lay just ahead.

    In effect, the passing of the cold war relieved Americans of any further obligation to exhibit more than nominal cohesion. Except as a matter of personal preference, virtues such as self-discipline and self-denial, once deemed essential to enabling a nation to stand firm against existential threats, now became passé. The spirit of the post-cold war era prioritised self-actualisation and self-indulgence over self-sacrifice.

    The demise of communism removed the last remaining constraints on the operation of global capitalism. By leaving the US militarily pre-eminent, the end of the cold war removed any remaining constraints on the use of American coercive power. Similarly, for many ordinary Americans, particularly those of a progressive bent, the passing of the cold war did away with any lingering constraints on matters related to "lifestyle". No longer would they defer to the customary arbiters of propriety and "good taste" in determining what was permissible and what was not. For transcendent authority, progressives looked to the autonomous self.


    'A t the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." So wrote supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy in a famous decision handed down shortly after the cold war ended.

    Kennedy's reformulation of liberty, however grandiose, was well suited to the mood that swept through elite quarters at the end of history . By comparison, the inalienable rights specified in the famous Declaration of Independence in 1776 now seemed cramped, stingy and inadequate. Freedom was in line for a makeover.

    The emerging post-cold war conception of freedom was nothing if not expansive. It recognised few limits and imposed fewer obligations, with one notable exception: compliance was non-negotiable. As always, the American definition of liberty, however recently revised, was universally applicable, as valid in Bogotá and Dakar as it was in Boston and Denver.

    What did this signify in practice? Allowing individuals maximum latitude to reach their own conclusions regarding the concepts of existence, meaning, the universe and the mystery of human life yielded what sort of society? The quarter-century that elapsed between the fall of the Berlin Wall and Donald Trump's election provided a tentative answer to that question. Part of that answer came in the form of progress towards eliminating the remaining vestiges of racism, empowering women and reducing discrimination experienced by LGBTQ+ Americans.

    Granted, progress does not imply decisive and irreversible success. Yet during the post-cold war period, American society became more tolerant, more open, more accepting and less judgmental. Attitudes toward people of colour, women and gays that in the 50s had been normative and remained widespread in the 60s and 70s had, by 2016, become unacceptable in polite society. Yet for more than a few Americans, Justice Kennedy's notion of liberty as an opportunity to ponder life's ultimate questions had little relevance. In practical terms, the exercise of freedom, undertaken in an environment in which consumption and celebrity had emerged as preeminent values, encouraged conformity rather than independence. At least notionally, Americans now enjoyed more freedom than ever before. Yet from every direction, but especially from Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, came cues for how to make the most of the freedom now on offer. And however much you had, you always needed more.

    President Ronald Reagan (R) with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Washington in December 1987. Photograph: Gary Hershorn/Reuters

    So along with freedom came stress, anxiety and a sense of not quite measuring up, or a fear of falling behind as the demands of daily life seemed to multiply. For some, freedom meant alienation, anomie and despair. It did nothing to prevent, and in some instances arguably fostered, self-destructive or antisocial behaviour.

    So in 2016, as another presidential election approached, Americans were able to claim the following distinctions:

    • One in six were taking prescription psychiatric drugs such as antidepressants or anti-anxiety meds.

    • More than 16 million adults and more than 3 million adolescents were suffering from significant depression.

    • More than 1.9 million Americans were regularly using cocaine, with a half million hooked on heroin and 700,000 on methamphetamine.

    • That year opioid overdoses killed 46,000, a new record.

    • Binge drinking had reached epidemic proportions, with one in six US adults binge drinking several times a month and consuming seven drinks per binge; according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, bingeing was especially common among younger and more affluent Americans.

    • Nearly 45,000 were taking their own lives annually, the national suicide rate increased by 24% since 1999; within the previous decade the suicide rate of teenage girls had doubled and of boys had jumped by 40%.

    • Smartphone addiction was joining more traditional compulsions, with the average person checking their smartphone 110 times a day, impelled by Fomo – a fear of missing out.

    • Compulsive-buying syndrome, AKA shopping addiction, afflicted an estimated 6% of the population; a comparable number were compulsive hoarders.

    • On a daily basis, 11 million Americans, mostly women, struggled with eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, while roughly 40% of adults and nearly 19% of children and adolescents were obese.

    • Cosmetic surgeons were performing more than 17m procedures annually, with buttock augmentation and labiaplasty enjoying a particular spike in popularity.

    • Forty-million Americans were regularly visiting online porn sites.

    • The number of Americans infected with sexually transmitted diseases in 2016 surpassed 2 million, according to the CDC, "the highest number ever".

    • An estimated 24.7 million children were growing up in fatherless households, with such children substantially more likely to drop out of school, abuse drugs and alcohol and kill themselves; girls raised without a father present were four times more likely to get pregnant as teenagers.

    • Although difficult to quantify with precision, 676,000 American children in 2016 were victims of abuse or neglect.

    • Exercising their right to choose, American women were terminating around 650,000 unwanted pregnancies each year, despite the widespread availability of contraceptives.

    • Exercising their right to bear arms, Americans had accumulated more than 40% of the planet's small arms; the US arsenal in private hands was larger than that of the next 25 countries combined.

    • Meanwhile, more than 33,000 Americans were being killed in firearms-related incidents annually.

    • Year in and year out, the US had the world's highest incarceration rate, no other developed nation coming anywhere close.

    • Polling data showed that social trust – how Americans felt about government institutions and their fellow citizens – had sunk to an all-time low. Perhaps for that reason, when it came to voting, most Americans couldn't be bothered; voter turnout in the US lagged behind that of most other developed countries.

    • In an increasingly networked society, with two-thirds of Americans on Facebook, chronic loneliness afflicted a large portion of the population.

    • In a phenomenon described as "deaths by despair", the life expectancy of white working-class American males was dropping, a trend without historical precedent.

    • The nation's birthrate had fallen below the rate needed to sustain a stable overall population; America had ceased to reproduce itself.

    • Not to be overlooked, in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, Americans were polluting, wasting food and generating trash with abandon, leading the world in each category.


    A rguably, Americans were enjoying more freedom than ever. Were they happier as a consequence? Polls suggested otherwise. In the 2007 "world happiness" standings, the US had ranked third among developed countries. By 2016, its position had plummeted to 13th.

    By no means am I suggesting that a single such statistic holds the key to assessing life in the US. It does not. Nor do the various penchants and pathologies enumerated above. Yet taken together, they suggest a society in which discontent, dysfunction and sheer perversity were rampant.

    As with globalised neoliberalism, some Americans not only coped with seemingly limitless freedom, but also luxuriated in the opportunities that it offered. For sophisticates inhabiting Brooklyn's Park Slope, radical autonomy could well prove to be a boon; for those stuck in a ghetto on Chicago's South Side, not so much. As for the accompanying underside, those in possession of sufficient resources could insulate themselves from its worst effects – just as the affluent were able to insulate themselves from the accumulating post-cold war military misadventures by simply allowing others to shoulder the burden.

    What role did Trump play in shaping this US that worked nicely for some while leaving many others adrift and vulnerable? None at all. Globalisation, the pursuit of militarised hegemony, a conception of freedom conferring rights without duties, and a political system centred on a quasi-monarchical chief of state each turned out to have a substantial downside. Yet the defects of each made their appearance well before Trump's entry into politics, even if elites, held in thrall by the post-cold war outlook, were slow to appreciate their significance. None of those defects can be laid at his feet.

    If anything, Trump himself had displayed a considerable aptitude for turning such defects to his own advantage. In the US, post-cold war, he was prominent among those who enriched themselves, lived large and let others do the dirty work, while also shielding themselves from the difficulties that made life a trial for many of their fellow citizens. In an era of con artists, cowards and cynics, Trump became a modern equivalent of showman PT Barnum, parlaying the opportunities at hand into fortune, celebrity, lots of golf, plenty of sex and eventually the highest office in the land.

    Yet for our purposes, the key point is this: Trump did not create the conditions in which the campaign of 2016 was to take place. Instead, to a far greater extent than any of his political rivals, he demonstrated a knack for translating those conditions into votes. Here, the moment met the man.

    Trump's critics saw him as an abomination. Perhaps he was. Yet he was also very much a man of his time. In the end, what won him the presidency was his capacity to push the buttons of millions of voters who believed themselves ill-served and left behind – abandoned, even – by establishment politicians of both parties.

    Implicit in his promise to "make America great again" was an admission that greatness itself, which Americans had long since come to believe was theirs by right, had been lost, with no one taking responsibility and no one, apart from Trump himself, venturing to explain how it had even happened. The critical word that imparted to his campaign slogan its formidable persuasive power was "again". As Tom Engelhardt has written, it represented an acknowledgment that self-congratulatory terms such as "great", "super", "exceptional" or "indispensable" no longer reflected the actually existing American condition. Millions of ordinary citizens recognised this as self-evidently true. Arrangements, agreements and advantages that Americans had once prized had been squandered or thrown away. And yet no politician other than Trump dared to utter that truth aloud.

    As a strategic thinker, Trump had no particular talent. Yet as a strategic sensor, he was uniquely gifted, possessing an intuitive genius for reading the temper of his supporters and stoking their grievances. Yet by no means did Trump create those grievances – they had festered during the quarter-century after the cold war ended. He merely recognised their existence and, in doing so, made himself the champion of the aggrieved and the one person they came to believe who might respond to their plight.

    The post-cold war recipe for renewing the American century has been tried and found wanting. A patently amoral economic system has produced neither justice nor equality, and will not. Grotesquely expensive and incoherent national security policies have produced neither peace nor a compliant imperium, and will not. A madcap conception of freedom unmoored from any overarching moral framework has fostered neither virtue nor nobility nor contentment, and won't anytime soon. Sold by its masterminds as a formula for creating a prosperous and powerful nation in which all citizens might find opportunities to flourish, it has yielded no such thing. This, at least, describes the conclusion reached by disenchanted Americans in numbers sufficient to elect as president someone vowing to run the post-cold war consensus through a shredder.

    Donald Trump's detractors charge him with dividing the country when, in fact, it was pervasive division that vaulted him to the centre of American politics in the first place. The divide is deepest and least reconcilable between those Americans for whom the trajectory of events since the cold war pointed upward, and those who found in those same events evidence of decline and decay, and who sensed they had been had. At the most fundamental level, the inhabitants of one camp believe that talent, skills and connections will enable them to determine their own destiny; they are masters of their own fate. In the other camp are those who see themselves as victims. As Obama put it while campaigning for the presidency in 2008, "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".

    Trump did not create this cleavage. He merely turned it to his personal advantage. So, regardless of the date or terms of Trump's departure from office, the schism that allowed him to become president is likely to persist after he is gone. It's that schism, rather than the antics of the tycoon/reality TV star/demagogue who exploited it, that merits far more attention than it has received.

    This is an edited extract from The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory by Andrew Bacevich, published by Metropolitan Books/Holt

    • Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread , and sign up to the long read weekly email here .

    America faces an epic choice...

    ... in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage.

    Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your support we can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight. Our journalism is free and open for all, but it's made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers like you across America in all 50 states.

    "America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher. As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness." – US editor, John Mulholland

    On the occasion of its 100th birthday in 1921 the editor of the Guardian said, "Perhaps the chief virtue of a newspaper is its independence. It should have a soul of its own." That is more true than ever. Freed from the influence of an owner or shareholders, the Guardian's editorial independence is our unique driving force and guiding principle.

    We also want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has generously supported the Guardian in the past. You provide us with the motivation and financial support to keep doing what we do. Every contribution, big or small, will help us reach it. To support our rigorous journalism, make a gift from as little as $1. Thank you. Support The Guardian Topics The long read Ronald Reagan Donald Trump Russia Europe Mikhail Gorbachev Bill Clinton features Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Reuse this content Read The
    Guardian without
    interruption on all
    your devices
    Subscribe now Most popular World Europe US Americas Asia Australia Middle East Africa Inequality Cities Global development News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle

    https://www.theguardian.com/email/form/footer/today-us About us Contact us Complaints & corrections SecureDrop Work for us Privacy policy Cookie policy Terms & conditions Help All topics All writers Digital newspaper archive Facebook Twitter Advertise with us Guardian Labs Search jobs Dating Discount Codes Support The Guardian Available for everyone, funded by readers Contribute Subscribe Back to top © 2020 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. Your privacy We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you personalised advertising.

    To find out more, read our privacy policy and cookie policy . My options

    [Jan 16, 2020] Americans Beware! Russia Can Hack Your Brain, Make You Believe Joe Biden Unfit For Oval Office by Robert Bridge

    [satire]
    Jan 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    ... ... ...

    Courtesy of Bloomberg :

    "U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are assessing whether Russia is trying to undermine Joe Biden in its ongoing disinformation efforts with the former vice president still the front-runner in the race to challenge President Donald Trump, according to two officials familiar with the matter

    Part of the inquiry is to determine whether Russia is trying to weaken Biden by promoting controversy over his past involvement in U.S. policy toward Ukraine while his son worked for an energy company there."

    So how exactly does Russia, in a scene straight out of A Clockwork Orange, tap into the frontal lobe section of the U.S. electorate and cause them to lose all confidence in their political favorites?

    "A signature trait of Russian President Vladimir Putin 'is his ability to convince people of outright falsehoods,' William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, said in a statement. 'In America, [the Russians are] using social media and many other tools to inflame social divisions, promote conspiracy theories and sow distrust in our democracy and elections.'"

    Yes, somehow those dastardly Russians have outsmarted the brightest and best-paid political strategists in Washington, D.C. by brandishing what amounts to some really persuasive memes over social media, and for just rubles on the dollar. The techies at Wired went so far as to call this epic assault on the fragile American cranium, "meme warfare to divide America." By way of evidence, it cited a very creative meme that screamed, "F*CK THE ELECTIONS," which was intended, as the ironclad argument goes, to cause a number of impressionable Americans to throw up their hands in a fit of collective exasperation and say, 'Ok, that's it. I'm staying at home on Election Day.'

    Yes, it's really that easy! Imagine all the money the Russians and their radical new political technologies could have saved guys like casino tycoon, Sheldon Adelson, who showered the Trump campaign with $100 million dollars.

    Many of those divisive Russian messages wormed their way onto Facebook, purportedly, where God only knows how many voter brains' turned to maggots and mush just staring at them. Yet one individual who actually recalls seeing one or two of these dangerous memes was Rob Goldman, former Vice President for Advertising on Facebook, who revealed via Twitter, another infected social media platform, some interesting information:

    "Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal ."

    Clearly, Goldman seems to have been under the sway of some folk Russian brainwashing technique, probably passed down from the time of Rasputin. In any case, Donald Trump himself took great satisfaction from that particular revelation, retweeting it to his millions of minions.

    Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.

    -- Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018

    Incidentally, it may or may not be relevant, but Goldman retired from Facebook in October 2019 after seven years with the company.

    Russia, the gift that keeps on giving

    Not only have the Democrats been able to use the Russia bogeyman as their excuse for losing the White House in 2016, they are able to summon this distant nuclear power whenever they wish to curb internet freedoms, which is pretty much every day now.

    Now, fun-loving memes are under attack and may soon go the way of the DoDo bird ("A small office of Russian trolls could derail 241 years of U.S. political history with a handful of dank memes and an advertising budget that would barely buy you a billboard in Brooklyn," screamed insanely The Guardian ). At the same time, the freedom of speech is getting destroyed by vapid accusations of 'hate speech,' which, unless used to incite violence, is a totally meaningless term used to eliminate any conversation that is undesirable to the elite.

    Meanwhile, only the mainstream media these days are permitted to dabble in 'conspiracy theories' even as their own false narratives have contributed to the pulverization of entire nations, as was the case in Iraq, for example, which sustained a full-blown U.S. military invasion in 2003 following debunked claims that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. That was the mother of all conspiracy theories that was pushed unchallenged by the mainstream media.

    So back to Joe Biden.

    Do intelligent Americans really need help from Russia to prove that just maybe the former Vice President is mentally and physically unfit to stand for the White House? Probably not. From whispering sweet nothings into the ears of any female within groping distance, to sucking on his wife's fingertips at a political rally, something just doesn't seem altogether right upstairs with Joe Biden. So what is the real story for dragging Russia, once again, into the internal swamp pit known as Washington, D.C.?

    The Bloomberg article provides a big hint: "This time around, the narrative about Biden and Ukraine is well-publicized and being advanced by Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and the president's Republican allies in Congress."

    And that "narrative" has everything to do with not only the Democrats' frozen impeachment proceedings against the U.S. leader, which promises to have major connections to Ukraine, Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and quite possibly dozens of other top Democrats. In other words, the Democrats understand that pushing ahead with impeachment could be their ultimate downfall.

    Although few Americans seem to remember that back in May of 2019, Trump granted U.S. Attorney General William Barr "full and complete authority" to investigate exactly how claims that Trump was 'conspiring with the Kremlin' in the 2016 presidential election had originated, the Democrats certainly have not.

    Their bogus 'Russian collusion' claim provided the rationale for a four-year-long 'witch hunt' that began when the Democrats, relying on the flimsy findings contained in the so-called 'Steele dossier, managed to get approval from the FISA court to spy on the Trump campaign. Now, some top-ranking Democrats – never imagining Hillary Clinton would actually lose in 2016 – are understandably nervous as to what Barr and his assistant, federal attorney John Durham will divulge to the public in the coming months.

    With so much riding on the line in 2020 , is anyone surprised that Bloomberg, the news affiliate owned and operated by Democratic contender Michael Bloomberg, is now reporting "U.S. officials are warning that Russia's election interference in 2020 could be more brazen than in the 2016 presidential race or the 2018 midterm election."

    In other words, the racist ploy used by Democrats to explain their monumental defeat in 2016 did not end with the Mueller Report.

    The conspiracy theory, promulgated by a media that is in effect just another branch of the Democratic National Committee, is being primed to explain not only possible criminal charges aimed at top Democrats in the coming months, but how Democrats, like Michael Bloomberg, failed once again to beat the seemingly unstoppable incumbent, Donald Trump. Tags Politics

    https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919 Close Comments

    https://talk.zerohedge.com/embed/stream?asset_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Famericans-beware-russia-can-hack-your-brain-make-you-believe-joe-biden-unfit-oval-office&initialWidth=890&childId=comment_stream&parentTitle=Americans%20Beware!%20Russia%20Can%20Hack%20Your%20Brain%2C%20Make%20You%20Believe%20Joe%20Biden%20Unfit%20For%20Oval%20Office%20%7C%20Zero%20Hedge&parentUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Famericans-beware-russia-can-hack-your-brain-make-you-believe-joe-biden-unfit-oval-office Login

    ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

    General: [email protected]

    Legal: [email protected]

    Advertising: Click here

    Abuse/Complaints: [email protected] Suggested Reading Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide

    It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer , our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .

    How to report offensive comments

    Notice on Racial Discrimination .

    Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else? Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox. Please enter a valid email

    [Jan 16, 2020] RUSSIAN RESHUFFLE by Patrick Armstrong - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Jan 16, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    RUSSIAN RESHUFFLE by Patrick Armstrong

    (Written on the evening of. So subject to reconsideration/revision/outright denial as we learn more.)

    I didn't expect any of it. Neither did anyone else, whatever the so-called experts outgassing on the US Garbage Media may be pretending. I don't know what it all means. Neither does anyone else. (Well Putin & Co do, but they keep their cards close to their chests. As we've just seen.)

    What do we know? Putin gave his annual address to the Federal Council ( Rus ) ( Eng ) and started off with how important it was that the birthrate should be raised. Fair enough: he wants more Russians on the planet, the government's programs have ensured that there will be quite a few more but there are still more to come. Many programs planned; some of which will work: after all, not everything works out as we hoped does it? He mentioned how dangerous the world is – especially the MENA – and said at least Russia is pretty secure (as indeed it is except against lunatics addicted to the Book of Revelation .)

    Then the constitutional stuff. He believes the Constitution needs a few tweaks. Important officials should really be Russians and not people with a get-out-of-jail-card/alternate-loyalty-card in their vests. Reasonable enough: they should "inseparably connect their lives with Russia and the Russian people without any assumptions and allowances." (Good idea actually. Can we in the West steal the idea? We vote for X but who does he vote for?) Russian law should take precedence over decrees contaminated by the " Rules-Based International Order" (" we make the rules , you follow our orders "). The PM should be named by the Duma. (A pretty big change, actually: let's have more details on the division of labour please. In some countries the head of state is The Boss – USA, Russia (now), France – in others the head of government is The Boss – Germany, Canada, Denmark. There is a serious carve up of powers question here that has to be worked out in detail.) Constitutional changes should be approved in a referendum. The President either should or should not be bound by the no-three-terms-in-a-row-rule (I personally can't figure out what "этим" refers to in "Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим. Не считаю, что этот вопрос принципиальный, но согласен с этим." But, no doubt we will soon learn.)

    So, a somewhat less presidential republic. Details to be decided. Many details. But I'm confident that it's been worked out and we will learn. Putin & Co have shown us over 20 years that they don't make things up on the fly.

    Then we learned that the entire government had resigned – but individuals to stay in place until replaced. Then we learned – a fast few hours indeed! – that Dmitri Medvedev was replaced by somebody that no one (other than Russian tax specialists) had ever heard of: Mikhail Vladimirovich Mishustin. ( Russian Wiki entry – none in English so far.) Those cheering Medvedev's dismissal (something predicted and hoped for by a sector of Russianologists) had to then swallow this: not tossed out into ignominy and shame, as they wanted, but something else. Putin says that there is a clear distinction between government and presidential concerns; defence and security are clearly in the latter. But Medvedev has always been closely following defence and security issues and it is suitable and appropriate that he continue to do so. So a new position, deputy heard of the security council, will be created for him. So what are we to make of this? Medvedev has been given the boot and a sinecure? Or he's been given a crucial job in the new carve-up of responsibilities?

    After all, Russia's problems keep getting bigger but nobody is getting any younger. Especially the problems from outside. For some years Washington, an implacable enemy of Moscow, has been getting less and less predictable. Lavrov and Kerry spend hours locked up negotiating a deal in Syria ; within a week the US military attacks a Syrian Army unit; "by mistake" . Who's in charge? Now with the murder of Soleimani, possibly on a Washington-approved peace mission, Washington has moved to another level of lawlessness and is exploring the next depth as it defies Baghdad's order to get out. A pirate power. The outside problems for Moscow aren't getting smaller, are they? Washington is certainly недоговороспособны – it's impossible to make an agreement with it and, if you should think you have done so, it will break it. A dangerous, uncontrollable madman, staggering around blowing everything up – is any foreign leader now to be assumed to be on Washington's murder list? Surviving its decay is a big job indeed. The problems are getting bigger in the Final Days of the Imperium Americanum.

    So, maybe Moscow needs more people on the job.

    So are we looking at a new division of labour in Moscow as part of managing the Transition? (To say nothing of the – what's the word? – Thucydides trap ? ). Mishustin looks after the nuts and bolt of Russia's economy and internal management. Medvedev looks after defence and security – something not likely to get smaller while Putin looks after the big picture?

    But this is only the first step in The Transition and we will learn more soon.

    [Jan 15, 2020] Macron's Great Leap East Revives the Spirit of De Gaulle

    Dec 07, 2019 | canadianpatriot.org
    Macron is a going through a crisis.

    On the one hand he is a creature of the technocratic neo-liberal order which is committed to unilateralism and "post-nation-statism". On the other hand he is a creature of France – a nation with strong (though easily forgotten) nationalist traditions stretching back to King Louis XI, the founder of the first modern nation state, Cardinal Mazarin who organized the Peace of Westphalia that established modern thoughts on nation states, Jean-Baptiste Colbert who's economic theories gave meaning to economic sovereignty in the modern era, to Sadi Carnot who's application of Colbertist economics and resistance to British manipulation got him killed in 1895, to Charles de Gaulle, who established the 5 th Republic and devoted his life to resisting the Deep State on the basis of peaceful relations with Russia and China.

    Then there is the populist rage of the French which dates back to the colorful days of the French revolution which established a unique tradition of mass revolts against the established order when it becomes abusive of the people this provides a "bottom up" factor which any politician desirous of keeping their heads attached to their necks must keep in mind.

    For these two reasons (top down traditions of statecraft and bottom up traditions of freeing corrupt leaders' of their heads from their bodies), Macron has found himself joining President Trump's call to re-introduce Russia back into the G8, and has made major maneuvers to re-orient France towards a pro-China policy becoming the guest of honor at China's International Expo where $15 billion of deals were signed on energy, aerospace and agricultural initiatives.

    Macron has even enraged Europe's technocratic elite by questioning the foundations of the European Union's viability while at the same time aptly criticizing NATO of 'brain death' . The crisis caused by the unravelling of the globalist vision of a post-nation state world order has resulted in an emergency conference in London to figure out how NATO can be saved from its total irrelevance. Faced with the anti-NATO sentiment expressed by Macron and Trump in recent months, and the emergence of the new multipolar order which is attracting ever more nation states (including NATO members) into its sphere of influence, Jens Stoltenberg made the desperate assertion that China must be made a target of the military alliance saying that China "is coming closer to us, investing heavily in infrastructure. We see them in Africa, we see them in the Arctic, we see them in cyber space and China now has the second-largest defense budget in the world."

    The NATO Disorder and the Economic Meltdown

    Today, after decades of neoliberal practices have undermined the once powerful agro-industrial capacities of France under the "post-industrial" Euro, it has become evident that austerity and increased taxes are the only solutions which the technocrats running the European Central Bank will permit. Since Euro membership forbids any nation to create a debt which is greater than 3% of GDP, the means to generate sufficient state credit to build large scale projects needed for an economic recovery do not exist.

    In other words, from the standpoint of the Trans-Atlantic rules of the game, the situation is hopeless.

    For all of his problems, Macron isn't blind to this fact and can see that Russia and China have successfully transformed the international order with the advent of the Belt and Road Initiative. He can see that this system uniquely offers western leaders (who wish to keep their heads in the face of the oncoming economic collapse), the only viable means to provide jobs, security and long term economic growth to their people since it is rooted in long term, open system thinking which is not connected to Hobbesian closed system geopolitics. De Gaulle would be happy to see this shift.

    The Revival of de Gaulle

    Charles de Gaulle was among a network of leaders who fought valiantly against the cancerous deep state that had formerly supported fascism in WWII. While Franklin Roosevelt had to do battle with such pro-fascist organizations such as the JP Morgan-funded Liberty League and Council on Foreign Relations from 1933-1945, President De Gaulle had to contend with the pro-Nazi Petain government whose agents immediately took over controls of France in the wake of WWII, and didn't go away upon the General's ascension to the Presidency during the near collapse of the 5 th republic in 1959.

    De Gaulle strategically fought tooth and nail against the pro-NATO fascists led by General Challe who attempted two coup attempts against De Gaulle in 1960 and 1961 and later worked with MI6 and the CIA using private contractors like Permindex to arrange over 30 assassination attempts from 1961-1969.

    De Gaulle was not only successful at taking France out of the NATO cage in 1966 , but he had organized to ensure Algeria's independence against the will of the entire deep state of France who often worked with Dulles' State Department to preserve France's colonial possessions. De Gaulle also recognized the importance of breaking the bipolar rules of the Cold War by reaching out to Russia calling for a renewed Europe " from the Atlantic to the Urals " and also an alliance with China with the intent of resolving the fires lit by western arsonists in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam whose independence he was committed to guaranteeing. De Gaulle wrote of his plan in his Memoires:

    "My aim, then, was to disengage France, not from the Atlantic Alliance, which I intended to maintain by way of ultimate precaution, but from the integration carried out by NATO under American command; to establish relations with each of the states of the East bloc, first and foremost Russia, with the object of bringing about a détente, followed by understanding and cooperation; to do likewise, when the time was ripe, with China"

    After arranging a treaty with China's Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, India's Prime Minster Nehru and the leadership of Cambodia in 1963 to create a China led block to resolve the crisis in Southeast Asia with France's help, De Gaulle became the first western head of state to recognize China and establish diplomatic relations with the Mainland on January 31, 1964. He saw that China's growth would become a driving force of world development and saw a friendship based on scientific and technological progress to be a source of France's renewal. Attacking the false dichotomy of "Free liberal capitalism" vs "totalitarian communism", De Gaulle expressed the Colbertist traditions of "dirigisme" which have historically driven France's progress since the 17 th century when he said "We are not going to commit ourselves to the empire of liberal capitalism, and nobody can believe that we are ever going to submit to the crushing totalitarianism of communism."

    The De Gaulle-Kennedy Alliance

    De Gaulle had great hopes to find like-minded anti-colonialist leaders and collaborators who were fighting against the deep state in other countries. In America he was inspired by the fresh leadership of the young John F. Kennedy whom he first met in Paris in May 1961. Of Kennedy he wrote "The new President was determined to devote himself to the cause of freedom, justice, and progress. It is true that, persuaded that it was the duty of the United States and himself to redress wrongs, he would be drawn into ill-advised interventions. But the experience of the statesman would no doubt have gradually restrained the impulsiveness of the idealist. John Kennedy had the ability, and had it not been for the crime which killed him, might have had the time to leave his mark on our age."

    De Gaulle's advice to Kennedy was instrumental in the young President's decision to stay out of a land war in Vietnam and led to Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum 263 to begin a phase out of American military from Vietnam on October 2, 1963. Kenney and De Gaulle both shared the view (alongside Italian industrialist Enrico Mattei with whom both collaborated) that Africa, Asia and South America needed advanced scientific and technological progress, energy sovereignty and sanitation in order to be fully liberated by the colonial structures of Europe. All three fought openly for this vision and all three fell in the line of battle (one to a plane crash in 1961, another to several shooters in Dallas in 1963 and the last to a staged "colour revolution" in 1969.) [1]

    If De Gaulle, Kennedy and Mattei were alive today, it is guaranteed they would recognize in the Belt and Road Initiative and broader Eurasian alliance, the only viable pathway to a future worth living in and the only means to save the souls of their own nations. The question is: Will Macron continue on this Gaullist path and will other nations grow the balls to follow suite, or will those imperial fascists who overthrew De Gaulle's vision in 1969 succeed once more?

    Footnote

    [1] It is noteworthy that the same Montreal-based Permindex Corporation which was expelled from France for having orchestrated at least two attempts on De Gaulle's life was found by New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison to be at the heart of the November 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy.

    *The author can be reached at [email protected]

    [Jan 14, 2020] Freeland's New Role as Deputy Prime Minister Puts her 2nd in Command (of the Titanic?)

    Notable quotes:
    "... "positions her as one of the top candidates to take over the liberal party after Trudeau" ..."
    "... Government Operations Committee ..."
    "... "All liberal democracies in the world today are facing huge challenges, and for me the conclusion that pushed me to is; there are only 37 million Canadians. Hugely challenging world threats posed to the rules-based international order, greater threats since the 2nd World War. We have to be united in how we confront those challenges." ..."
    "... Ever since her appointment to the role of Cabinet Minister in 2015, Freeland played the role assigned to her as a high level Rhodes Scholar and priestess of neo-liberalism. Springing from a Nazi-connected Ukrainian family based out of Alberta, Freeland made her mark working as lead editor in British Intelligence-controlled news agencies the London Economist, Thompson-Reuters, Financial Times and later Canada's Globe and Mail. Through these positions as "perception manager" of the super elite, she became friends with some of the most vicious Russian, Ukrainian and other eastern European oligarchs who rose to power under Perestroika and the liberalization of the east-bloc. ..."
    "... The author is the founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation of Canada. He has authored 3 volumes of the series "The Untold History of Canada" and can be reached at [email protected] ..."
    Jan 14, 2020 | canadianpatriot.org

    editor / November 27, 2019 An interesting victory has been won for forces in Canada who have wished to clean up the mess made by the two disastrous years Chrystia Freeland has spent occupying the position of Foreign Minister of Canada. This victory has taken the form of a Freeland's removal from the position which she has used to destroy diplomatic relations with China, Russia and other nations targeted for regime change by her London-based controllers. Taking over the helm as Minister of Global Affairs is Francois-Philippe Champagne, former Minister of Infrastructure and ally of "old guard" Liberal elder Jean Chretien- both of whom have advocated positive diplomatic and business relations with China in opposition to Freeland for years.

    As positive of a development as this is, the danger which Freeland represents to world peace and Canada's role in the New Emerging system led by the Eurasian Alliance should not be ignored, since she has now been given the role of Deputy Prime Minister, putting her into a position to easily take over the Party and the nation as 2 nd in command.

    Already the Canadian press machine on all sides of the aisle are raising the prospect of Freeland's takeover of the Liberal Party as it "positions her as one of the top candidates to take over the liberal party after Trudeau" as one Globe and Mail reporter stated.

    The Strange Case of Deputy Prime Ministers

    The very role of Deputy Prime Minister is a strange one which has had many pundits scratching their heads, since the Privy Council position is highly under-defined, and was only created by Justin's father Pierre in 1977 as part of his "cybernetics revolution" which empowered the Privy Council Office and Prime Minister's Office under "scientific management" of a technocratic elite. Although it is technically the position of 2nd in Command, it is not like the position of Vice-President whose function has much greater constitutional clarity.

    In some cases, the position has been ceremonial, and in others, like the case of Brian Mulroney's Dep. PM Don Mazankowski (1986-1993) who chaired the Government Operations Committee and led in imposing the nation-stripping NAFTA, the position was very powerful indeed. Some Prime Ministers have chosen not even to have a Deputy PM, and the last one (Anne McLellan) ended with the downfall of Paul Martin in 2006. McLellan and another former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley were both leading figures behind the creation of the think tank Canada2020 in 2003 that soon brought Justin and Obamaton behaviorists into a re-structuring of the Liberal Party of Canada during the Harper years, shedding it of its pro-China, pro-Russia, anti-NATO influences that had been represented by less technocratically-minded statesmen like Jean Chretien years earlier.

    Personally, as a Canadian-based journalist who has done a fair bit of homework on Canadian history, and the structures of Canada's government, I honestly don't think the question of Freeland's becoming Prime Minister matters nearly as much as many believe for the simple reason that Justin is a well-known cardboard cut-out who simply doesn't know how to do anything terribly important without a teleprompter and experienced handlers. This is not a secret to other world leaders, and anyone familiar with the mountains of video footage taken from G7 events featuring the pathetic scene of little Justin chronically ignored by his peers goes far enough to demonstrate the point.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/JQwNIYB2Z6s?feature=oembed

    Freeland's role in Canada has never had much to do with Canada, as much as it has with Canada's role as a geopolitical chess piece in a turbulent and changing world and her current role as Deputy Prime Minister as well as Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs can only be understood in those global terms.

    Unity for the Sake of Greater Division

    For Canada to play a useful role in obstructing the Eurasian-led New Silk Road paradigm sweeping across the globe in recent years, it requires the fragmenting American monarchy be kept in line.

    The problem for the British Empire in this regard, is that the recent elections have demonstrated how divided Canada is with the Liberal Party suffering total losses across the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec due to the technocratic adherence to the Green New Deal agenda and resistance to actual industrial development initiatives. The collapse of living standards, and the lack of any policies for rebuilding the industrial base that 30 years of NAFTA have destroyed, has resulted not only in the rejection of the Liberal Party but has also awoken a renewed demand for separation in all three provinces.

    Referring implicitly to the crisis of such "authoritarian regimes" as China, Russia, Iran and Trump's USA, as well as the need to decarbonize the world, Freeland put the problem she is assigned to fix in the following terms : "All liberal democracies in the world today are facing huge challenges, and for me the conclusion that pushed me to is; there are only 37 million Canadians. Hugely challenging world threats posed to the rules-based international order, greater threats since the 2nd World War. We have to be united in how we confront those challenges."

    To put it simply, if centralized control were to break down at a time when the Belt and Road Initiative ( and its Polar Silk Road extension ) is redefining the world system OUTSIDE of the control of the western oligarchy, then it is clearly understood that the Green Agenda will fail, but the dynamics of the BRI will become hegemonic as Canada realizes (like the Greeks and Italians currently) that the only viable policies for growing the real economy is coming from China.

    Some final words on Freeland, Neo-liberal High Priestess

    Ever since her appointment to the role of Cabinet Minister in 2015, Freeland played the role assigned to her as a high level Rhodes Scholar and priestess of neo-liberalism. Springing from a Nazi-connected Ukrainian family based out of Alberta, Freeland made her mark working as lead editor in British Intelligence-controlled news agencies the London Economist, Thompson-Reuters, Financial Times and later Canada's Globe and Mail. Through these positions as "perception manager" of the super elite, she became friends with some of the most vicious Russian, Ukrainian and other eastern European oligarchs who rose to power under Perestroika and the liberalization of the east-bloc. She also became close friends with such golems as George Soros, Larry Summers and Al Gore embedding their institutions ever more deeply into Canada since she was brought into Canada2020 (her move to politics was facilitated by fellow Rhodes Scholar/Canada2020 leader Bob Rae abdicating his position as MP for Ontario in 2013).

    When Foreign Minister Stephane Dion committed the crime of attempting to heal relations with China and called for a Russia-Canada Summit to deal mutually with Arctic development, counter-terrorism and space cooperation , he had to go. After an abrupt firing, Freeland was given his portfolio and immediately went to work in turning China and Russia into public enemies #1 and #2, passing the Magnintsky Act in 2017 allowing for the sanctioning of nations for human rights (easily falsified when Soros' White Helmets and other CIA/MI6-affiliated NGOs are seen as "on-the-ground" authorities documenting said abuse).

    Her role as champion of NAFTA which Trump rightly threatened to scrap in order to re-introduce protective tariffs elevated her to a technocratic David fighting some orange Goliath, and her advocacy of the Green New Deal has been behind some of the most extreme energy/arctic anti-development legislation passed in Canada's history.

    Whether it is though individual provinces claiming their rights to form independent treaties with Eurasian powers around cooperation on the BRI, or whether Canada can be returned to a pro-nation state orientation under the "Chretien faction" in the federal government, the current future of Canada is as under-defined as the role of "deputy minister". Either way the nation chooses navigate through the storm, it is certain that any commitment to staying on board the deck of the Titanic known as the "western neoliberal order" has only one cold and tragic outcome which Freeland and her ilk will drown before admitting to.

    The author is the founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation of Canada. He has authored 3 volumes of the series "The Untold History of Canada" and can be reached at [email protected]

    Facebook Twitter WordPress Print Kindle It November 27, 2019 in Miscellaneous . Tags: deep state , freeland , rhodes scholar , world government Related posts Unravelling the Mystery of the 'Annexation Movement of 1849' The 'Greta Effect': Are We Really This Time, for Certain Certain, Heading for the End Times? Living Under the Spectre of Hyperinflation: 1923 Weimar and Today Filters Video Player

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/7QByzhXiF1U?controls=0&rel=0&disablekb=1&showinfo=0&modestbranding=0&html5=1&iv_load_policy=3&autoplay=0&end=0&loop=0&playsinline=0&start=0&nocookie=false&enablejsapi=1&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fcanadianpatriot.org&widgetid=1 00:00 16:37 © 2020 The Canadian Patriot

    [Jan 12, 2020] The Politics Behind Banning Russia From the Olympics -- Strategic Culture

    Jan 12, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Michael Averko January 11, 2020 © Photo: Government.ru There've been ongoing propaganda pieces that skirt over some inconvenient realities, for those seeking to unfairly admonish Russia in the Olympic movement. One case in point is the January 2 Reuters article " Use 1992 Yugoslavia Precedent for Russians in Tokyo – Historian ". With a stated " some Russians ", that article suggestively under-represents the actual number of 2018 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang, while supporting a hypocritically flawed aspect, having to do with Yugoslavia in 1992.

    The downplaying of Russian participation at Pyeongchang, is seemingly done to spin the image of many Russian cheats being kept out. At the suggestion of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) closely vetted Russians for competition at the 2018 Winter Olympics. In actuality, the 2018 Russian Winter Olympic participation wasn't so off the mark, when compared to past Winter Olympiads – something which (among other things) puts a dent into the faulty notion that Russia should be especially singled out for sports doping.

    At the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, Russia had its largest ever Winter Olympic contingent of 232 , on account of the host nation being allowed a greater number of participants. The 168 Russian Winter Olympians at Pyeongchang is 9 less than the Russians who competed at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Going back further, Russian Winter Olympic participation in 2006 was at 190 , with its 2002 contingent at 151 , 1998 having 122 and 1994 (Russia's first formal Winter Olympic appearance as Russia) 113 .

    The aforementioned Reuters piece references a " historian ", Bill Mallon, who is keen on using the 1992 Summer Olympic banning of Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro) as a legitimate basis to ban Russia from the upcoming Summer Olympics. In this instance, Alan Dershowitz's periodic reference to the " if the shoe is on the other foot " test is quite applicable . Regarding Mallon, " historian " is put in quotes because his historically premised advocacy is very much incomplete and overly propagandistic.

    For consistency sake and contrary to Mallon, Yugoslavia should've formally participated at the 1992 Summer Olympics. The Olympic banning of Yugoslavia was bogus, given that the IOC and the IOC affiliated sports federations didn't ban the US and USSR for their respective role in wars, which caused a greater number of deaths than what happened in 1990s Bosnia. The Reuters article at issue references a United Nations resolution for sanctions against Yugoslavia, without any second guessing, in support of the preference (at least by some) to keep politics out of sports as much as possible.

    Mallon casually notes that Yugoslav team sports were banned from the 1992 Summer Olympics, unlike individual Yugoslav athletes, who participated as independents. At least two of the banned Yugoslav teams were predicted to be lead medal contenders.

    Croatia was allowed to compete at the 1992 Summer Olympics, despite that nation's military involvement in the Bosnian Civil War. During the 1992 Summer and Winter Olympics, the former USSR participated in individual and team sports as the Unified Team (with the exception of the three former Soviet Baltic republics, who competed under their respective nation). With all this in mind, the ban on team sports from Yugoslavia at the 1992 Summer Olympics, under a neutral name, appears to be hypocritical and ethically challenged.

    BS aside, the reality is that geopolitical clout (in the form of might making right), is what compels the banning of Yugoslavia, unlike superpowers engaged in behavior which isn't less egregious. Although a major world power, contemporary Russia lacks the overall geopolitical influence of the USSR. Historian Stephen Cohen and some others, have noted that post-Soviet Russia doesn't get the same (for lack of a better word) respect accorded to the USSR. This aspect underscores how becoming freer, less militaristic and more market oriented doesn't (by default) bring added goodwill from a good number of Western establishment politicos and the organizations which are greatly influenced by them.

    On the subject of banning Russia from the Olympics, Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound, continues to rehash an inaccurate likening with no critical follow-up. ( An exception being yours truly .) Between 2016 and 2019 , Pound references the Olympic banning of South Africa, as a basis for excluding Russia. South Africa was banned when it had apartheid policies, which prevented that country's Black majority from competing in organized sports. Russia has a vast multiethnic participation in sports and other sectors.

    As previously noted , the factual premise to formally ban Russia from the Olympics remains suspect. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is set to review Russia's appeal to have the recommended WADA ban against Russia overturned, as Western mass media at large and sports politicos like Pound continue to push for a CAS decision against Russia.

    [Jan 12, 2020] The Skripal Affair A Lie Too Far -- Strategic Culture

    Jan 12, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Strategic Culture

    Search World The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far? Michael Jabara Carley April 18, 2018 © Photo: Public domain

    On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy day in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia stepped out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby restaurant, and then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had happened to them? Did they suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some dark affaire and the object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an accidental victim?

    The police received a call that day at 4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The Skripals were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to look like attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before they might know what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.

    The Conservative government decided that it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate a former intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was released four years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians," so the Tory hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident in Salisbury, the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian government was the prime suspect in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei Skripal.

    On 12 March the foreign secretary summoned the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234, had been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the Russian government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian ambassador 24 hours to respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any stockpiles of chemical weapons or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.

    Later that day, the British prime minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a coma, were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia " (italics added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into English (beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to have produced this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was " highly likely " that the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.

    Here is what the prime minister said in the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations were redolent of those in 2014 alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine. Within hours of the destruction of MH 17, the United States and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of being responsible.

    The western modus operandi is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in Alice in Wonderland .

    On 13 March the Russian embassy informed the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the Salisbury incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The eloquent Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British démarche as a "circus show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that Russia would not respond to such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to provoke a negative Russian reply.

    The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The [Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in 1997.

    On 14 March the British government expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British diplomats and shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the British appealed to their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling Russian diplomats. Twenty-eight countries did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to appease the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to join the stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled sixty diplomats and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions and the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a major confrontation. The British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of military action .

    In the meantime, President Putin weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to Moscow?

    Momentum is sometimes like a balloon, it blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall apart almost from the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper Kommersant leaked a British PowerPoint presentation sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted, inter alia , that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified the substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia". Both these statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could not determine the origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the formula for making a so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in 2008), which includes the formula, on Amazon.com . In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright undergraduate chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst those governments having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The Russian embassy in London noted in a published report that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent named 'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types of chemical poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a series of new chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by Russian expat researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an attempt to artificially link the substance to Russia."

    The British PowerPoint presentation did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity" including, inter alia , the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All of these claims are audacious lies , easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced events are also unrelated to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the Russian Federation. In fact, the British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda, bourrage de crâne , as preposterous as any seen during the Cold War.

    As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be directly involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other evidence to try to determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British government at first refused to go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the Russian government to have access to the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals. That idea is "perverse", said British authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a resolution to the executive council, that it should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the required vote of approval. The British were attempting to hijack the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem has not worked. On 12 April the OPCW released a report stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The report said nothing about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.

    What I could not understand when I read the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW published report avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it should have been instant acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have survived at the time of this writing. Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.

    On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at a meeting in Moscow provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so. Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it. "Moreover," according to the Russian embassy in London , "considering its high volatility, the detection of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh authorities have tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a "toxic chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a well-known Swiss lab , which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus lied when they said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical". Unless Porton Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve agent. The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the public report issued on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorise a false flag attack against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.

    A prima facie case can be made that the British government is lying about the Skripal affaire . Suspicion always falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government appears to have leaked it to the press. The Times published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire across the Mainstream Media. The Daily Mirror put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that gullible?

    The secret assassin's manual reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in fact counterfeit.

    The Tories are again acting as if they have something to hide. It is déjŕ vu. Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth? Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?

    There is other evidence to suggest that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police have sought to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities access to a Russian citizen in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any chapter of international law, which the British government now respects? British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate? Have they induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her father? Based on a statement attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it begins to look that way . Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that British authorities are acting as though they have something to hide. Even German politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia. Damage control is underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe anything the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?

    "They are liars. And they know that they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?

    The Tories are trying doggedly to maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilising European, indeed world peace and security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who risk to provoke war against the Russian Federation. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: May OPCW United Kingdom Print this article Michael Jabara Carley April 18, 2018 | World The Skripal Affair: A Lie Too Far?

    On 4 March 2018 it was a foggy day in southern England, and the MI6 Russian spy Sergei Viktorovich Skripal and his daughter Yulia stepped out for a stroll, stopped at the local pub in Salisbury, went to lunch at a nearby restaurant, and then took a walk in the park where they collapsed on a park bench. What had happened to them? Did they suffer from food poisoning? Or was Sergei Skripal involved in some dark affaire and the object of a hit by persons unknown, his daughter being an accidental victim?

    The police received a call that day at 4:15pm reporting two people in distress. Emergency services were despatched immediately. The Skripals were rushed to hospital, while the local police launched an investigation. It began to look like attempted murder, but the police urged patience, saying it could take months before they might know what had happened and who, if anyone, was responsible.

    The Conservative government decided that it did not need to wait for a police investigation. "The Russians" had tried to assassinate a former intelligence officer turned informant for MI6. Skripal went to jail for that, but was released four years later in an exchange of agents with the United States. Now, "the Russians," so the Tory hypothesis goes, wanted to settle old scores. Less than 24 hours after the incident in Salisbury, the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, suggested that the Russian government was the prime suspect in what looked like an attempt gone wrong to assassinate Sergei Skripal.

    On 12 March the foreign secretary summoned the Russian ambassador to inform him that a nerve agent, A-234, had been used against the Skripals. How did you do it, Johnson wanted to know, or did the Russian government lose control of its stocks of chemical weapons? He gave the Russian ambassador 24 hours to respond. In point of fact, the Russian government does not possess any stockpiles of chemical weapons or nerve agents, having destroyed them all as of September 2017.

    Later that day, the British prime minister, Theresa May, declared in the House of Commons that the Skripals, then said to be in a coma, were poisoned with "a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia " (italics added) called a 'novichok', a Russian word having various possible translations into English (beginner, novice, newcomer, etc.). May claimed that since the Soviet Union was known to have produced this chemical weapon, or nerve agent (also known as A-234), that it was " highly likely " that the Russian government was guilty of the attack on the Skripals.

    Here is what the prime minister said in the House of Commons: "Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country. Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others." The hurried British accusations were redolent of those in 2014 alleging Russian government complicity or direct involvement in the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH 17 over the Ukraine. Within hours of the destruction of MH 17, the United States and its vassals, including Britain, accused Russia of being responsible.

    The western modus operandi is the same in the Skripal case. The Tories rushed to conclusions and issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the Russian government to prove its innocence, or rather to admit its guilt. How was the so-called novichok delivered to London, did President Vladimir Putin authorise the attack, did Russia lose control of its stockpile? The prime minister and her foreign secretary had in effect declared Russia guilty as charged. No objective police investigation, no due process, no presumption of innocence, no evidence was necessary: it was "sentence first, verdict later", as the Red Queen declared in Alice in Wonderland .

    On 13 March the Russian embassy informed the Foreign Office that the Russian Federation was not involved in any way with the Salisbury incident. We will not respond to an ultimatum, came the reply from Moscow. The eloquent Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Mariia Zakharova, characterised the British démarche as a "circus show". Actually, Foreign Office clerks must have told Boris Johnson that Russia would not respond to such an ultimatum so that it was a deliberate British attempt to provoke a negative Russian reply.

    The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, stated for the record that "as soon as the rumors, fed by the British leadership, about the poisoning of Skripal appeared, we immediately requested access to this [toxic] substance so that our experts could analyze it in accordance with the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." After the British ambassador visited the Russian foreign ministry on 13 March to receive the formal Russian reply to the British ultimatum, the foreign ministry in Moscow issued a communiqué: " The [Salisbury] incident appears to be yet another crooked attempt by the UK authorities to discredit Russia. Any threat to take 'punitive' measures against Russia will meet with a response. The British side should be aware of that." The Russian government in fact proposed that the alleged poisoning of the Skripals should be examined by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague, according to procedures to which Britain itself had agreed when the OPCW was established in 1997.

    On 14 March the British government expelled 23 Russian diplomats, and a few days later the Russian side expelled 23 British diplomats and shuttered the offices of the British Council in Russia. At the same time, the British appealed to their allies and to the European Union to show solidarity by expelling Russian diplomats. Twenty-eight countries did so, though for most it was one or two expulsions, tokenism to appease the British. Other countries -- for example, Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal -- refused to join the stampede. Going over the top, the United States expelled sixty diplomats and closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. The Russians responded in kind with sixty expulsions and the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg. Momentum seemed to be building toward a major confrontation. The British prime minister even alluded to the possibility of military action .

    In the meantime, President Putin weighed in. "I guess any reasonable person [has] realised," he said, "that this is complete absurd[ity] and nonsense. [How could] anybody in Russia allow themselves such actions on the eve of the [Russian] presidential election and the football World Cup? This is unthinkable." In any police inquiry, investigators look for means, motive and opportunity. On these grounds did the trail of guilt lead to Moscow?

    Momentum is sometimes like a balloon, it blows up and then it suddenly bursts. The British case against Russia began to fall apart almost from the time it was made. In late March the Russian newspaper Kommersant leaked a British PowerPoint presentation sent to eighty embassies in Moscow. It asserted, inter alia , that the British chemical weapons facility at Porton Down had positively identified the substance, which allegedly poisoned the Skripals, as a Novichok, "developed only by Russia". Both these statements are false. On 3 April Porton Down stated publicly that it could not determine the origin of the substance that poisoned the Skripals. It also came out that the formula for making a so-called novichok was published in a book by a Russian dissident and chemist, Vil Mirzayanov, who now lives in the United States. You can buy his book (published in 2008), which includes the formula, on Amazon.com . In fact, any number of governments or smart chemists or even bright undergraduate chemistry students with the proper facilities could make this nerve agent. Amongst those governments having access to the original formula are Britain and the United States. The Russian embassy in London noted in a published report that "neither Russia nor the Soviet Union has ever developed an agent named 'Novichok'." The report further stated that "While Soviet scientists did work on new types of chemical poisons, the word 'Novichok' was introduced in the West in mid-1990s to designate a series of new chemical agents developed there on the basis of information made available by Russian expat researchers. The British insistence to use the Russian word 'Novichok' is an attempt to artificially link the substance to Russia."

    The British PowerPoint presentation did not stop with its two main canards. It goes on to refer to "Russian malign activity" including, inter alia , the "invasion" of Georgia in 2008, the "destabilisation" of the Ukraine and the shooting down of MH17 in 2014, and interference in the US elections in 2016. All of these claims are audacious lies , easily deconstructed and unpacked. The referenced events are also unrelated to the Salisbury incident and were raised in an attempt to smear the Russian Federation. In fact, the British PowerPoint slides represent vulgar propaganda, bourrage de crâne , as preposterous as any seen during the Cold War.

    As Minister Lavrov pointed out, the Skripal case should have gone for resolution to the OPCW in The Hague. Russia would then be directly involved in the investigation and would have access to the alleged toxin, and other evidence to try to determine what had happened and who were the perpetrators. The British government at first refused to go to the OPCW, and then when it did, refused to authorise the Russian government to have access to the alleged substance, which had sickened the Skripals. That idea is "perverse", said British authorities. Actually, not at all, it is the procedure laid out in OPCW statutes, to which Britain itself agreed but has refused to respect. When the Russian representative at the OPCW proposed a resolution to the executive council, that it should respect its own statutes, he could not obtain the required vote of approval. The British were attempting to hijack the OPCW as a potential tool against the Russian Federation. Thus far, that stratagem has not worked. On 12 April the OPCW released a report stating that it had "confirm[ed] the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury ." The report said nothing about the origin of the so-called "toxic chemical". The British accusation against Russia thus remained unsubstantiated.

    What I could not understand when I read the OPCW communiqué, is why the Skripals were still alive. The OPCW says that the toxic chemical used against the Skripals was "of high purity". Was it a nerve agent? Oddly, the OPCW published report avoids a straight answer. If it was a nerve agent, being of "high purity," it should have been instant acting and killed the Skripals almost immediately. Yet both have survived at the time of this writing. Something does not make sense. Of course, there could be a simple explanation for this puzzling mystery.

    On 14 April, Minister Lavrov at a meeting in Moscow provided the answer. The substance used to attack the Skripals was laced with a substance know as BZ which incapacitates rather than kills and takes longer to work than an instant acting nerve agent which kills immediately. The United States, Britain and other NATO countries have developed this toxin and put it into service; the Soviet Union never did so. Traces of A-234 were also identified, but according to experts, such a concentration of the A-234 agent would cause death to anyone affected by it. "Moreover," according to the Russian embassy in London , "considering its high volatility, the detection of this substance in its initial state (pure form and high concentration) is extremely suspicious as the samples have been taken several weeks since the poisoning," Could Britsh authorities have tampered with the samples? The public OPCW report gives no details, and refers only to a "toxic chemical". Nor did the report say that the OPCW had submitted specimens of the substance to a well-known Swiss lab , which promptly reported back its surprising results. The OPCW authorities thus lied when they said that the tests "confirmed" the British identify of the "toxic chemical". Unless Porton Down knew that the substance used against the Skripals was a BZ type toxin, and so informed the OPCW, or, unless the Tory government lied in claiming publicly that it was a novichok nerve agent. The British attempted hijacking of the OPCW has compromised its independence, for the public report issued on 12 April is misleading. Moreover, since the BZ toxin is made by the US, Britain and other NATO countries, it begs the same questions, which the Tories put to Moscow: how did the perpetrators obtain the BZ toxin and bring it to Salisbury, did MI5 or MI6 authorise a false flag attack against the Skripals, or was it authorised by the British cabinet or by the prime minister alone? Or did British authorities lose control of their stockpiles? The trail of evidence does not lead to Moscow; it leads to London.

    A prima facie case can be made that the British government is lying about the Skripal affaire . Suspicion always falls upon those who act deviously, who hide behind clever turns of phrase and procedural and rhetorical smokescreens. British authorities are now saying that they have other top secret evidence, which explains everything, but unfortunately it can't be publicised. Nevertheless, the British government appears to have leaked it to the press. The Times published a story about a covert Russian lab producing nerve agents and it spread like wild fire across the Mainstream Media. The Daily Mirror put out a story about a Russian secret assassins' training manual. These stories are laughable. Is the Tory government that desperate? Is the British "everyman" that gullible?

    The secret assassin's manual reminds me of the 1924 "Zinoviev Letter", a counterfeit document produced by White Russians in Germany, purporting to demonstrate Soviet interference in British elections and planning for a socialist revolution. It was early days of "fake news". Parliamentary elections were underway in October 1924 and the Tories used the letter to attack the credibility of the Labour party. It was whipping up the red scare, and it worked like a charm. The Tories won a majority government. Soviet authorities claimed that the letter was bogus and they demanded a third party, independent investigation to ascertain the truth, just as the Russian government has done now. In 1924, the Tories refused, and understandably so, since they had a lot to hide. It took seventy-five years to determine that "the letter" was in fact counterfeit.

    The Tories are again acting as if they have something to hide. It is déjŕ vu. Will it take seventy-five years to get at the truth? Are there any honest British cops, judges, civil servants ready to reveal the truth?

    There is other evidence to suggest that the British narrative on the Salisbury incident is bogus. The London Metropolitan Police have sought to prevent any outside contact with the Skripals. They have taken away a recovered Yulia Skripal to an unknown location. They have until now denied Russian consular authorities access to a Russian citizen in violation of British approved consular agreements. Is there any chapter of international law, which the British government now respects? British authorities have denied access to Yulia Skripal's family in Russia; they have denied a visa to Yulia's cousin, Viktoria, to visit with her. Are British spooks grooming Yulia, briefing her to stay on the Tory narrative? Is she being manipulated like some kind of Manchurian Candidate? Have they induced her to betray her country in exchange for emoluments, a new identity in the United States, a house, a BMW and money? Are they playing upon her loyalty to her father? Based on a statement attributed to Yulia by the London Metropolitan Police, it begins to look that way . Or, is the message, sounding very British and official, quite simply a fake? The Russian embassy in London suspects that it is. What is certain is that British authorities are acting as though they have something to hide. Even German politicians, amongst others, have criticised the British rush to indict Russia. Damage control is underway. Given all the evidence, can any person with reasonable abilities to think critically believe anything the Tories are saying about the Salisbury affair?

    "They are liars. And they know that they are liars," the late Egyptian writer and Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz once wrote: "And we know that they are liars. Even so, they keep lying ." Mahfouz was not writing about the British, but all the same, he could have been. Are not his well-known lines apposite to the present government in London?

    The Tories are trying doggedly to maintain control of the narrative. Stakes are high for if it eventuates that the Tories have lied deliberately for political gain, at the risk of destabilising European, indeed world peace and security, the Tory government should be forced to resign and new elections, called. Then, the British electorate can decide whether it wants to be governed by reckless, mendacious Tory politicians who risk to provoke war against the Russian Federation. © 2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Also by this author Michael Jabara Carley Professor of history at the Université de Montréal. He has published widely on Soviet relations with the West What Poland Has to Hide About the Origins of World War II The Canadian Prime Minister Needs a History Lesson The Russian V-Day Story (Or the History of World War II Not Often Heard in the West) Why Canada Defends Ukrainian Fascism Lament for Canada Sign up for the Strategic Culture Foundation Newsletter Subscribe


    To the top
    © 2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. <div><img src="https://mc.yandex.ru/watch/10970266" alt=""/></div>

    [Jan 12, 2020] Nobody, not even Russia and china, can afford to stay in the sidelines in a nuclear war in the 2020s.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a carrier battle group marooned on land ..."
    Jan 12, 2020 | smoothiex12.blogspot.com

    Axiosromano 2 days ago

    The tramp & nutNyahoo machismo show continues to be fun to watch. Both show off their penis worms as they arrogantly claim they can crush iran. Both the usa and israel keep banging on the doors and walls of their pissed-off neighbors' houses. That eventually gets you murdered whether in baltimore or baghdad.

    A crushable iran is true if and only if they can mount a full-on nuclear war on Iran. But such horrendous cheating means all bets are off, and iran's allies will provide the nukes required to melt down the American homeland too. Nobody, not even Russia and china, can afford to stay in the sidelines in a nuclear war in the 2020s.

    What i find truly amazing is that American Zionists still believe crushing Iran is easy enough. Israel, with 8 million jews stuffed in a small country, is nothing more than a carrier battle group marooned on land. Sitting ducks, with nice armor, nukes and all, are ... still sitting ducks. nutNyahoo should ask his technical crew just how few megatons are needed, or just a few thousand modern missiles are required to transform sitting ducks into nicely roasted peking ducks.

    So a conventional war it is. The usa and israel has exactly zero, zilch and nada chances of winning a war with iran. The usa keeps forgetting that it is a dying empire with dying funding value and mental resources. Just like israel which oddly thinks dozens of f-35s will give it immunity through air superiority. Proof of this fact that iran will win comes from simply asking american and israeli war experts to go on cnn or the washington post on how they intend to win a war with iran.

    Im sure these expert bloviators will say that it is as easy as winning a naval war against china, which is capable of launching only 3 new warships in a week. Or an even easier time against russia, which can launch only a few thousand hypersonic nuke missiles because its GDP is no bigger than that of texas.

    Rob Naardin 2 days ago

    The Pentagon is super slow to adapt and learn. If you understand that bureaucracy is an ancient organizational structure and that the organizational culture of the Pentagon is pathologically dysfunctional you could have predicted the moral and financial bankruptcy of America 15-20 years ago. The "Why?", finally made sense when I discovered what a sociopath was.

    It's about time the US practices what it preachs and start behaving like a normal country instead of a spoiled narcissistic brat. see more

    tic_Fox Rob Naardin2 days ago • edited

    US military & strategic thought became lazy during the late days of the Cold War. It mirrored the decline & fall of the foundations of its opponent, USSR. Post-Cold War, US military & strategic thinking flushed into the sewer. It was all about maintaining the military as some sort of a social policy jobs program, operating legacy tech as the mission. And then came the "world-improvers" -- beginning w the Clinton Admin -- who worked to turn the world into a global "urban renewal" project; meaning to mirror the success US Big Govt showed in the slums of American cities from sea to sea. The past 30 yrs of US strategic thinking and related governance truly disgusts me. see more

    Vasya Pypkin Arctic_Fox2 days ago

    Soviet union fall had very different reasons and Soviet military thought was doing quite well then along with military. Current russian military wonders is completion of what was started then and not finished earlier because of the disintegration of the Soviet state.
    The soviet fall however is extremely regrettable because there was a new way how things can be done that Soviet union was showing to the world. USA fall long term is a very good thing because USA is a paragon of how things should be done the old way and basically a huge parasite. Many negative trends that are afflicting the world were started by USA. Unlimited individualism and consumerism would be a couple of those. see more

    Drapetomania Vasya Pypkin17 hours ago
    Why does almost every person on Earth feel the need to force others to bend the knee to their beliefs?

    Religious beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in an afterlife, political beliefs are what one thinks should be done to promote survival in this world.

    The world would be a far better, more civilized, of world if such beliefs were only shared on a voluntary basis.

    As for individualism, I would rather be free than live in a modern day egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe run by modern day psychopathic alpha-males.

    That is certainly not a recipe for success. see more

    AriusArmenian Arctic_Fox2 days ago

    It also mirrors the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It was Emperor Augustus that decided the costs to further expand the Empire were too great after losing one (or two?) legions against the Germanic tribes.

    The US has reached its greatest extent. We are living through it. The US didn't go forward into war with Iran twice. The odds of humanity surviving this immense turn of history is looking better. see more

    Vasya Pypkin AriusArmenian2 days ago • edited

    Frankly, nothing in common. I read this comparison all the time. Yes, Augustus decided not to continue along with expansion into Germany after losing 3 Varus legions due to ambush.

    But he famously noted that it does not worth to go fishing with golden hook. Basically speaking, Germany was not worth fighting for. Poor and remote it had nothing to offer. Just a drain on resources. As long as conquest was moving smoothly it was ok, but after losses were inflicted Augustus decided it was not worth it.

    Roman expansion under augustus was carried mostly to consolidate previous conquests and create strategical debth along core and strategical provinces also creating linkage.

    When enemy far stronger than germans posed resources which made the whole conquest worthy no amount of resistance saved Dacians and Parthia also almost died under Trajan attack.

    Roman policies were adequate and wise. Treaties were respected, allies supported and benefited. Empire was build around Mediterranean creating good communication and routes considering obviously limits of that day technology.

    Rome did not behave like crazy and did not deliver threats that she could not follow through. When war was decided upon thorough preparations were taken. Political goals were achieved. Wars were won. When Adrian considered that empire was overextended in Parthis, he simply abandoned all conquered territories. Just like that.

    Logical calm thinking USA,is not capable of. Rome truly based upon superior military and diplomacy dominance lasted many centuries. USA few decades. One hit wonder, lucky fool I would call it. see more

    Arctic_Fox Vasya Pypkin17 hours ago

    Interesting account of Roman strategic concept of forward presence, versus administering the internal lines of communication... see more

    WHAT2 days ago

    They left equipment in the open on that base and ran away. No AA fire whatsoever. This is how much they are ready to take a punch. see more

    smoothieX12 . Mod WHAT2 days ago

    Yes, this is somewhat puzzling. As I said, let's wait and see where it all develops to, but as Twisted Genius succinctly observed -- Iran now controls tempo because she has conventional superiority. Anyone who has precision-guided, stand off weaponry in good numbers will be on top. see more

    Arctic_Fox smoothieX12 .2 days ago

    The old submarine saying is, "There are two kinds of ships; submarines, and targets."
    .
    The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets; precision-guided missiles, and targets." (And per the photos, those Iranian missiles were quite precise; bulls-eyes.)
    .
    Iran and its missiles demonstrated that the entire strategic foundation for US mil presence in the Middle East is now obsolete. Everything the US would ever want to do there is now subject to Iran's version of "steel rain." Every runway, hangar, aircraft parking area; every supply depot or warehouse; every loading pier, fuel site, naval pier. Everything... is a target. And really... there's no amount of US "airpower" and "tech" than can mitigate the Iran missile threat.
    .
    Meanwhile, related thinking... Iran's true strategic interest is NOT fighting a near-term war w/ USA. Iran wants US to exit Middle East; and Iran wants to be able to pursue its nuclear program. Soleimani or no, Iran appears to have its eyeballs fixed on the long-term goals. see more

    smoothieX12 . Mod Arctic_Fox2 days ago • edited
    The new version for land ops is, "There are two kinds of land-based military assets; precision-guided missiles, and targets."

    Exactly, and Iran has long-range TLAMs in who knows what numbers, That, in its turn, brings about the next issue of range for Iranian indigenous anti-ship missiles. Not, of course, to mention the fact of only select people knowing if Russia transferred P-800 Onyx to Iran She certainly did it for Syria. If that weapon is there--the Persian Gulf and Hormuz Strait will be shut completely closed and will push out CBGs far into the Indian Ocean. see more

    Vasya Pypkin smoothieX12 .a day ago

    It is simply pathetic after decades of talking non stop about developments of anti missiles and huge amounts wasted and nobody is responsible. This is the way capitalism works.profits is everything and outcomes secondary. Thankfully russia has got soviet foundation and things so far are working well. I come to think that in our times no serious industrial processes should be allowed to stay in private hands. Only services and so.e other simpler stuff under heavy state control to ensure quality. Otherwise profit orientation will eventually destroy everything like with Boeing.

    Drapetomania Vasya Pypkin16 hours ago observerBG smoothieX12 .2 days ago • edited

    I know, i already wrote a full scale war scenario in one of the comments. Iran can destroy all US bases in 2000 km range. But this does not mean that it can not be bombed back to the stone age, if the US really wishes so. The problem for the US is the high cost as well as the high debt levels, but it does have the technical capability to do that after 2 - 3 years of bombing.

    Also low yield tactical nukes are designed to lower the treshold of the use of nukes in otherwise conventional war, producing less international outrage than the megaton city buster bombs. Why do you think the US is developing them again? Because they would want to use them in conventional conflicts.

    Here btw is Yurasumy, he also says that the US can technically bomb Iran back to the stone age, but the cost will be too high.

    Play Hide

    https://cdn.embedly.com/

    smoothieX12 . Mod observerBG2 days ago • edited
    if the US really wishes so.

    Again--what's the plan and what's the price? Iran HAS Russia's ISR on her side in case of such SEAD.

    Does the United States want to risk lives of thousands of its personnel (not to speak of expensive equipment) in Qatar, KSA, Iraq. Does Israel want to "get it"?

    There are numbers which describe such an operation (it was. most likely, already planned as contingency). Immediate question: when was the last time USAF operated in REAL dense ECM and ECCM environment? I do not count some brushes with minimal EW in Syria.

    Russia there uses only minimally required option, for now. Iran has a truck load EW systems, including some funny Russian toys which allowed Iran to take control of US UAVs, as an example. As I say, this is not Iraq and by a gigantic margin. see more

    observerBG smoothieX12 .2 days ago • edited

    I already said that debt levels do not allow it and the price would be too high, but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By conventional means. It is another question that it is not in good fiscal shape. Anyway, US ballistic missiles (non nuclear armed) will be hard to stop by EW. Even if Iran gets rid of 50 % of incoming TLAMs, the US will keep sending more and more until most infrastructure, bridges, oil refineries, power plants, factories, ports etc. are destroyed. This is why i said it would take 2 - 3 years. see more

    smoothieX12 . Mod observerBG2 days ago
    but yes, the US does have the military capability to destroy Iran. By conventional means

    That is the whole point: NO, it doesn't. Unless US goes into full mobilization mode and addresses ALL (plus a million more not listed) requirements for such a war which I listed in the post. Well, that or nukes. see more

    observerBG smoothieX12 .2 days ago

    Yurasumy is a pretty good analist and he thinks that they can. I do not see it for the US being too hard to produce more TLAMS, ICBMs and IRBMs (conventional) to sustain the effort for 2 years, by that time most iranian infrastructure will be destroyed. If the fiscal situation allowes it. see more

    smoothieX12 . Mod observerBG2 days ago

    I don't know who Yarasumy is and what is his background, but unlike him I actually write books, including on modern warfare. This is not to show off, but I am sure I can make basic calculations. This is not to mention the fact that even Sivkov agrees with my points and Sivkov, unlike Yarsumy, graduated Popov's VVMURE, served at subs, then graduated Kuznetsov Academy, then Academy of the General Staff and served in Main Operational Directorate (GOU) until retiring in the rank of Captain 1st Rank from the billet of Combat Planning group. So, I would rather stick to my opinion. see more

    observerBG smoothieX12 .2 days ago

    Why do you think that the US can not destroy Iran with IRBMs? Actually this is their strategy vs China. If they think its viable vs China, then it should be viable vs Iran too. see more

    smoothieX12 . Mod observerBG2 days ago • edited

    Because unlike the US, Russia's Air Defenses have a rather very impressive history of shifting the balance in wars in favor of those who have them, when used properly. But then I can quote for you a high ranking intelligence officer:

    A friend of mine who has expertise in these matters wrote me:

    Any air defense engineer with a securityclearance that isn't lying through his teeth will admit that Russia'sair defense technology surpassed us in the 1950's and we've never been able to catch up. The systems thy have in place surrounding Moscow make our Patriot 3's look like fucking nerf guns.

    Read the whole thing here:

    https://turcopolier.typepad...

    Mathematics is NOT there for the United States for a real combined operations war of scale with Iran. Unless US political class really wants to see people with pitch-forks. see more

    Arctic_Fox smoothieX12 .17 hours ago

    "Mathematics is not there..."
    .
    Neither is the industrial base, including supply lines. Not the mines, mills, factories to produce any significant levels of warfighting materiel such as we're talking about here. Not the workforce, either. Meanwhile, where are the basic designs for these weps? The years of lab work, bench tests, pilot specimens & prototypes, the development pipeline? The contractors to build them? the Tier 2, 3, 4 suppliers? Where are the universities that train such people as are needed? Where is the political will? Where is the government coordination? Where is the money? Indeed, every Democrat and probably half the Republicans who run for office campaign on controlling military spending; not that USA gets all that much benefit from the current $800 billion per year. see more

    observerBG smoothieX12 .2 days ago • edited

    That would require S-500 - ballistic missile defense. Maybe 15 - 20 S-500 in Iran will be needed. And it is not yet in the army. see more

    smoothieX12 . Mod observerBG2 days ago

    You see, here is the difference--I can calculate approximate required force for that but I don't want to. It is Friday. You can get some basic intro into operational theory (and even into Salvo Equations) in my latest book. Granted, my publisher fought me tooth and nail to remove as much match as possible. But I'll give you a hint--appearance of S-500 on any theater of operations effectively closes it off effectively for any missile or aircraft operations when deployed in echeloned (multi-layer) AD. see more

    [Jan 11, 2020] New category of Russian agents: The level of fake information in coverage of neoliberal MSM of Iranian event force people to read Sputnik and Xinhua

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's as if the entire capital city of the US has become a mental asylum / Hotel California ..."
    Jan 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Jen , Jan 10 2020 19:30 utc | 1

    The sheer arrogance and wilful blindness expressed in the US State Department press statement and WaPo staffer Louisa Loveluck's tweets are astounding beyond belief. It's as if the entire capital city of the US has become a mental asylum / Hotel California , where one can enter but never leave spiritually and morally, though one can take many physical trips in and out of the madhouse.

    Iraq definitely does need the S-300 missile defense systems. The most pressing issue though is whether the Iraqis will suffer the delays Syria suffered in acquiring those systems even after paying for them.

    Time now is of the essence. Iraqi operators need to be trained in those systems. Syria may be able to supply some training but at the risk of letting down its guard in sending some of its operators to Baghdad and exposing them to US drone attacks.

    [Jan 10, 2020] The level of disinformation produced by fake news outliets controlled by intelligence agencies is just staggering. You cna't beleve a single work in politically changed fortin covergarate

    They really are able to turn white into black and black into white.
    Notable quotes:
    "... 1) Occurs as Iran is on brink of war with USA?; 2) Indications of USA using info war tactics; 3) airliner owner by Kolomoisky? 4) No communication with tower? 5) USA and Israel history of duplicity and narrative management (example: MH-17). ..."
    "... NATO has weaponized aircraft accident investigations. Lawfare in combination with state terrorism. ..."
    "... The Ukies know how to obliterate a debris field. MH-17 -- They used artillery for months to keep OSCE and Dutch officials away, and despite the locals working to protect the deceased and the debris, body parts have been found years later. ..."
    Jan 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Rob , Jan 10 2020 17:46 utc | 2
    There were also clear sightings of a missile to bring down TWA 800. Except it didn't. As an Navy Pilot , flight instructor and 737 captain this does not at 1st or 2nd glance appear to be a missile strike. Catastropic engine failure is my bet. They made most of the turn back to the airport before losing integrity or loss of thrust.

    Good analysis.


    vk , Jan 10 2020 17:52 utc | 3

    US Claim of Ukrainian Boeing 737 Plane Being Hit by Missile Aims to Manipulate Stock Markets
    On Wednesday, Boeing's shares plummeted by 2.3 percent ($3.4bn) after the Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 aircraft crashed in Tehran due to encountering a technical glitch.

    On Thursday, the stock rose by 3 percent after unnamed Pentagon officials claimed that the Ukrainian passenger plane was most likely brought down by anti-aircraft missiles, and US President Donald Trump implicitly supported the claim. This has been read by analysists as an attempt to manipulate the stock market; a measure that would both overshadow Trump's failure in Iraq and save Boeing from bankruptcy.

    Russia says no grounds to blame Iran for Ukrainian plane crash: TASS

    I didn't find the article on TASS. Maybe it was in its Russian version, or in its TV/Radio/Podcast version.

    I don't discard a terrorist attack from the inside, or sabotage of the plane by the Ukrainian government. What I think is missile attack can be pretty much discarded: the evidence the Iranians already have through their air control data discard any possibility, by sheer logic alone, that that was the case.

    Unless, of course, the Iranians are lying. But then there isn't any cui bono for Iran to lie about it (if it was a mistake they wanted to cover, they could blame a random independent militia so as to give plausible deniability) with the technical malfunction argument, and now Russia's foreign minister Ryabkov is on the boat with it - so I don't see the cui bono for Russia either.

    ninel , Jan 10 2020 17:58 utc | 4
    A little guide to Iran's modern history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_executions_of_Iranian_political_prisoners
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_murders_of_Iran
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_student_protests,_July_1999
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahra_Kazemi
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_nationals_detained_in_Iran
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Iran
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Iran

    Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. Some of you choose to draw the magic cap down over your eyes and ears so as to make-believe that there are no monsters in Iran.

    Per/Norway , Jan 10 2020 18:03 utc | 5
    Posted by: ninel | Jan 10 2020 17:58 utc | 4

    "Some of you choose to draw the magic cap down over your eyes and ears so as to make-believe that there are no monsters in Iran."

    No, it is a lot easier than that.

    Most of us dont get paid to post bs about the imperial enemies like you, and most off us still know how to use our brain.
    That is it, nothing more nothing less.

    PavewayIV , Jan 10 2020 18:10 utc | 6
    Rob@2 - What do you make of the loss of ADS-B? Could a catastrophic engine failure take out both power buses? The ADS-B transceiver? I know a the turbine blades turn into little missile blades when they decide to leave the engine, but I have no idea of the way power is transferred when either bus or the standby goes down. I assume automatic? Are the transfer switches anywhere near the engines? Does the APU automatically fire up? I assume the ADS-B box is in the electronics bay, but where is the antenna?

    karlof1 , Jan 10 2020 18:37 utc | 12
    Thanks b! As I commented towards the end of the previous thread on this topic, the mundane evidence has already been shown. IMO, if a missile or bomb was employed, the Iranians would be yelling louder than anyone and the denials would be coming from BigLie Media instead of accusations. And as I answered psychohistorian, the massive coverage by BigLie media serves as narrative distraction from what's being obfuscated--casualties taken by Outlaw US Empire troops and the BDA presented by Iranian Military.

    In that regard, The Saker's update sticks to the important facts of the now escalated ongoing war between Iran and the Evil Empire.


    Jackrabbit , Jan 10 2020 19:11 utc | 17
    Sorry, but there's good reasons to suspect foul play - as I and others have explained on the last thread.

    1) Occurs as Iran is on brink of war with USA?; 2) Indications of USA using info war tactics; 3) airliner owner by Kolomoisky? 4) No communication with tower? 5) USA and Israel history of duplicity and narrative management (example: MH-17).

    <> <> <> <>

    Also: IMO it's dangerous for Iran to invite experts from a group of Western countries. What is likely to happen is that all the Western experts will be pressure to disagree with Iran's findings. CIA knows that people will believe the "group of experts!" over Iran.

    !!

    pleasebeleafme , Jan 10 2020 19:12 utc | 18
    I don't know how anal Iran is about keeping track of ordinance but they must be pretty certain as to whether they downed the plane or not! Looks like they are being transparent and open. If they come out of this proving engine failure or something else then this could be a great pr coup.
    There would be a lot of egg on many faces trying to explain how the intelligence is wrong yet again. I look forward to watching trudeau walk that back. Hopefully!
    Gary , Jan 10 2020 19:17 utc | 19
    One explanation is the Boeing was used as a human shield, a military plane hides behind a slow moving plane when detected. The ukrainians did it with the MH17 and the israeli with the russian plane and tried it with the attack on damascus. In both cases there was a lot of dis-info and blaming right away. But the iranian would have known what the target was, and mentioned it, so very unlikely.

    Another question is the possibility a smaller missile only damaged the plane, also very unlikely.

    Head of Iran Civil Aviation Organization Ali Abedzadeh exaggerates: "From a scientific viewpoint, it is impossible that a missile hit the Ukrainian plane."

    "We can say that the airplane, considering the kind of the crash and the pilot's efforts to return it to Imam Khomeini airport, didn't explode in the air. So, the allegation that it was hit by missiles is totally ruled out," the official noted.

    Walter , Jan 10 2020 19:25 utc | 20
    Dude, when you're in Wyoming and see critter tracks down by the creek, you would assume it was Martians rather than antelope? Get real. The Ukie blew a crappy GE engine...they have this characteristic...

    Stay real, use Occam's Razor + physical evidence. Otherwise it's distraction and TBS...

    TJ , Jan 10 2020 19:26 utc | 21
    @11 Ernesto Che

    Craig Murray has been tracking a propagandist Wikipedia editor called "Philip Cross", here is the main article, but there are others on his site The Philip Cross Affair

    karlitozulu , Jan 10 2020 19:38 utc | 24
    ninel@ #4

    here is a little reminder of Murica's recent history:

    From 1945 until today - 20 to 30 million people killed by the USA

    https://www.voltairenet.org/article204021.html

    so, when you talk about monsters are you talking about yourself? ;)

    Piotr , Jan 10 2020 19:39 utc | 25
    ICAO is in contact with the States involved and will assist them if called upon. Its leadership is stressing the importance of avoiding speculation into the cause of the tragedy pending the outcomes of the investigation ...

    ICAO may be a worthy organization (some staff changes seem to be warranted), but isn't it a bit too much?! If this is a sincere wish of democratically elected heads of democratic nations that they want to form a harmonious chorus and speculate, then no mundane power can stop them. BTW, what is wrong with Zelensky that he did not join? PTSD after the brutal telephonies calls? I would add it to the list of proven damages to the security of those several states that will be debated in the Senate. [end of snark, "several states" is the entity named in the so-called Constitution of The United States of America].

    journey80 , Jan 10 2020 19:50 utc | 26
    The flight originated in Teheran, bound for Kiev, but where was it before it arrived in Iran? It could have been sabotaged anywhere; then easy, right, to set off an onboard bomb by remote control from the ground? I'm sure Iran is crawling with Mosssad/MI6/CIA spooks.
    ninel , Jan 10 2020 19:51 utc | 27
    @karlitozulu

    So you turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by other countries or peoples because the US government is responsible for the most? Did you even complete your high school education with that sort of reasoning? I never absolved the US or any other country. Simpletons like you seem to live in a black and white world in which one side must be chosen over the other. I feel unfortunate for b or anyone else who frequents this blog who does not view the world in such a profoundly problematic way.

    I am far more informed about Iranian politics, history, culture and religion than most people here. Please don't allow your hate for the USA, well justified, to cloud your judgment.

    Symen Danziger , Jan 10 2020 19:53 utc | 28
    NATO has weaponized aircraft accident investigations. Lawfare in combination with state terrorism.

    It's time for new rules and regulations. ICAO Annex 13 was drafted in different times. A rule based order is ancient history.

    People should be able to chose their destination, route and carrier based on personal preferences like price and comfort, not on factors like the latest or next conflict zone, corruption in the countries along the route, military and political adventurism, etc.

    The world has gone crazy.

    Willy2 , Jan 10 2020 20:01 utc | 33
    - As said before: I didn't believe for one second that that ukrainian plane was shot down. It would have given the US simply another stick to beat up the iranian government. I assume the iranians are smart enough to know that. They simply don't want to escalate the situation more. Although Iran has now the "moral high ground" it is still (very) vulnerable in a number of ways.

    - I think the ukrainian tourists were small traders. I.e. buy stuff e.g. clothing and other "merchandise" in Teheran, bring it into the Ukraine and then sell that "merchandise" in Ukraine with a (big) profit.

    William Gruff , Jan 10 2020 20:05 utc | 35
    We have a distinguished professor in our midst! Quite unlike the lowly regular professors or inconsequential adjunct instructors that normally grace these pages. Let me kick back and get a tan from the brilliance pouring out of this one! Us high latitude types have to get our Vitamin D wherever we can.

    As for my lack of criticism of Iran's government, that's the business of the Iranian people and none of my own. The Evil Empire attacking Iran? That, unfortunately, is everyone's business whether they want it to be or not.

    Why is it that these wise guys from the West (Americans mostly) feel it is their duty to criticize everyone else's governments and cultures when the examples they are setting themselves are so appallingly bad? Maybe these distinguished critics of other peoples' ways of life feel that it is easier to fix those other peoples' societies than it is to fix their own. After all, they apparently feel that fixing other countries just requires some number of bombs, while fixing their own country... where do they even start? How do you fix perfection?

    Jen , Jan 10 2020 20:06 utc | 36
    I'd be curious to know whether the flight crew on board Flight PS752 had had sufficient rest. Three hours of resting do not seem like sufficient time but that depends on the journey the plane made to Tehran, the duration of that journey and where it started. Was the plane also checked for signs of wear and tear during the three-hour-plus pause?

    Are UIA's owners (among them Ihor Kolomoisky) working their employees and hardware assets too hard and too cheaply as well?

    Walter , Jan 10 2020 20:33 utc | 43
    @ Rob | Jan 10 2020 17:46 utc | 2

    Yes. I think so too. Looks like the engine ran at reduced thrust as they turned, and then failed entirely at below minimum control speed, with the expected result, asymmetrical stall, yaw, roll, bang.

    There are pictures of severe erosion of what looks like compressor wheel from, presumably, ingestion of foreign material. Crap on the runway probably, and pencil-whipped maintenance, I should imagine.

    foolisholdman , Jan 10 2020 20:36 utc | 44
    bevin | Jan 10 2020 18:52 utc | 15

    Reuters was bought by Rothschild some years ago.

    PavewayIV , Jan 10 2020 21:01 utc | 49
    journey80@26 - Kiev is Ukrainian Airlines main hub. The 737 arrived from Kiev earlier that morning and was returning there.

    Jen@36 - No reason to do anything but a cursory safety check at Tehran. The airline's mechanics are in Kiev - anything beyond a normal pre-flight check involving maintenance would be done there, not Tehran. I doubt the crew was rested. That's not how UAI rolls on it's hub round-trips.

    UAI is also bleeding money like crazy. They're nearly bankrupt and stole the money they collect from passengers for the Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority fees. Tens of millions USD. The new CEO promises to fix everything somehow. I guess by overworking crews, skipping maintenance and crappy service. Those are always money-savers for cheap, poorly-run airlines (prior to bankruptcy). Too bad. Supposedly it wasn't that bad of an airline when they first added passenger service to their existing cargo ops a decade ago, but has been going downhill ever since.

    "Some real gems you got following your blog b."
    So why are you here?

    Peter AU1 , Jan 10 2020 21:39 utc | 56
    Ocams razor... bookies odds... planes fall out o the sky from time to time for all sorts of reasons not related to malicious activity. What are the odds of this occurring in Iran shortly after an Iran strike on a US base.

    The US has and does use terrorist tactics such as shooting down passenger jets. Trump threatened Iran with retribution against cultural sites and so forth (terrorist actions). Fifty two targets of fifty two ways of getting back at Iran.

    What are the odds US would down a passenger jet in Iran within hours of Iran's strike against their base.

    I have to go with US terrorist actions for that one. Similar to the protests in Iraq. The people had genuine grievances as do all good color revolutions but the were just too advantageous for the US for it not to be a made in the US color revolution style protest. We now know from the Iraq PM that is exactly what it was.

    Walter , Jan 10 2020 22:05 utc | 58
    The odds are unrelated unless there's agency. No agency has been credibly proposed. You know this is so, as the probability maths in se have been discussed previously @ MoA.

    But of course, the US does murder all over the place, so if there is agency, then I tend to agree with the idea that "they" or their cohort in zionishland may be causative. What are the "odds" that the engine shown has severe blade erosion? Again 100% . Engine swallows scrap off the tarmac...a dependent relation, drop junk in engine, blades damaged, run at 100%, 100% "chance" of engine failure.

    Repeating the essence of the matter of odds>

    "Two events are independent, statistically independent, or stochastically independent if the occurrence of one does not affect the probability of occurrence of the other (equivalently, does not affect the odds). Similarly, two random variables are independent if the realization of one does not affect the probability distribution of the other."

    ie without a dependent relationship the odds are whatever the odds are for engine failure and crash. And the other odds don't exist, because those events, the shooting, was not random or accidental. The odds of Iran firing rockets in reprisal was dependent on the US attacks, ie 100%

    But if you're building engines at GE, or obsolete defective airplanes in Seattle, then of course the odds are that you devoutly wish it was a rocket up the tailpipe... Pay-day's come Friday, and all of that...

    dave , Jan 10 2020 22:29 utc | 59
    @PavewayIV

    The APU will auto-shutdown for the following reasons:

    Fire
    Low oil pressure
    High oil temperature / Fault
    Overspeed

    http://www.b737.org.uk/apu.htm

    t , Jan 10 2020 22:38 utc | 62
    Would like to see debunk the NYT video: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html

    Have checked it myself (google earth etc) after being skeptical and the landmarks and sounds do indeed seem to match.

    Bigben , Jan 10 2020 22:51 utc | 66
    This link is worth reading. I can't play the video on my computer, but we will see if this theory gains traction during the next few days.

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/01/10/video-of-ukrainian-airliner-in-failed-landing-with-burning-engine-makes-trump-a-chump/

    t , Jan 10 2020 23:02 utc | 69
    @Poor,

    I know NYT is a sham, and believe me I held my intellectual nose as I went into its site. It's not somewhere I frequent at all.

    I did think about the point you made too, but there are 2 issues:

    1) In the other 2 videos we see the plane as it's already burning, we don't see it in its "before" state. For me it's reasonable to imagine the hit on the impact caused some initial burning which was extinguished due to wind, and then started back up again a few moments after the NYT video ended and before the other 2 videos began.

    2) If the NYT video is indeed doctored (and for me it would be a pretty convincing doctor), why wouldn't the creator simply keep the light going until the end of the vid?

    Likklemore , Jan 10 2020 23:39 utc | 74
    Iran to Announce Cause of Ukraine Jet Crash Tomorrow - Reports
    Iran will announce the cause of the Ukrainian Boeing 737 crash after the accident investigation commission meeting on Saturday, the Fars News agency reported on Thursday, citing a source familiar with the matter.

    "Tomorrow, after the meeting of the civil aviation accident investigation commission, the cause of the crash of the Ukrainian passenger plane will be announced", the source said.

    Domestic and foreign parties, whose citizens died in the crash, will take part in the Saturday meeting, the outlet added. They will announce the reason for the accident after reviewing the preliminary report.

    Ukraine says Iran cooperating with Boeing crash probe, calls to reduce media speculation

    [.]Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko asked that the media not spread "unconfirmed" information on Friday, pleading with reporters to "reduce the level of speculation" while the probe continues. The experts are still analyzing evidence, looking at the bodies of the victims and the wreckage in hope of gaining insight into what took down Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752, killing all 176 people on board.[,]
    A User , Jan 11 2020 1:27 utc | 78
    If no one had engaged with nine-drongos the thread would not have been disrupted and perhaps a useful dialog about the plane crash could have ensued. Those who did swallow the hook are just as guilty the original whatabouter of making this thread useless - good job. I would say exercise some discipline but that would be a waste of breath given the insecurities about their beliefs too many here apparently have. Letting some arsehole spout uninterrupted is a better indication of your point of view than anger, hysteria or ad hominem. Your stupidity has caused a thread to fail.
    Red Ryder , Jan 11 2020 1:34 utc | 82
    The Ukies know how to obliterate a debris field. MH-17 -- They used artillery for months to keep OSCE and Dutch officials away, and despite the locals working to protect the deceased and the debris, body parts have been found years later.

    Patience, folks. The truth will come out.

    Tom , Jan 11 2020 2:03 utc | 83
    #57 posted by Poor Ramin Mazaheri who works for Press TV and has had many articles published on The Saker. He would describe the Iranian economy as socialist with Iranian charters. The link to the article below is an excellent source for information on Iran's economy.

    What comes as a surprise to me is ICAO seems to have some integrity. It seems the US and friends haven't completely taken it over.

    You can judge someone by their friends. NATO and the terrorists in Idlib have backed the killing of Soleimani. Who seems to enjoy killing civilians? The US just droned killed 60 civilians in Afghanistan. Information provided by the Iraqi prime minister showed the US is willing to use snipers and paid protesters to tear Iraq apart. They utterly destroyed Mosul and Raqqa without regard for civilians. The Syrian government has tried to avoid civilian deaths, which is why those who want to cause chaos in the region always accuses them of targeting civilians. So the US would have no problem getting MEK to or some other group to shoot the plane down but I'm leaning against that scenario.

    The US has been planning to control oil for a long time. In 1975 a feasibility study was prepared for the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on International Relations on "Oil fields as military objectives", better described as bringing Democracy to the Middle East. Well, they did that sorta in Iraq, and now the Iraq government has politely asked the US to leave and the Iranians have demonstrated to them why they should leave. I'm not sure if the Ukrainian plane crashing is the next move the US has made in this great game, but I would put my money on shoddy management of the Ukrainian plane. Why not, the country is barely functioning. I doubt the plane was hit with a missle. More likely the US can't pass up an opportunity for stirring trouble and the MSM has no problem memory holing another lie.

    http://thesaker.is/sanctions-on-khamenei-ending-the-myth-of-the-millionaire-mullah/

    [Jan 09, 2020] It looks like UK and the USA intelligences agencies run the contest to see who can come up with the most surreal anti-Russian propaganda psy-ops

    Highly recommended!
    For MI6 this level of detachment from reality is stunning
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil throughout 2016." ..."
    "... "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..." ..."
    Nov 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com
    Likbez,

    It looks like UK and USA are engaged in the contest to see who can come up with the most surreal anti-Russian propaganda psy-ops.

    British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    That shed some light on the common origin of MH17, Russiagate and Scripal propaganda campaigns connecting all three with British government's psy-op operation called The ' Integrity Initiative ' which builds 'cluster' or contact groups of trusted journalists, military personal, academics and lobbyists within foreign countries. These people get alerts via social media to take action when the British center perceives a need.

    And among others participants, William Browder is listed too:

    Members of the Atlantic Council, which has a contract to censor Facebook posts , appear on several cluster lists. The UK core cluster also includes some prominent names like tax fraudster William Browder , the daft Atlantic Council shill Ben Nimmo and the neo-conservative Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. One person of interest is Andrew Wood who handed the Steele 'dirty dossier' to Senator John McCain to smear Donald Trump over alleged relations with Russia. A separate subcluster of so-called journalists names Deborah Haynes, David Aaronovitch of the London Times, Neil Buckley from the FT and Jonathan Marcus of the BBC.
    Here is one interesting comment from MoA:

    Anya, Nov 24, 2018 11:57:00 AM

    The British government has been running a serious meddling into the US affairs:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/n...

    "The UK's Secret Intelligence Service, otherwise known as MI6, has been scrambling to prevent President Trump from publishing classified materials linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. ... much of the espionage performed on the Trump campaign was conducted on UK soil
    throughout 2016."
    A Steele & Skrupal's anti-Russian / anti-Trump saga: https://spectator.org/big-d...
    "Gregory R. Copley, editor and publisher of Defense & Foreign Affairs, posited that Sergei Skripal is the unnamed Russian intelligence source in the Steele dossier. ... In Skripal's pseudo-country-gentleman retirement, the ex-GRU-MI6 double agent was selling custom-made "Russian intelligence"; he had fabricated "material" that went into the Steele dossier..."
    For M16 to expose this level of stupidity is stunning.

    [Jan 09, 2020] Major General Soleimani's Assassination Isn't Going to Start World War III

    Jan 09, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

    Qasem Soleimani was assassinated on January 2nd, 2020 in Baghdad by a drone strike ordered by Israel-first Trump. The Iranian Commander of the 'Quds Force' was murdered alongside the leader of the Iraqi 'Popular Mobilization Forces', Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, aka Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, in addition to at least 6 other persons.

    It was a coward act by a coward President who's no better than a gangbanger on a drive-by shooting targeting unarmed individuals, who in this case were on a diplomatic mission .

    Who was General Soleimani?

    "It was through his leadership that the IRGC greatly assisted the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in its destruction of Daesh (ISIS). He's played a larger role than any individual in defeating terrorism in Syria and Iraq, and he was widely respected as among one of the most brilliant unconventional warfare tacticians in recent memory. It was because of his success, however, that he became a most hated foe He was therefore marked for death," wrote Andrew Korybko. By Andrew Korybko Global Research, January 03, 2020 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?

    The US carried out a de-facto act of war against Iran after assassinating Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force in Baghdad last night, but despite the doomsday scenarios that many in Alt-Media are speculating that this will lead to, the commencement of World War III is extremely unlikely for several reasons.

    ***

    The "Decapitation Strike" That Shook The World

    Trump's approval of the US' assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force in Baghdad last night amounts to a de-facto act of war against Iran, but it wasn't the decision of a "madman" or someone whose permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ("deep state") didn't think this completely through. Rather, it was a premeditated "decapitation strike" carried out to prove the US' conventional "escalation dominance" in its regional proxy war with Iran, one which America surely knows will elicit a kinetic response of some sort from the Islamic Republic but which the Pentagon and its regional allies are prepared for. Contrary to the narrative bandied about in Alt-Media , the US didn't "surrender" the Mideast to Russia and Iran in recent years (who, to be clear, are not "allies", but anti-terrorist "partners of convenience" in Syria) despite some regional setbacks to its grand strategy, but merely adjusted the nature through which it intends to restore its influence there.

    Background Context

    Instead of continuing to waste hundreds of millions of dollars a day funding the counterproductive 100,000-strong occupation of Iraq and potentially exposing that many troops ("sitting ducks") to retaliatory attacks, it decided to scale down its conventional presence there and replace it with highly trained Marines and special forces that operate with the support of targeted missile strikes. It was one such strike earlier in the week against the Popular Mobilization Units' (PMU) Kataib Hezbollah, which is integrated into the Iraqi Armed Forces, that provoked the group's supporters (allegedly with the coordination of the IRGC according to the US) into besieging the American Embassy in Baghdad. Trump responded by immediately dispatching troops to the world's largest diplomatic facility and bragging on Twitter that this was his " anti-Benghazi " moment in a clear swipe at Obama's notorious failure to protect American diplomats back in 2012 when they were in similar circumstances.

    Once the unrest died down following the organizers' decision to withdraw after they declared that their "message has been heard", US Secretary of Defense ominously warned that his country could take "preemptive action" if it detects any signals that Iran is supposedly planning more anti-American attacks in Iraq. The Islamic Republic denied that it played any role in the recent events unfolding in the neighboring country, but the US obviously didn't believe it. It therefore set out to assassinate Maj. Gen. Soleimani in order to send the message that it's serious about "deterring" any forthcoming allegedly Iranian-connected anti-American attacks seeing as how it blamed him for being involved in the latest ones. It also wanted to put additional pressure on Iran to withdraw from Iraq, but probably expected that it could exploit Tehran's response to this de-facto act of war as a pretext for further intensifying its pressure campaign through more "decapitation strikes". This attack therefore dangerously escalated tensions with Iran and made many observers fear the onset of World War III.

    Some Words About Maj. Gen. Soleimani

    What follows isn't an excuse for America's actions, but simply a cold, hard analysis explaining why Trump decided to assassinate Solemani and thus carry out a de-facto act of war against Iran, one which will not lead to World War III despite the fearmongering speculation that's taken social media by storm ever since. Simply put, Iran misjudged the US' resolve to regain its lost influence in the region and never thought that it would escalate the situation to this level, hence why Maj. Gen. Solemani had no fear of being killed in the heart of Baghdad despite the US' conventional air superiority and explicit warnings that it could take "preemptive action" against Iran if it believes that it played any role whatsoever in any forthcoming anti-American attacks. It doesn't matter whether or not the PMU's Kataib Hezbollah is justified in seeking the removal of US forces from the country through any means possible or if it coordinates those actions with the IRGC since all that's important is that the US was looking for a pretext to carry out its calculated "decapitation strike" against Maj. Gen. Soleimani.

    A few words about him are appropriate at this point. It was through his leadership that the IRGC greatly assisted the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in its destruction of Daesh. He's played a larger role than any individual in defeating terrorism in Syria and Iraq, and he was widely respected as among one of the most brilliant unconventional warfare tacticians in recent memory. It was because of his success, however, that he became one of the US' most hated foes since he contributed to the defeat of Washington's regional proxy forces and thus was partly responsible for the decline in American influence there lately. He was therefore marked for death by the US, but Trump knew that killing him without any pretext would be an unnecessary escalation so he wanted to save that "ace up his sleeve" for later. Iran knows that the US wants it to withdraw from Syria and Iraq but steadfastly refuses because it has the legal right to remain there at the request of those countries' internationally recognized governments, but nevertheless, the US thinks that "might makes right" and is trying to force it out.

    The Islamic Republic Won't Commit Suicide

    American and "Israeli" strikes against allegedly IRGC-allied PMU forces over the past month or so were intended to achieve that outcome, which naturally prompted those forces to kinetically react by targeting a US base earlier in the week that afterwards served as the pretext for America's latest attack against Kataib Hezbollah which in turn triggered the embassy siege. There's no doubt that the US is escalating the situation in contravention of international law and targeting anti-terrorist forces that contributed to the defeat of Daesh, but polemics -- while having their "perception management" purposes -- are pointless when it comes to analyzing situations as objectively as possible and forecasting what might come next. Therefore, they're being excluded from this piece going forward. Having gotten that out of the way, it's now time to turn the article's attention towards rebutting the fearmongering claims that World War III is about to start after Maj. Gen. Soleimani's assassination.

    Iran has the international legal right to defend itself, and its Supreme Leader already vowed a " harsh revenge " to that end, but it's extremely unlikely to take the form of direct attacks against the US or its allies. As much as the next phrase is going to trigger many Alt-Media folks, the US military is capable of destroying Iran in minutes so long as it's willing to bear the regional costs of its actions, both short-term in the sense of casualties and long-term as it relates to the geopolitical future of the Mideast. After proving his commitment to overwhelmingly respond to any anti-American attacks that his government alleges (whether truthfully or not) are carried out with any degree of Iranian coordination, Trump certainly wouldn't hesitate to bomb Iran itself if missiles were launched from there against his or his allies' forces. The Islamic Republic knows that it would literally be suicide to do such a thing, and despite what neoconservatives, Zionists, and Wahhabis claim about the Iranian authorities, they aren't an "apocalyptic death cult" and thus aren't going to start World War III.

    Several Scenarios

    There's no doubt that Iran could inflict very serious damage to its regional foes if it chooses to "go out with a bang" (whether after being provoked to do so or at its own prerogative), but it's much more likely that its response to Maj. Gen. Soleimani's assassination will take the form of intensified Unconventional Warfare against their interests. The US and its allies must have clearly foreseen this and will likely blame Iran for anything that happens in the coming days no matter whether it's truly involved or not, using that as a pretext for more "decapitation strikes" and other similar measures intended to decimate it and its allies' forces. The nature of conflict between the two sides is therefore asymmetric since the US has conventional dominance whereas Iran has its unconventional counterpart, and both might be put to the test in the event of another US Embassy siege in Baghdad, which is very probable in the coming days seeing as how Iraqi society is seething with rage and can easily assemble a critical mass of protesters to besiege the compound once again.

    For as big of a prize as seizing the world's largest diplomatic facility would be for whoever can take it (be it Iran, Iranian-allied, or otherwise), there's no way that Trump would let that happen. Just like the Berlin Airlift of the Old Cold War, the US would carry out a Baghdad Airlift if it need be, which could entail leveling entire neighborhoods in order to prevent its enemies from hiding anti-air missiles there for taking down its air assets. One can only speculate how such a scenario would unfold, but there shouldn't be any question in anyone's mind about the US backing down, especially not during an election year and definitely not after Trump proudly boasted that this is his "anti-Benghazi" moment. Another potential retaliatory scenario is disrupting energy transit through the Strait of Hormuz, but that would affect more than just the US and surely elicit universal condemnation from everyone except perhaps allied Syria, just like if Hezbollah or other IRGC-allied forces decide to bomb " Israel " (in which case it and the US would certainly respond through military means).

    Don't Expect Russia Or China To Save Iran

    It's "politically inconvenient" for many of Iran's supporters across the world to accept, but the country doesn't have any state-based military allies willing to go to war alongside it except perhaps Syria, but the SAA has been utterly devastated over the last 9 years and is now a shadow of its former self. There is also absolutely no way that Russia would allow Syria to actively participate in any state-based military hostilities alongside Iran because doing so would endanger the forces and substantial investments that it has in the Arab Republic nowadays. Speaking of which, Russia isn't Iran's ally, but "Israel's" , though it wouldn't go to war alongside the self-professed "Jewish State" but rather stay out of any potential conflict between the two (which wouldn't last long considering that the US' conventional dominance could crush the Islamic Republic within days if Trump authorized it to be unleashed to its fullest extent and he was willing to accept the previously mentioned costs).

    Neither Russia nor China would go to war in support of Iran, though they could be expected to issue very strong statements of condemnation against the US and anyone else who might conventionally attack it (whether "preemptively" or as "retaliation"). This objectively existing and easily verifiable statement of fact will likely take many in Alt-Media by surprise who have been indoctrinated over the past couple of years with fake news "analyses" alleging that those two Eurasian Great Powers are "anti-American" and willing to fight the US in order to "save the world". That will never happen unless one of them is attacked first (though even in that case, neither would go to war for the other because they've made it clear that they're not "military allies" ), which probably won't happen because of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), at least not unless the US is able to surmount that "obstacle" through the combination of its anti-missile technology and "Space Forces". In any case, nobody should expect Russia or China to rush to Iran's aid and defend it from the US.

    Concluding Thoughts

    The most likely outcome of Maj. Gen. Soleimani's assassination is an intensified period of proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen which stays just below the conventional threshold given Iran's inability to survive an overwhelming US' "retaliatory" strike if Trump authorized one in response to the unlikely massive missile strike that some speculate Tehran might be preparing. The US might also carry out "surgical strikes" against places in Iran where it might claim other strikes were "organized", such as if Yemen's Ansarullah attempt to repeat their successful drone strike against Saudi Aramco from last September. "Decapitation strikes" might therefore become increasingly more frequent and nobody would be safe, not even Hezbollah's Nasrallah in the worst-case scenario, since the US just signaled that it has the political will to take out "high-value targets". As all of this unfolds, Russia and China will do their utmost to stay away from any regional fray and definitely wouldn't intervene to defend Iran. As such, Iran's expected responses will be purely asymmetrical and not conventional.

    *

    Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

    This article was originally published on OneWorld .

    Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China's One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

    [Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
    "... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
    Jan 06, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/TKvE-nIsj1Y?enablejsapi=1&origin=https:%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com

    "The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.

    "The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq," he said.

    Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."

    "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the significance of this.

    GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.

    So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know, Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American troops from the country.

    And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have totally changed.

    So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a war between Iran and the United States.

    [Jan 08, 2020] Big, bad Putin attacked by slimy rat Browder.

    Jan 08, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Is there a chorus of politicians singing in there about how lazy they are, and how they never bothered to verify Browder' story? The story is indeed remarkable, but not in the way that first appears.

    Stephen Fry / @stephenfry

    You may or may not know the remarkable story of @Billbrowder and the #MagnitskyAct - find out the startling truth by listening to
    #MagnitskytheMusical by the wondrous @JohnnyFlynnHQ & @roberthudson - @BBCRadio3 7.30 Sun 12th Jan

    Magnitsky the Musical

    Book and lyrics by Robert Hudson
    Music and lyrics by Johnny Flynn

    12 January 2020
    О 1 hour, 34 minutes

    Johnny Flynn and Robert Hudson bring us a musical based on the
    incredible story of an American venture capitalist, a Russian tax
    advisor, a crazy heist, the Trump Tower meeting and the very rule of
    law.

    Blending music and satire, the story explores the truths and fictions
    surrounding the origins and aftershocks of the Magnitsky Act; global
    legislation which allows governments to sanction those who they see
    as offenders of human rights.

    It tells the story of a tax adviser's struggle to uncover a huge tax
    fraud, his imprisonment by the very authorities he is investigating,
    and the American financier's crusade for justice.

    Johnny Flynn, Paul Chahidi and members of the cast perform songs in
    a epic story that explores democracy, corruption, and how we
    undervalue the law at our peril.

    Bill Paul Chahidi Sergei Johnny Flynn Jamie Fenella Woolgar Natalia Ellie Kendrick Kuznetsov Gus Brown Guard Clive Hayward Silchenko Ian Conningham Jared Will Kirk Fisherman Neil McCaul Judge Jessica Turner

    Additional singing by Sinead Maclnnes, Laura Christy, Scarlett
    Courtney and Lucy Reynolds.

    The cellist is Joe Zeitlin. Sound is by Peter Ringrose. Directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.

    [Jan 08, 2020] Big, bad Putin attacked by slimy rat Browder.

    Jan 08, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Is there a chorus of politicians singing in there about how lazy they are, and how they never bothered to verify Browder' story? The story is indeed remarkable, but not in the way that first appears.

    Stephen Fry / @stephenfry

    You may or may not know the remarkable story of @Billbrowder and the #MagnitskyAct - find out the startling truth by listening to
    #MagnitskytheMusical by the wondrous @JohnnyFlynnHQ & @roberthudson - @BBCRadio3 7.30 Sun 12th Jan

    Magnitsky the Musical

    Book and lyrics by Robert Hudson
    Music and lyrics by Johnny Flynn

    12 January 2020
    О 1 hour, 34 minutes

    Johnny Flynn and Robert Hudson bring us a musical based on the
    incredible story of an American venture capitalist, a Russian tax
    advisor, a crazy heist, the Trump Tower meeting and the very rule of
    law.

    Blending music and satire, the story explores the truths and fictions
    surrounding the origins and aftershocks of the Magnitsky Act; global
    legislation which allows governments to sanction those who they see
    as offenders of human rights.

    It tells the story of a tax adviser's struggle to uncover a huge tax
    fraud, his imprisonment by the very authorities he is investigating,
    and the American financier's crusade for justice.

    Johnny Flynn, Paul Chahidi and members of the cast perform songs in
    a epic story that explores democracy, corruption, and how we
    undervalue the law at our peril.

    Bill Paul Chahidi Sergei Johnny Flynn Jamie Fenella Woolgar Natalia Ellie Kendrick Kuznetsov Gus Brown Guard Clive Hayward Silchenko Ian Conningham Jared Will Kirk Fisherman Neil McCaul Judge Jessica Turner

    Additional singing by Sinead Maclnnes, Laura Christy, Scarlett
    Courtney and Lucy Reynolds.

    The cellist is Joe Zeitlin. Sound is by Peter Ringrose. Directed by Sasha Yevtushenko.

    [Jan 08, 2020] The New Kremlin Stooge

    Jan 08, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    The United States of Amnesia, and Its Incredible Asbestos Pants

    Wink
    Uncle Volodya says, You must remember, my dear lady, the most important rule of any successful illusion: First, the people must want to believe in it"."

    Liar, liar, pants on fire

    Chidren's rhyme

    In an era of stress and anxiety, when the present seems unstable and the future unlikely, the natural response is to retreat and withdraw from reality, taking recourse either in fantasies of the future or in modified visions of a half-imagined past.

    Alan Moore, from "Watchmen"

    Unless you were catatonic this past couple of weeks, dead drunk from Sunday to Saturday, suffered a debilitating brain injury or were living in Bognor Regis where the internet cannot reach, you heard about the west slapping a four-year Olympic ban on Russia. Because it could, it did. And not really for any other reason, despite the indignation and manufactured outrage. It's a pity – now that I come to think on it – that you can't use outrage to power a vehicle, fill a sandwich or knit into socks: because the west has a bottomless supply, and it's just about as renewable a resource as you could envision.

    As I have reiterated elsewhere and often, the United States of America is the cheatingest nation on the planet where professional sports is concerned, because winning matters to Americans like nowhere else. Successful Olympic medal-winners and iconic sports figures in the USA are feted like victorious battlefield generals, because the sports arena is just another battlefield to the United States, and there's no it's-not-whether-you-win-or-lose-it's-how-you-play-the-game in wartime. Successful American sports figures foster an appreciation of American culture and lifestyle, and promote an image of America as a purposeful and powerful nation. Successful sports figures anywhere, really; not so very long ago Olympic gold medalists were merely given an appreciative parade by a grateful nation, and featured in lucrative advertising contracts if they were photogenic. More recently, some nations have simply paid athletes by the medal for winning. This includes most nations , with the notable exceptions of the UK, Norway and Sweden. So the pressure is on to win, win, win, by whatever means are necessary.

    Since Russia is in second place only to Germany for all-time medal rankings in the Olympics, and since Russia eventually made it back up to Public Enemy Number One in the USA – after a brief hiatus during which it looked like a combination of Boris Yeltsyn and teams of Harvard economists were going to make a respectful pauper of it while it became a paradise for international investors – the USA spares no effort to beat Russia at everything. On occasions where it is not particularly successful, as it was not in the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi, it has turned to other methods – screaming that the Russians are all dopers who benefit from a state-sponsored doping scheme, and implementing bans to prevent as many Russian athletes as possible from competing.

    And that's my principal objection. In media matters in the world of sports, just as in other political venues, the USA relies on a combination of lying and relentless repetition to drive its points home. Thus it is that the English-speaking world still believes Russia was convicted of having had a state-sponsored doping plan, found guilty and justly sentenced upon the discovery of mountains of evidence, its accusers vindicated and its dissident whistleblowers heroes to a grateful world. Huzzah!!

    Examples abound – here's a random one from the BBC:

    "Russia operated a state-sponsored doping programme for four years across the "vast majority" of summer and winter Olympic sports, claims a new report.

    It was "planned and operated" from late 2011 – including the build-up to London 2012 – and continued through the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics until August 2015."

    The BBC is Britain's state-funded broadcaster, financed by the British government, and the British government is second only to the United States in its virulent hatred of Russia and Russians. But that was back then, when the 'doping scheme' was newly 'discovered', and all the western reporters and government figures were nearly wetting their pants with excitement. What about now?

    Essentially, nothing has changed. TIME Magazine :

    "It's the latest twist in a long-running saga of investigations into widespread, state-sponsored doping by the Kremlin."

    My soul, if it isn't the USA's star witness, Doctor Grigory Rodchenkov, in AFP ;

    "Doped athletes do not work alone. There are medical doctors, coaches and managers who provided substances, advised and protected them. In Russia's state-sponsored doping scheme, there is also a state-sponsored defense of many cheaters including state officials, witnesses and apparatchiks who are lying under oath and have falsified evidence. These individuals are clearly criminals," he said.

    More about him later; for now, suffice it to say the western media still finds him a credible and compelling witness.

    The Canadian Globe & Mail :

    "In 2016, independent investigations confirmed that Russian officials had run a massive state‑sponsored doping system during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, which fed illicit performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of athletes and took outlandish measures to pervert national drug-testing mechanisms.

    The evidence was incontrovertible."

    I was going to go on, listing examples in the popular press from around the world, published since the latest ban was announced, all claiming investigation had proved the Russians had a massive state-sponsored doping scheme in place which let them cheat their way to the podium. But I think you get the picture, and that last lead-in was my cue; it was just too good to pass up.

    Independent investigations confirmed. The evidence was incontrovertible.

    Well, let's take a look at that. Incontrovertible evidence ought to be able to withstand a bit of prying, what? When the evidence of something being so is both massive and incontrovertible, beyond question and the result of proof beyond a doubt, then that thing IS. Therefore, the western press is proceeding on the assumption that western investigations proved the Russians had a doping program in which all or most Russian athletes took prohibited performance-enhancing drugs, at the instruction of sports-organization officials, who were in turn directed by state officials to use such methods to permit Russian athletes to win where they would otherwise likely not have been capable of a winning performance. And there were such allegations by western figures and officials, together with assurances that there was so much evidence that well, frankly, it was embarrassing. But the western media and western sports organizations and officials apparently do not understand what 'evidence' is.

    The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), established in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and headquartered at Lausanne, Switzerland, is recognized by all Olympic international organizations as the highest authority for sports-related legal issues. An Investigative Commission consisting of Dr. Richard McLaren (Chair), Dick Pound and Gunter Younger was appointed to look into allegations of widespread and state-supported doping of athletes of the Russian Olympic team for the 2016 Winter Olympics at Sochi, Russia. The Commission's star witness was Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, former head of the Moscow laboratory. According to what became known as the McLaren Report, more than 1000 Russian athletes across 30 sports were involved in or benefited from "an institutional conspiracy" of doping. The Investigative Commission settled on sanctioning 35 Olympic athletes with Anti-Doping Rules Violations (ARDV), and they were banned from further international sports competitions; those who had won medals had them confiscated. Nearly all the sanctioned athletes appealed their cases to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

    Sorry to keep hopping back and forth, but I'm trying to stay with two major themes at the same time for the moment – the accusations against the Russian Olympic athletes, which were entirely based on the revelations of the 'doping mastermind' , Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, and Dr. Rodchenkov himself. Western organizations and media were bowled over by the affable Rodchenkov, and eager to accept his jaw-dropping revelations about widespread doping in Russian sport. Sites specializing in sports doping with steroids feted him as the brilliant mind behind not only doping Russian athletes, but devising a test for common steroids which increased their detection window from only days to in excess of months. This enabled the retesting of previously-stored samples from international athletes which had already passed as clean. I suspect not a lot of followers of the Russian doping scandal are aware of that, and any such results should be viewed with the utmost suspicion in light of what a colossal fraud he turned out to be. I'd like you to just keep that in mind as we go further. Dr. Rodchenkov also claimed to be behind the brilliant – everything he does is brilliant – formulation of the now-notorious and, at the time of its alleged widespread use, top-secret "Duchess Cocktail", a steroid-stacker mixed with alcohol which made the presence of the steroids undetectable. Remember that word; undetectable, because we'll come back to it. Additionally, please keep in mind that Dr. Rodchenkov's unique testing method was the one used to re-test stored samples from the 2008 Beijing Olympics and the 2012 London Olympics.

    So, back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. 39 Russian athletes who had been accused of doping in the McLaren Report appealed their sentences of lifetime Olympic bans and forfeiture of medals won.

    Of those 39 appeals, 28 of the appeals were completely upheld , the judgments against the athletes reversed, and any medals forfeited were reinstated. A further 11 appeals were partially upheld, but the lifetime bans were reduced to have effect only for the upcoming Olympic Games at Peyongchang, Korea. That makes 39 of 39. Not a single athlete accused was found to have participated in a state-sponsored doping program administered by Russian sports officials acting under orders of the Russian government. The appeals of a further 3 Russian athletes were not heard by the date of release of the statement, and were stayed until a later date.

    It is important to note, and was specifically addressed in the release, that the CAS did not examine the matter of whether there was or was not a state-sponsored or controlled doping program; that was not within the Court's mandate. So for evidence of evidence, I guess you might say, and for an overall feel for the credibility of the witness whose revelations underpinned the entirety of the McLaren Report, we turn to Dr. Rodchenkov's testimony before the CAS. https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1-13.png

    As we examine his performance on that occasion, I'd like to point out that this likely represents the first time Rodchenkov was cross-examined by and on behalf of individuals who were not necessarily delighted to believe everything he said without questioning it further, as the McLaren Commission apparently was. Because his story fell apart, often in ways that would have been amusing in anything other than the serious setting which prevailed. That's Rodchenkov in the balaclava, which his handlers evidently thought necessary to conceal his appearance. Perhaps he's had extensive cosmetic surgery, because his face was all over the news before that – he is in the US Witness Protection Program, after all. In my opinion, it only lent to the overall sense of unreality, but to each his own. I'll also be jumping back and forth between what Rodchenkov or his backers confidently claimed prior to the hearing, and during testimony, when I think it is important to highlight manifest umm inconsistencies. Ready? Let's do it.

    Pre-CAS hearing: "The latest WADA report suggests that Rodchenkov helped as many as 1,000 Russian athletes get away with doping. Hundreds of those athletes were able to get away with the use of the "Duchess steroid cocktail" while avoiding detection."

    During testimony and under questioning by counsel for the defendants, Rodchenkov admitted (a) that he had never personally distributed the 'Duchess cocktail' to any Russian athlete, (b) that he had never personally seen any Russian athlete take the mixture known as the Duchess cocktail, (c) that he had never personally witnessed any Russian athlete being directed by a coach to take the Duchess cocktail, or any coach being directed by any Russian state official to distribute it to his athletes, and (d) that he had never personally seen any Russian athlete tamper with a doping sample.

    Forgive me if I jump to the conclusion that the foregoing rules out a state-sponsored doping program insofar as it was ever witnessed by the McLaren Report's star and principal witness; McLaren did not interview any other Russian officials, he claimed he didn't have time.

    But it gets better . Or worse, if you are Rodchenkov, or one of those who gleefully relied on his testimony to put those filthy Russians away forever.

    Pre-CAS hearing: "In 2016, independent investigations confirmed that Russian officials had run a massive state‑sponsored doping system during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Sochi, which fed illicit performance-enhancing drugs to hundreds of athletes and took outlandish measures to pervert national drug-testing mechanisms The evidence was incontrovertible."

    When examined on his statements that he had swapped samples of positive-test athletes urine after 1:00 AM, passing them through a 'mousehole' in the laboratory wall to FSB agents outside and exchanging them for clean samples, in light of the fact that his meticulously-maintained daily diary recorded him as being at home in bed by midnight, he claimed he had lied in his diary. What a clever intelligence asset, to have anticipated questioning years in advance, and added an extra layer of obfuscation! It was not specifically addressed in testimony to my knowledge, but I would like to highlight here that Dr. Rodchenkov was allegedly alone at the lab at these alleged times – except, of course, for the secret agents waiting outside the mousehole – and could have driven a gurney with a squeaky wheel loaded with conspiratorial piss samples out into the parking lot, and loaded it into the trunk of his car with nobody the wiser: why all the John le Carré espionagery through the wall? Comes to that, why would you contaminate a sample with salt, coffee granules and hilarious incompetence like accidentally getting male DNA in female samples, when the doping compound only you knew was in the samples was undetectable by anyone else, because you had specifically engineered it that way?

    McLaren claimed in his report that he had seen a method demonstrated, which he presumed was the method used by the FSB to open the sealed sample bottles and replace the sample inside with clean urine. He further claimed that scratches found on the glass bottles were proof of tampering. Other analysts suggested the scratches were probably made when the sample bottle was sealed in accordance with the instructions for its proper use, and the manufacturer claimed the bottle had never successfully been opened, once sealed, without breaking the cap, which is by design an indication of potential tampering. The alleged secret method of successfully doing it was never demonstrated by McLaren or any of his operatives for independent verification. For Rodchenkov's part, he claimed it had been done by 'magicians', and offered no clue as to the alleged method, and it seems clear to me that McLaren simply proceeded with Rodchenkov's hearsay assurances that it had been accomplished.

    The controversial and pivotal claim by McLaren that Russian Minister for Sport Vitaly Mutko, "directed, controlled and oversaw the manipulation of athlete's [ sic ] analytical results or sample swapping" was not supported by anything other than Rodchenkov's diary. You remember – the one he admitted to having embellished with lies so that stories he told years later would make sense. This is absolutely critical, because the claim to have proven the existence of a state-sponsored doping program rests only on this – Rodchenkov has admitted he never personally saw any Russian state official give orders to coaches or athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs. McLaren's bombshell allegation appears to have been extracted from the diary of a proven and admitted liar, and is supported by no other evidence. Yet the western press still maintains there was a Russian state-sponsored doping program, administered with the knowledge and facilitation of the state government, and that this was proven. Rodchenkov is still accorded the respect of a credible witness. Rodchenkov is still speaking authoritatively about the nature of cheating, and – astoundingly – describing those who have lied under oath and falsified evidence as criminals, just as if he had not done both himself. It is as if the CAS hearings which exonerated the majority of the accused Russian athletes, and sharply reduced the punishments of the rest, had never happened. For all the mainstream media coverage the event received, it might not have.

    Before the CAS hearing, WADA and the IOC regularly dangled reinstatement of the Russian anti-doping agency (RUSADA) in exchange for the Russian government openly and completely accepting the conclusions of the McLaren Report, officially admitting to having cheated on a massive scale and with the full knowledge and support of serving government officials. It never did. The Russian state acknowledged it has a doping problem, and it has – some athletes were found guilty of having taken banned substances, and there are a few every Olympic competition. But Moscow has never accepted the conclusions of the McLaren Report. And after the CAS Appeals decision, RUSADA was reinstated anyway.

    Which brings us to here; now. The entire focus of the McLaren Report and the bullying by the IOC was directed toward making Russia admit it was guilty of organized doping, with the drive for momentum seeking a ban on further competition. Since it never did, the alternative was to prove it without an admission, so that no doubt existed. Exonerating the few athletes ever charged among the thousand or so said to be guilty looks like a hell of a funny way of doing that. The McLaren Team's star and main witness fell apart on the stand and admitted he had either lied about everything or simply made it up. There is no reason at all – outside stubborn western prejudice – to imagine Russian athletes are doping any more than any other national teams.

    But then, hackers – Russians, of course, it goes without saying – calling themselves "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" (hint to Russians, do not call yourself "anything Bear" – the Bear is synonymous with Russia. Call yourself "Elon Tesla" or "Mo Money") began to publish stolen medical data revealing the scope of western athletes who had been granted permission to use banned performance-enhancing drugs by their Olympic Associations, for perceived medical reasons, through the TUE – the Therapeutic Use Exemption. The western sports industry was outraged – that information was private , God damn it – and it was just grotesque that the cheating Russians would have the gall to allege western athletes were cheaters. But after it had time to calm down, and after some revelations proved hard to defend, the industry had to grudgingly admit the TUE was a problem .

    Iconic American cyclist Lance Armstrong doped for years , but was revered by an entire generation of American kids and sports fans as the finest example of a stoic and selfless sportsman the human race could provide. Teammates and his sports doctor helped him avoid tests, and in one instance he dropped out of a race after receiving a text message from a teammate that testers were waiting for him. When he actually tested positive for corticosteroid use in the 1999 Tour de France, his doctors claimed he had received the steroid in a cream used to treat a saddle sore, and a back-dated prescription was provided.

    Retroactive TUE's sound phony right out of the gate, and consequently their use is supposed to be very rare, since the immediate perception is that the exemption was issued to protect the athlete from the fallout of a positive test; what could be simpler? Just issue them a prescription to take a banned substance, because they really, really needed it. Most of the TUE's issued to tennis world champion Serena Williams were retroactive , in some cases going back two weeks or more. A TUE issued during a period that an athlete has withdrawn from competition sounds understandable, because they cannot be using it to enhance their career or win medals. A retroactive TUE issued during competition that allows an athlete to use a stimulant which increases drive, or a painkiller which lets them power through without the limb failing, is hard to see as anything other than a cheat issued to protect a national sports asset.

    TUE's are the vehicle of choice in professional cycling, with both British cyclists who won the Tour de France – Scott Froome and Bradley Wiggins – revealed to have secured TUE's allowing them to take steroids during the competitions. They claimed to be suffering from 'sport-induced asthma', which is apparently a documented condition when you try to make your body process air faster or more efficiently than it is capable of handling. USADA head Travis Tygart, who is withering in his contempt of and hatred for Russia, loses no opportunity to defend the integrity of American athletes who are allowed to dope because they have a form that says they need to. I find it hard to believe Russian athletes who secured a TUE allowing them to take a performance-enhancer during competition would meet with such hearty approval from him. It's because Americans are inherently honest and are genetically incapable of cheating, while Russians are just natural-born cheats.

    American gymnastics champion Simone Biles quickly became the national face of ADHD by proactively defending her need for a banned substance. Tygart and American Olympics officials were maudlin in her defense, like everyone is just picking on a little girl and trying to rob her of hard-earned success. What effect does her permitted drug have? It permits an enhanced level of concentration and focus, so that no energy is lost to distractions such a a shouting crowd, bright colours and rapid movements, and she sees nothing but the target of her efforts. Is that helpful? What do you think?

    The jury seems to be out on whether corticosteroids would help Biles focus on her routines, although there seems to be a fairly well-established body of evidence that these are not anabolic steroids, and do not increase muscle mass – that's all her. But the zeal with which WADA went after meldonium – just because, apparently, eastern-European athletes used it extensively, although it has never been demonstrated to enhance performance – speaks volumes about the western bias in favour of therapeutic use of drugs by the Good Guys. They're just looking after their health. Russians are cheating. How did WADA find out about meldonium? I'm glad you asked – USADA received a 'confidential tip' that east-European athletes were using it to enhance performance. Despite expert advice that there is no evidence at all that it enhances performance , WADA banned it. Because, you know, east-European athletes might think it helps them, and if they think that, then it is.

    Just like Simone Biles and her TUE. But that's not only allowed, she's a hero for being so open about her ADHD.

    In the USA, cheating seems to be focused on Track and Field , because that's where the USA wins a lot of its medals. Hence the effort to minimize the Russian participation, and thus cut down the opposition.

    "The United States in fact has a lengthy history of doping at the Olympic Games and other international events, and of turning a blind eye to its own cheating. That's especially true in track and field, the front porch of the U.S. Olympic program because of track's ability to drive American medal supremacy.

    Nike's track-and-field training program, for example, has been dogged by doping allegations since at least the 1970s, when its top officials were allegedly aware that athletes used steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. Since the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games, every single U.S. Summer Olympic team has included at least one sprinter who either had previously failed a drug test or would later do so. And that's to say nothing of athletes in the other disciplines.

    American drug cheats include some of the country's most notable Olympians. Carl Lewis admitted in 2003 that he had failed three drug tests prior to the 1988 Seoul Olympics, but avoided a ban with the help of the U.S. Olympic Committee and won two golds and a silver instead. Justin Gatlin won the 100-meter dash at the 2004 Athens Games before later failing a drug test. Tyson Gay, the world's fastest man entering the 2008 Beijing Games, later failed a drug test too. Gay and Gatlin nevertheless formed half of the American men's 4×100 relay team in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. "

    American athletes routinely fail drug tests, but are waved ahead to compete anyway. " Eighty-four American Olympians failed drug tests in the year prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Games but went on to compete anyway , according to author Mark Johnson . Carl Lewis claimed that "hundreds" of Americans failed tests while remaining eligible to compete, with the assistance of the U.S. Olympic Committee, in Seoul. The USOC faced allegations ahead the 2000 Sydney Games that it had withheld information on 15 positive tests from international officials; by 2003, it had been accused of covering up at least 114 positives between 1988 and 2000."

    Curiously, the latest Russia ban is attributed to allegations that Russia fiddled with the athletes database it provided to WADA, covering up positive drug tests. But it appears the United States has a well-known history of fudging and obscuring positive drug-test results, refusing to reveal them to regulatory bodies, and pushing its doper athletes into international competition. Yet the United States has a loudly self-awarded reputation as the Defender Of Clean Sport.

    Russia's position is that the ubiquitous Grigory Rodchenkov – a proven and self-confessed liar, remember, who claimed to have lied in his diary where he was supposedly only talking to himself – modified the database from abroad , after he fled to the United States and made such a Godsend of himself in America's drive to move up the medal rankings. He apparently retained administrator rights on the database, which was accessible online, even after fleeing from Russia. His lawyer's defense, curiously, is that he did not and, significantly, 'could not' access the database. To me, that sounds like he's going out a little bit on a limb – all the Russian side needs to do is prove that he could have to discredit Rodchenkov's story. It looks like it is headed back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the spring – the same venue which exonerated the Russian athletes after Rodchenkov's previous epic thundering-in on full afterburner. Will it happen again? We'll see. Until then the western press appears not to have noticed that Rodchenov lied his charming face off last time. And still is, through his shyster lawyer – "If WADA or any other agency needs Grigory to testify, Grigory will uphold his promise to co-operate fully to help atone for his role," Walden said. You know – the role he admitted he never played, in that he never saw any Russian athlete take the Duchess Cocktail he claimed to have devised to make doping undetectable, never heard any Russian sports official order his players to take it, and in fact could not remember exactly what was in it.

    Stay tuned – this should be interesting. Count on the Americans to press to the end for a full and lasting ban, probably for life.

    [Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low

    Highly recommended!
    Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Fec , Jan 5 2020 15:23 utc | 3

    "We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses diplomacy:
    #US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."

    https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1213833855754485762

    [Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable

    Highly recommended!
    So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
    "... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
    "... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
    "... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
    "... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
    "... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
    "... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
    "... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
    "... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
    "... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
    Jan 06, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

    The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.

    The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed around the world; an interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the closure of diplomatic pathways to containing Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.

    For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.

    But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.

    "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook."

    Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation.

    For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.

    How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)

    Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

    On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

    Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.

    One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

    "Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."

    Mattis declined to comment.

    In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never gives an inch," an administration official said.

    But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that "dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.

    [ Trump faces Iran crisis with fewer experienced advisers and strained relations with allies ]

    Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.

    When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.

    "If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.

    Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.

    Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike himself.

    "If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.

    Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.

    "We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.

    Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even though they were never consulted on the decision.

    "The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.

    "Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

    On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.

    "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.

    Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did -- what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.

    Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."

    "Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.

    Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."

    Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

    "Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

    A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the conversations said.

    Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.

    At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.

    After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.

    At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If it's not, good luck."

    [Jan 06, 2020] Russia's Real Reasons for Partnering with Iran by Nadya Glebova

    July 13, 2019 | nationalinterest.org

    Moscow has a vested interest in the state of affairs in the Persian Gulf; it has tried its best to contain the impact that the U.S.-Iranian crisis could have on its own national security.

    The third area of focus is connected with overlapping humanitarian and economic concerns that impact both Russia and Iran. These concerns have been footholds in the history of mutual relationships since the time of Russian and Persian empires. Nowadays both of the countries are trying to compensate for their failures by pursuing policies that promote their own and unique civilizations. In this situation the humanitarian sphere is one of the strategic ones allowing to pursue long-term aims. Of note, Russian-Iranian educational and cultural projects have doubled since the Trump administration announced its strategy for Iran. While the United States has been focused on "bringing Iran to its knees," Russia has been focused on the future. Economic ties between these two countries have been strengthening over the past few years, with bilateral trade reaching $2 billion in 2018.

    Hopefully, Russia and Iran will maintain a positive relationship despite their differences and past difficulties. For example, in 2016 Russian forces were pushed off of a military base in Iran that it had used to conduct military operations in Syria. The strategic shift happened after the Iranians squabbled over whether foreign forces should be allowed to use an Iranian military base. Also, the two countries have had some disputes over the fate of Syria. Despite these issues, Russia maintains a positive relationship with Iran, which it further confirmed during a June 25 meeting between national security advisers John Bolton, Meir Ben-Shabbat and Nikolai Patrushev. During the meeting, Patrushev, the Secretary of the Russian Security Council, declared that Russia would continue to accommodate Iran's interests in the Middle East because it remains "the ally and partner" of choice in Syria. Both countries are focused on preventing further destabilization in the region, he said.

    Nadya Glebova is a fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a MENA researcher.

    [Jan 06, 2020] Putin's Hour Is At Hand - PaulCraigRoberts.org

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin's Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6, 2020. ..."
    Jan 06, 2020 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

    Putin's Hour Is At Hand January 4, 2020 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article

    Putin's Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6, 2020.

    Putin's Hour Is At Hand

    Paul Craig Roberts

    Vladimir Putin is the most impressive leader on the world stage. He survived and arose from a Russia corrupted by Washington and Israel during the Yeltsin years and reestablished Russia as a world power. He dealt successfully with American/Israeli aggression against South Ossetia and against Ukraine, incorporating at Crimea's request the Russian province back into Mother Russia. He has tolerated endless insults and provocations from Washington and its empire without responding in kind. He is conciliatory and a peacemaker from a position of strength.

    He knows that the American empire based as it is on arrogance and lies is failing economically, socially, politically, and militarily. He understands that war serves no Russian interest.

    Washington's murder of Qasem Soleimani, a great Iranian leader, indeed, one of the rare leaders in world history, has dimmed Trump's leadership and placed the limelight on Putin. The stage is set for Putin and Russia to assume the leadership of the world.

    Washington's murder of Soleimani is a criminal act that could start World War 3 just as the Serbian murder of the Austrian Archduke set World War 1 in motion. Only Putin and Russia with China's help can stop this war that Washington has set in motion.

    Putin understood that the Washington/Israeli intended destabilization of Syria was aimed at Russia. Without warning Russia intervened, defeated the Washington financed and armed proxy forces, and restored stability to Syria.

    Defeated, Washington and Israel have decided to bypass Syria and take the attack on Russia directly to Iran. The destabilization of Iran serves both Washington and Israel. For Israel Iran's demise stops support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia that has twice defeated Israel's army and prevented Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon. For Washington Iran's demise allows CIA-supported jihadists to bring instability into the Russian Federation.

    Unless Putin submits to American and Israeli will, he has no choice but to block any Washington/Israeli attack on Iran.

    The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's protection. This protection should be formalized in a mutual defense treaty between Russia, China, and Iran, with perhaps India and Turkey as members. This is hard for Putin to do, because incompetent historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war. But an alliance such as this would prevent war. Not even the insane criminal Netanyahu and the crazed American neoconservatives would, even when completely drunk or deluded, declare war on Iran, Russia, China, and if included in the alliance India and Turkey. It would mean the death of America, Israel and any European country sufficiently stupid to participate.

    If Putin is unable to free himself from the influence of incompetent historians, who in effect are serving Washington, not Russian, interests, he has other options. He can calm down Iran by giving Iran the best Russian air defense systems with Russian crews to train the Iranians and whose presence serve as a warning to Washington and Israel that an attack on Russian forces is an attack on Russia.

    This done, Putin can then, not offer, but insist on mediating. This is Putin's role as there is no other with the power, influence and objectivity to mediate.

    Putin's job is not so much to rescue Iran as to get Trump out of a losing war that would destroy Trump. Putin could set his own price. For example, Putin's price can be the revival of the INF/START treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the removal of NATO from Russian borders. In effect, Putin is positioned to demand whatever he wants.

    Iranian missiles can sink any American vessels anywhere near Iran. Chinese missiles can sink any American fleets anywhere near China. Russian missiles can sink American fleets anywhere in the world. The ability of Washington to project power in the Middle East now that everyone, Shia and Sunni and Washington's former proxies such as ISIS, hates Americans with a passion is zero. The State Department has had to order Americans out of the Middle East. How does Washingon count as a force in the Middle East when no American is safe there?

    Of course Washington is stupid in its arrogance, and Putin, China, and Iran must take this into consideration. A stupid government is capable of bringing ruin not only on itself but on others.

    So there are risks for Putin. But there are also risks for Putin failing to take charge. If Washington and Israel attack Iran, which Israel will try to provoke by some false flag event as sinking an American warship and blaming Iran, Russia will be at war anyway. Better for the initiative to be in Putin's hands. And better for the world and life on Earth for Russia to be in charge.

    [Jan 06, 2020] Democrats demand answers on Soleimani killing - This is not a game

    Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he is trying to avoid the responsibility.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
    "... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
    "... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
    "... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
    Jan 06, 2020 | www.nbcnews.com

    Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the killing of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an imminent threat.

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision "will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or impulsively getting us into a major war."

    Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.

    "I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes manipulate and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.

    "That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have an obligation to present the evidence."

    Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least."

    "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now."

    Booker: 'All Americans should be concerned right now' JAN. 5, 2020 04:18

    The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk.

    The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.

    " We took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani. "We did not take action to start a war."

    But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths .

    Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.

    Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

    [Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
    "... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
    "... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
    Jan 05, 2020 | thesaker.is
    The blowback has begun

    First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections once the official sources make their official statements).

    1. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
    2. The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw their troops from Iraq.
    3. Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
    4. The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason
    5. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty .
    6. Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized .
    7. The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming next.
    8. For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
    9. The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
    10. Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “ The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to yield victory…
    Analysis

    Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake, this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?

    For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.

    Second, the US now has two options:

    Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria

    Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever before).

    The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.

    Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces being "THE BEST").

    Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.

    This is so important that I need to repeat it again:

    The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.

    I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis).

    Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.

    Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order. So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).

    No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:

    Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges, hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia: a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)

    Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").

    Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).

    In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.

    Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.

    Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise. As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move, we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance, the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".

    Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.

    I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.

    I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.

    The Saker

    UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:

    Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American products.

    Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:

    UPDATE2: RT is reporting that " One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel injured ". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation promised by Iran will only come later.

    UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.

    UPDATE4 : Zerohedge is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to get a confirmation from Iran about this.

    UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.

    UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.

    The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA

    Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

    Order Now Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Leave a Reply

    (1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

    (2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

    (3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
    <b>bold text</b> results in bold text
    <i>italic text</i> results in italic text
    (You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
    <em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
    <strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
    <q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
    <cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
    a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
    <blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

    a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.
    and last but not least:
    <a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

    (4) No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:
    &nbsp;
    You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.
    The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

    (5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

    63 Comments

    Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:39 pm EST/EDT

    Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.

    If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!

    America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.

    Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then "bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!

    Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:08 pm EST/EDT
    "For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."

    -I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign forces, it is not actually legally binding.

    Anyone that can conform or deny?

    Lysander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:18 pm EST/EDT
    I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have the authority to act?

    That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will repeat and repeat and make it seem real.

    Serbian girl on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:42 pm EST/EDT
    Not the entire government. Only the PM Mahdi as far as I understand. He resigned after some protests. The parliament approved his resignation on Dec 2019. He is the caretaker until they appoint another PM.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/29/iraq-pm-resign-protests-abdul-mahdi-al-sistani
    Pamela on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:59 pm EST/EDT
    Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
    Mark on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:45 pm EST/EDT
    Well, this is going to be interesting for sure. I for one cannot see any way out for the Yankees, so I expect them to do their usual doubling down .

    Assassinate some more people, airstrikes etc.

    Hans on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:51 pm EST/EDT
    The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.

    As the Saker says, 'all hell will break loose '.

    Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:09 pm EST/EDT
    "realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan)."

    -There is an interesting article on colonal cassad about this, USA actually has around 100k troops in ME spread out over various bases.
    https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5543349.html

    Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
    The Saker

    Anonymouse on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:15 pm EST/EDT
    To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans, we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
    Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
    Cosimo on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:38 pm EST/EDT
    1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/ The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though. 1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.

    2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.

    3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants . Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans. Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.

    Tom Welsh on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
    "They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds "

    eating and drinking what? When no Iraqi will even speak to them, let alone do anything for them.

    Greifenburg on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:52 pm EST/EDT
    Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now. Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
    The Saker on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:57 pm EST/EDT
    Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature, movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
    Kind regards
    The Saker
    Melotte 22 on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:23 pm EST/EDT
    As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70 years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
    Auslander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:09 pm EST/EDT
    The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going to be of significant interest.

    With kindest regards
    Auslander

    Nachtigall on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:18 pm EST/EDT
    Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
    The Saker on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:12 pm EST/EDT
    Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
    I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
    The Saker
    Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:24 pm EST/EDT
    Greetings Mr. Saker,

    This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people, which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.

    Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.

    Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.

    The Saker on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT
    Thank you for this precious confirmation!
    And keep up the good fight!
    Kind regards
    The Saker
    durlin on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:25 pm EST/EDT
    anonymous, fellow Coloradoan here, would appreciate some info on where I need to look for the next one,. I will be there
    Richard Sauder on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:55 pm EST/EDT
    Yes. I am thinking about the Deagel.com numbers again. They're starting to come into better focus.

    http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx

    I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about what possible horrors lie ahead?

    The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.

    Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.

    Nikolai on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:08 pm EST/EDT
    Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.

    Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
    But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
    The Saker

    Marko on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:20 pm EST/EDT
    Looks like our Nikolai is a Canvas Otpor Belgrade troll.
    Serbian girl on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:46 pm EST/EDT
    Or perhaps not Serbian at all
    Flabbergasted on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:11 pm EST/EDT
    "I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."

    My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.

    History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed public not realizing what's happened.

    Nikolai on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:23 pm EST/EDT
    I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes in Group 2.

    But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally, with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness to set the whole house on fire when they don't.

    It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again

    Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:26 pm EST/EDT
    Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy, and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry mob
    JJ on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:08 pm EST/EDT
    About 50% of UK people opposed the UK intervention into Iraq .1 m people held marches on London and cities ..made no difference.
    cdvision on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:39 pm EST/EDT
    Its not just the US that's braindead. This from a once reputable newspaper in the UK

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/05/boris-johnson-calls-de-escalation-iran-us-killing-ofgeneral/

    Its behind a paywall so you only get the first few paragraphs – frankly all you need. BUT its the comments that tell the story!

    Pamela on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:11 pm EST/EDT
    It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not all of America was like this.

    There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed"

    Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still hold to it closely – and that's good to know.

    ** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US weren't going to allow that to go to air!!

    Nikolai on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:13 pm EST/EDT
    Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US and NATO when they attacked and bombed Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.

    Thanks, now we all know how good your "understanding" is!
    The Saker :-P

    Rufus Palmer on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT
    Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding of the empire.

    Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?

    teranam13 on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:19 pm EST/EDT
    Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week end for you.

    Two points:
    Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
    parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.

    And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
    the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
    and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."

    Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.

    Craig Mouldey on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:27 pm EST/EDT
    Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport and go onto the road.
    The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder and have decided they cannot support this beast.
    Clarence on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:33 pm EST/EDT
    How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
    How many air defense missiles does have iran?
    Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
    How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
    I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
    One Tribe on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:36 pm EST/EDT
    Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.

    All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened, made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
    If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.

    I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of pychopathic hatred against humanity.

    In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
    It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
    The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.

    Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.

    I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or privately, this collective of hatred.
    The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.

    It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation, is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.

    Paul23 on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:38 pm EST/EDT
    Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.

    Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.

    Randy Brady on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:10 pm EST/EDT
    Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.

    Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.

    The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.

    Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.

    Kilombo Zumbi on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:02 pm EST/EDT
    The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
    You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills, man!
    Tom Welsh on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:39 pm EST/EDT
    Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.

    Any aircraft carrier within 2,000 km likewise.

    Mike from Jersey on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:45 pm EST/EDT
    File this next article under "Just when you thought that things couldn't get any crazier."

    Pompeo is slamming Europe for not being supportive of the American murders in the Middle East.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europeans-havent-been-helpful-after-suleimani-killing-pompeo-slams-allies-not

    Nussiminen on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:48 pm EST/EDT
    It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
    Mike from Jersey on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:08 pm EST/EDT
    I am an American and I am not sure that is true.

    Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt. The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.

    Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.

    Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.

    Nussiminen on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:37 pm EST/EDT
    Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war, and chauvinism they vote for and more.
    Steki on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:53 pm EST/EDT
    One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything. Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid. If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
    Rostislav_Velka_Morava on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:56 pm EST/EDT
    Russia will not allow this, and will put their foot down.
    Hussan Carim on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:00 pm EST/EDT
    The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.

    Let me quickly explain.

    It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.

    Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.

    Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.

    We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.

    In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire – Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar' and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.

    To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram of domination.

    All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).

    All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all 'settle' in US Dollars.

    Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most well known).

    Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?

    The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').

    It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.

    Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking operations).

    Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.

    Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover from such a blow quickly.

    Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.

    The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical cables and wireless nodes).

    I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.

    Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and humiliation.

    Amon Ra on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:09 pm EST/EDT
    " I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "

    No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base ( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.

    Auslander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:03 pm EST/EDT
    Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have changed since that war.

    US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.

    An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly 300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'

    Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen, VVP will not allow it.

    Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again. The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit, the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead are victims of training accidents or air accidents.

    Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise) they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.

    As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.

    Auslander
    Author http://rhauslander.com/

    Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056 A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.

    An Incident On Simonka. paperback edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1696160715 NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.

    Auslander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:19 pm EST/EDT
    "Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful," should read:

    "Toss in the fact that an invasion of Iran, if even half successful,"

    It's late and this old man is tired. More tomorrow.

    Auslander

    Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:04 pm EST/EDT
    "UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation promised by Iran will only come later."

    -Al-Shabaab is a salafist terror group

    Observer on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:17 pm EST/EDT
    Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
    Hajduk on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:20 pm EST/EDT
    'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
    Gen. Soleimani (2018)
    Bikkin on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:31 pm EST/EDT
    Hello Saker,
    I would like to ask you a question.
    According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
    In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor? And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
    What is your opinion?
    One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question, have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
    In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
    Thanks in advance.
    Nachtigall on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:27 pm EST/EDT
    2nd that, but be polite to the Saker. Ask nicely next time, like someone who is civilized.

    Thanks you for your indispensable work, dear Saker!

    Marko on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:32 pm EST/EDT
    I think USA still has nuclear option.
    They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
    So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.

    Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
    The Saker

    Nachtigall on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
    How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site, infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
    robert on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:41 pm EST/EDT
    So, how many hostages for Iran are in Iraq now?
    Petro-G on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:44 pm EST/EDT
    I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.

    I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate. But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?

    Stand Easy on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:56 pm EST/EDT
    Some short comments on the strategic blunder made by US.

    Meantime, global ramifications are being felt. View from China, one of the biggest consumers of ME oil:

    https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1175782.shtml

    and some mind-reading from a HK based rag:

    "Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader conflagration is a real possibility"

    https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/could-china-take-irans-side-in-a-war-with-us/

    Japan had planned to send some military hardware to the ME just before the new year but Gen Soleimani's murder may change the calculus.

    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/03/national/japan-sdf-assassination-iran-qassem-soleimani/#.XhJYxfLmjN4

    Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The Saker.)
    Let us all pray for peace.

    Kent on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:33 pm EST/EDT
    "(thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The Saker.)"

    Credits for the calendar(s) should go to one of our in house Artists and poets Ioan.

    You obviously do not visit the Cafe' very often, do you?

    Regards
    Kent

    Wendy on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:24 pm EST/EDT
    Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.

    Analysis sans eschatology is Onism.

    Tom on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:32 pm EST/EDT
    It's not a blunder.
    Trump's goals pre-assassination:
    1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
    2) placate Israel
    This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army (that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
    As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have its troops home and Trump will be reelected

    [Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko

    Highly recommended!
    Looks like Trump administration buried the Treaty of non-proliferation once and for all. From now on only a country with nuclear weapons can be viewed as a sovereign country.
    Notable quotes:
    "... To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran ..."
    "... Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable". ..."
    "... The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis. ..."
    Jan 05, 2020 | astutenews.com

    Astute News

    Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so, which makes it likely that a lot more people than just Maj. Gen. Soleimani might be about to die.

    To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran (despite believing that they're doing so in "self-defense)

    Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable".

    The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis.


    By Andrew Korybko
    Source: One World

    [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    Highly recommended!
    Ukraine is now a pawn in a big geopolitical game against Russia. Which somehow survived 90th when everybody including myself has written it off.
    That's why the USA, EU (Germany) and Russia pulling the country in different directions. But the victory of Ukrainian nationalists is not surprising and is not solely based on the US interferences (although the USA did lot in this direction) pursuit its geopolitical game against Russia. Distancing themselves from Russa is a universal trend in Post-Soviet space. And it often takes ugly forms.
    So Ukraine in not an exception here. It is part of the "rule". Essentially the dissolution of the USSR revised the result on WWII. And while the author correctly calls Ukrainian leader US stooges, they moved in this direction because they feel that it is necessary for maintaining the independence. In other words anti-Russian stance is considered by the Ukrainian elite as a a pre-condition for mainlining independence. Otherwise people like Parubiy would be in jail very soon. They are tolerated and even promoted because they are useful.
    It repeats the story of Baltic Republics, albeit with a significant time delay. There should be some social group that secure independence of the country and Ukrainian nationalists happen to be such a group. That's why Yanukovich supported them and Svoboda party (with predictable results).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations. ..."
    "... Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort? ..."
    "... The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine. ..."
    "... US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts. ..."
    "... US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS. ..."
    "... This is : ..."
    "... Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11. ..."
    "... There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom. ..."
    "... A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list. ..."
    "... An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west. ..."
    "... The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them. ..."
    "... I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties. ..."
    "... "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". ..."
    "... But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy? ..."
    "... A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression. ..."
    "... I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption. ..."
    "... What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. ..."
    "... Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis. ..."
    Feb 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    The ideological fissures that are growing in the United States are beginning to resemble the warring camps that characterize the Ukrainian political world. The divide in Ukraine pits groups who are described as "right wing" and many are ideological descendants of real Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against groups with a strong affinity to Russia. This kind of gap cannot be bridged through conventional negotiations.

    Who is the United States government and media supporting? The Nazis . You think I'm joking. Here are the facts, but we must go back to World War II :

    When World War II began a large part of western Ukraine welcomed the German soldiers as liberators from the recently enforced Soviet rule and openly collaborated with the Germans. The Soviet leader, Stalin, imposed policies that caused the deaths of almost 7 million Ukrainians in the 1930s--an era known as the Holomodor).

    Ukrainian divisions, regiments and battalions were formed, such as SS Galizien, Nachtigal and Roland, and served under German leadership. In the first few weeks of the war, more than 80 thousand people from the Galizien region volunteered for the SS Galizien, which later known for its extreme cruelty towards Polish, Jewish and Russian people on the territory of Ukraine.

    Members of these military groups came mostly from the organization of Ukrainian nationalists aka the OUN, which was founded in 1929. It's leader was Stepan Bandera, known then and today for his extreme anti-semitic and anti-communist views.

    CIA documents just recently declassified show strong ties between US intelligence and Ukrainian nationalists since 1946.

    Jump ahead now to the April 2014 "uprising" of anti-Russian forces in the Ukraine (Maidan 2). The US was firmly on the side of the protesters, who ultimately succeeded in ousting the elected President. And who were helping lead this effort?

    Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council is Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy was the founder of the Social National Party of Ukraine, a fascist party styled on Hitler's Nazis, with membership restricted to ethnic Ukrainians.

    The Social National Party would go on to become Svoboda, the far-right nationalist party whose leader, Oleh Tyahnybok was one of the three most high profile leaders of the Euromaidan protests. . . .

    Overseeing the armed forces alongside Parubiy as the Deputy Secretary of National Security is Dmytro Yarosh , the leader of the Right Sector – a group of hardline nationalist streetfighters, who previously boasted they were ready for armed struggle to free Ukraine.

    The US support, both overt and covert, for Ukrainian politicians is grounded in an anti-Soviet (now anti-Russian) ideology. We have convinced ourselves that Russia is hell bent on world domination. Therefore we must do whatever is necessary to stop Russia, which includes uncritical, blind support for elements in Ukraine that also detest the Russians. But in doing so we have closed our eyes to the filthy underbelly of the virulent anti-Semitism that lurks in western Ukraine.

    US meddling in the Ukraine is astonishing in its breadth. It ranges from the fact that the wife of former President Viktor Yuschenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department. Do you think there would be no complaints if Melania Trump was born in Russia and had served in the Russian Foreign Ministry? Yet, most Americans are happily ignorant of such facts.

    But Viktor Yushchenko is not an American who speaks a foreign language. He is very much a Ukrainian nationalist and steeped in the anti-Semitism that dominates the ideology of western Ukraine. During the final months of his Presidency, Yushchenko made the following declaration:

    In conclusion I would like to say something that is long awaited by the Ukrainian patriots for many years I have signed a decree for the unbroken spirit and standing for the idea of fighting for independent Ukraine. I declare Stepan Bandera a national hero of Ukraine.

    Without hesitation or shame, Yushchenko endorsed the legacy of Bandera, who had happily aligned with the Nazis in pursuit of his own nationalist goals. Those goals, however, did not include Jews. And here is the ultimate irony--Bandera was born in Austria, not the Ukraine. So much for ideological consistency.

    US interference was not confined to serendipitous relationships, such as the Yushchenko marriage. It also included the open and active funding of certain political groups and media outlets. The US State Department sent money through a variety of outlets. One of these was the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening aka CEPPS.

    This is : a USAID program with other National Endowment for Democracy-affiliated groups: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. In 2010, the reported disbursement for CEPPS in Ukraine was nearly $5 million.

    The program's efforts are described on the USAID website as providing "training for political party activists and locally elected officials to improve communication with civic groups and citizens, and the development of NGO-led advocacy campaigns on electoral and political process issues."

    Anyone prepared to argue that it would be okay for Russia, through its Foreign Ministry, to contribute several million dollars for training party activists in the United States?

    What we do not know is how much money was being spent on covert activities directed and managed by the CIA. During the political upheaval in April 2014 (Maidan 2), there was this news item:

    Over the weekend, CIA director John Brennan travelled to Kiev, nobody knows exactly why, but some speculate that he intends to open US intelligence resources to Ukrainian leaders about real-time Russian military maneuvers. The US has, thus far, refrained from sharing such knowledge because Moscow is believed to have penetrated much of Ukraine's communications systems – and Washington isn't about to hand over its surveillance secrets to the Russians.

    Do you think Americans would be outraged if the head of Russia's version of the CIA, the SVR or FSB, traveled quietly to the United States to meet with Donald Trump prior to his election? I think that would qualify as meddling.

    Count me as one of the people who is outraged by the hypocrisy and stupidity now on display in the United States. I am not talking about Trump. I am referring to the Republicans and Democrats and pundits and media mouthpieces who are fuming about Russian citizens writing on Facebook as one of the worst catastrophes since Pearl Harbor or 9-11.

    There clearly is meddling going on in America's political landscape. But it isn't the Russian Government. No. There are foreign and domestic forces aligned who are keen on portraying Russia as a threat to world order that must be opposed by more defense spending and tougher sanctions. That is the propaganda that dominates the media in the United States these days. And that is truly dangerous to our nation's safety and freedom.

    Posted at 01:24 PM in Publius Tacitus , Russiagate | Permalink


    james , 23 February 2018 at 02:11 PM

    Good post pt.. thanks... i never knew ''the wife of former President Viktor Yushchenko was an American citizen and former senior official in the US State Department.'' That is informative.. i recall following this closely back in 2014.. the hypocrisy on display in the usa at present is truly amazing and frightening at the same time.. it appears that the public can be cowed very easily..
    Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , 23 February 2018 at 02:29 PM
    good points well made.

    On the twitters, you would be accused of "whatabouttism" - which is the crime of excusing Putin's diabolism by pointing out American interference with the internal politics an elections of other nations. A CIA guy recently said the US only interferes to 'promote democracy' - tell that to Australia, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Congo, Russia, Ukraine...it's a long long list.

    An independent Ukraine was also a project of German foreign policy after the Brest-Litowsk Treaty (the equivalent of the Versailles Treaty, only aimed at Russia) SO I have o wonder how much of the enthusiasm for Vicky Nuland's Israel friendly Nazi state-let (oh what irony!) is a product of Germany wanting to reassert itself in the east, using NATO solidarity as a fig leaf. Maybe they will make Ukraine import a lot o Africans "refugees" so that Soros' project of creating a brown Europe will be advanced in the Slavic sphere as well as the west.

    Adrestia , 23 February 2018 at 02:39 PM
    It's not only the US. The EU borg are also meddling. In my country we had a referendum about Ukraine. The population voted "Against" on the question: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine?"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement_referendum,_2016

    This was the only referendum that was done since it was implemented in 2015. A second one is being organized on the Intelligence and Security Services which has controversial parts with regard to access to internet traffic.

    This referendum will take place on March 21, 2018 and will probably be voted against because of the controversial elements (in part because there is still living memory of our Eastern neighbors in the second world war)

    https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_op_de_inlichtingen-_en_veiligheidsdiensten_2017

    These 2 will probably be the last. Our house of representatives have voted yesterday to end the referendum law (with a majority vote of 76 out of 150 representatives!)

    So much for democracy. The reason stated that the referendum was controversial (probably because they voted against the EU borg). Interesting is that the proposal was done by the party that wanted the referendum as a principal point. This will almost certainly ensure that the little respect left for traditional parties is gone and they will not be able to get a majority next elections.

    The liberal party - who provides the prime-minister - EU leader Hans van Baalen and Belgian ex-prime minister Guy Verhostad held a controversial speech on the Maidan square in support of the protesters that the EU will support them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIL1FWCIlu8

    Tom , 23 February 2018 at 03:22 PM

    I wouldn't put to much stress on Bandera having been a bad guy. His enemies were no better. They just won the war and the victors write history. The deeper problem of Ukraine is the fact that in the East of the country (and maybe even the majority of the country) Bandera is indeed regarded as a villain. But in the West he is a hero to this day. Even in Soviet times people from Western Ukraine were regarded as "fascists" by much of the rest of the country. No wonder as there were anti soviet partisans until late in the fifties.

    Even in the nineties anybody who travelled in Ukraine could feel the tension between East and West. The Russians were certainly aware of it and mindful not to rip the country apart they cut the Ukrainians an enormous amount of slack. Of course they supported "their" candidates and shoveled money into their insatiable throats. Only to be disappointed time and again. "Prorussian" Kutshma turned into a Ukrainian "patriot" (such is the logic of statehood) and the same thing happened with Yanukovich. People forget that he would have signed an association agreement with Europe had Europe not refused because he was insufficiently "democratic". Really the West should have been content with things as they were.

    But the West wanted it all. They wanted Ukraine firmly in the "Western" camp. Thereby they ripped the country apart. As a good friend of mine who has studied in Kiev in Soviet times remarked: to ask Ukraine to choose between East and West is like asking a child in divorce proceedings who it liked more: daddy or mummy?

    Really the West (not only the US -the Eu is also guilty) is to blame. It is long past time to get down from the high horse and stop spreading chaos and mayhem in the name of democracy,

    Jony Kanuck , 23 February 2018 at 03:27 PM
    Publius,

    An informative column. The coup & later developments soured me on the MSMedia. I'm an initiate into modern Russian history: NATO in the Ukraine = WW3!

    Some additional history:

    A Ukrainian nation did not exist until after WW1; one piece was Russian, another Polish and another Austrian. The Holodomor is exaggerated for political purposes; the actual number dead from famine appears to be 'only' 2M. It wasn't Soviet bloody mindedness, it was Soviet agricultural mismanagement; collectivizing agriculture drops production.

    They did this right before the great drought of the 1930s - remember the dustbowl. There was a famine in Kazakestan at the same time; 1.5M died.

    The Nazis raised 5 SS divisions out of the Ukraine. As the Germans were pushed back they ran night drops of ordnance into the Ukraine as long as they could. The Soviets had to carry on divisional level counter insurgency until 1956. After the war, Gehlen, Nazi intelligence czar, kept himself out of jail by turning over his files, routes & agents to the US. He also stoked anti Soviet paranoia.

    The Brits ended up with a whole Ukr SS division that they didn't want, so they gave it to Canada. Which is why Canada has such cranky policy around the Ukraine!

    bluetonga , 23 February 2018 at 03:28 PM
    A very interesting conversation between Victoria Nulland and ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, caught at picking the future rulers of liberated Ukraine : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk This is not meddling. This is a defensive (preemptive?) action against Russian agression.
    Publius Tacitus -> Tom... , 23 February 2018 at 03:31 PM
    Tom,

    I'm sure you'd like us to ignore Bandera. I bet he liked children and dogs. Just like Hitler. Bandera was a genuine bad guy. There is no rehabilitating that scourge on society. Nice try though.

    Publius Tacitus -> bluetonga... , 23 February 2018 at 03:36 PM
    I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your final comment is sarcasm. When you have two senior US Government officials who will and will not constitute a foreign government, you have gone beyond meddling. It is worse.
    VietnamVet , 23 February 2018 at 03:57 PM
    PT

    The media is hysterical. Today, Putin's Facebook Bot Collaborator contacted the Kremlin before his mercenaries attacked Americans in Syria.

    I've never seen such an intense barrage of propaganda before in my life. America is fracturing apart like Ukraine. This is no coincidence. In both countries, oligarchs have seized power, the rule of law abandoned and there is a rush of corruption.

    A World War is near. The realists are gone. The Moguls are pushing Donald Trump pull the trigger. Either in Syria with an assault to destroy Hezbollah (Iran) for good or American trainers going over the top of trenches in Donbass in a centennial attack of the dead.

    The Twisted Genius , 23 February 2018 at 03:59 PM
    Publius Tacitus,

    Hallelujah and jubilation! We're in full agreement on this subject. What we did to Ukraine is shameful in every way. A remember a video of a pallet of money being unloaded from a USG place at Kiev during Maidan 2. That's in addition to Nuland's bag of cookies. I always thought that one of the objectives of our meddling in Ukraine was to make Sevastopol into a NATO naval base.

    I would definitely want to see a full account of what support we provided to the nazi thugs of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. We have a long history of meddling, at least twice as long as the Soviet Union/Russia. But that does not mean we should stop investigating the Russian interference in our 2016 election. Just stop hyperventilating over it. It no more deserves risking a war than our continuing mutual espionage.

    TimmyB , 23 February 2018 at 04:08 PM
    Our leaders are the biggest hypocrites on the planet. The Ukraine was almost evenly divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian sides. Our government, rather than waiting for an election, assisted an armed rebellion against the elected pro-Russian government. Among the groups our government allied with in this endeavor were out and out Nazis.

    As a result of this rebellion, the Russian majority in Crimea overwhelming voted to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for over 150-years. While our government continues to provide military aid to Israel, which used force of arms take over the West Bank, it imposed sanctions against Russia when the people of Crimea voted to join their former countrymen. Mind boggling.

    [Jan 04, 2020] This stooge of MI6 and FBI Sir Craig Reedie was shyly silent when Americans were found to use illegal drag to enhance the results

    Sir Craig Reedie signify the growing politization of sport and the arrivals on the scene of western intelligence agencies (McCabe, Steele, etc were involved in this dirty game) to the extent that was never possible before. It stated with FBI operation against FIFA. WARA was the second round. See also End of term message to stakeholders from WADA President, Sir Craig Reedie World Anti-Doping Agency
    See also 'Williams sisters and Simone Biles allowed to take banned substances to Rio' Daily Mail Online, Joe Rogan claims Serena Williams on STEROIDS - YouTube and Serena Williams forced to withdraw from doubles - Wimbledon 2014 - YouTube
    Jan 04, 2020 | www.sport-express.ru

    Yuri Shalnov -> "van der sar 5 days ago

    This prostitute Sir Craig Reedie is is up to ears in dirst connected with doping by the Americans and the Europeans? This stooge of MI6 and FBI was shyly silent when Americans were found to use illegal drag to enhance the results. Look at sisters Williams.

    I despise corrupt Russian bureaucrats, but no less I despite Western Pro-American lackeys with faces spred with n shit to shuch an exptent that they neve can wash themselves clean!

    [Jan 04, 2020] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

    Sep 13, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

    America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence.


    Special to Consortium News

    The Trump administration has brought U.S. foreign policy to the brink of crisis, if it has not already tipped into one. There is little room to argue otherwise. In Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and in Washington's ever-fraught relations with Russia, U.S. strategy, as reviewed in my previous column , amounts to little more than spoiling the efforts of others to negotiate peaceful solutions to war and dangerous standoffs in the interests of an orderly world.

    The bitter reality is that U.S. foreign policy has no definable objective other than blocking the initiatives of others because they stand in the way of the further expansion of U.S. global interests. This impoverished strategy reflects Washington's refusal to accept the passing of its relatively brief post–Cold War moment of unipolar power.

    There is an error all too common in American public opinion. Personalizing Washington's regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of deeper understanding. This mistake was made during the steady attack on civil liberties after the Sept. 11 tragedies and then during the 2003 invasion of Iraq: namely that it was all George W. Bush's fault. It was not so simple then and is not now. The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins.

    Let us bring some history to this question of America as spoiler. What is the origin of this undignified and isolating approach to global affairs?

    It began with that hubristic triumphalism so evident in the decade after the Cold War's end. What ensued had various names.

    There was the "end of history" thesis. American liberalism was humanity's highest achievement, and nothing would supersede it.

    There was also the "Washington consensus." The world was in agreement that free-market capitalism and unfettered financial markets would see the entire planet to prosperity. The consensus never extended far beyond the Potomac, but this sort of detail mattered little at the time.

    The neoliberal economic crusade accompanied by neoconservative politics had its intellectual ballast, and off went its true-believing warriors around the world.

    Happier days with Russia. (Eric Draper)

    Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad. Then came the "color revolutions," which resulted in the destabilization of large swathes of the former Soviet Union's borderlands. The 2008 financial crash followed.

    I was in Hong Kong at the time and recall thinking, "This is not just Lehman Brothers. An economic model is headed into Chapter 11." One would have thought a fundamental rethink in Washington might have followed these events. There has never been one.

    The orthodoxy today remains what it was when it formed in the 1990s: The neoliberal crusade must proceed. Our market-driven, "rules-based" order is still advanced as the only way out of our planet's impasses.

    A Strategic and Military Turn

    Midway through the first Obama administration, a crucial turn began. What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions. The NATO bombing campaign in Libya, ostensibly a humanitarian mission, became a regime-change operation -- despite Washington's promises otherwise. Obama's "pivot to Asia" turned out to be a neo-containment policy toward China. The "reset" with Russia, declared after Obama appointed Hillary Clinton secretary of state, flopped and turned into the virulent animosity we now live with daily. The U.S.-cultivated coup in Kiev in 2014 was a major declaration of drastic turn in policy towards Moscow. So was the decision, taken in 2012 at the latest , to back the radical jihadists who were turning civil unrest in Syria into a campaign to topple the Assad government in favor of another Islamist regime.

    Spoilage as a poor excuse for a foreign policy had made its first appearances.

    I count 2013 to 2015 as key years. At the start of this period, China began developing what it now calls its Belt and Road Initiative -- its hugely ambitious plan to stitch together the Eurasian landmass, Shanghai to Lisbon. Moscow favored this undertaking, not least because of the key role Russia had to play and because it fit well with President Vladimir Putin's Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), launched in 2014.

    Belt and Road Initiative. (Lommes / CC BY-SA 4.0)

    In 2015, the last of the three years I just noted, Russia intervened militarily and diplomatically in the Syria conflict, in part to protect its southwest from Islamist extremism and in part to pull the Middle East back from the near-anarchy then threatening it as well as Russia and the West.

    Meanwhile, Washington had cast China as an adversary and committed itself -- as it apparently remains -- to regime change in Syria. Three months prior to the treaty that established the EAEU, the Americans helped turn another case of civil unrest into a regime change -- this time backing not jihadists in Syria but the crypto-Nazi militias in Ukraine on which the government now in power still depends.

    That is how we got the U.S.-as-spoiler foreign policy we now have.

    If there is a president to blame -- and again, I see little point in this line of argument -- it would have to be Barack Obama. To a certain extent, Obama was a creature of those around him, as he acknowledged in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic toward the end of his second term. From that "Anonymous" opinion piece published in The New York Times on Sept. 5, we know Trump is too, to a greater extent than Obama may have feared in his worst moments.

    The crucial question is why. Why do U.S. policy cliques find themselves bereft of imaginative thinking in the face of an evolving world order? Why has there been not a single original policy initiative since the years I single out, with the exception of the now-abandoned 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs? "Right now, our job is to create quagmires until we get what we want," an administration official told The Washington Post 's David Ignatius in August.

    Can you think of a blunter confession of intellectual bankruptcy? I can't.

    Global 'Equals' Like Us?

    There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony, the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques.

    As I have argued numerous times elsewhere, parity between East and West is a 21st century imperative. From Woodrow Wilson to the post-World War II settlement, an equality among all nations was in theory what the U.S. considered essential to global order.

    Now that this is upon us, however, Washington cannot accept it. It did not count on non-Western nations achieving a measure of prosperity and influence until they were "just like us," as the once famous phrase had it. And it has not turned out that way.

    Can't we all just get along? (Carlos3653 / Wikimedia)

    Think of Russia, China, and Iran, the three nations now designated America's principal adversaries. Each one is fated to become (if it is not already) a world or regional power and a key to stability -- Russia and China on a global scale, Iran in the Middle East. But each stands resolutely -- and this is not to say with hostile intent -- outside the Western-led order. They have different histories, traditions, cultures, and political cultures. And they are determined to preserve them.

    They signify the shape of the world to come -- a post-Western world in which the Atlantic alliance must coexist with rising powers outside its orbit. Together, then, they signify precisely what the U.S. cannot countenance. And if there is one attribute of neoliberal and neoconservative ideology that stands out among all others, it is its complete inability to accept difference or deviation if it threatens its interests.

    This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability.

    Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .

    If you valued this original article, please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.

    10284

    Tags: Barack Obama China Donald Trump George W. Bush Iran Neoliberlism Patrick Lawrence Russia Spoiler United States Vladimir Putin

    Post navigation ← Solving Italy's Immigration Crisis Consortium News Unveils New Logo → 78 comments for "Why the U.S. Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran"

    R Davis , September 20, 2018 at 04:21

    adversary: – one's opponent in a contest, conflict or dispute.

    & I ask this
    "Is it really thus"
    "Why must it be thus"

    How can China be an adversary of the USA when all their manufactured goods come from China.
    example:- a water distiller – manufactured in & purchased from China retails for AU$70 odd.
    The very same item manufactured in China – but purchased from the USA retails for US$260 plus.
    China should be a most welcome guest at the dinner table of the USA.

    R Davis , September 20, 2018 at 04:28

    While i'm here – where did China get all their surveillance equipment from – the place is locked down tighter than a chicken coop plagued by foxes.

    relevant article – CRAZZ FILES – Bone Chilling Footage Shows the Horrific Tyranny Google is Now Secretly Fostering in China.

    In my opinion Google is not trying to keep information out of China – BUT – preventing information from get out of China – to the world at large.
    A lockdown as severe as this – tells us that there is something seriously bad happening inside China.
    Maybe even a mass genocide

    Bob Arnold , September 16, 2018 at 09:48

    This analysis is correct as far as it goes. However, what is lacking is an analysis of the lunatic monetary ideology that has looted the physical economy of the U.S. by putting enormous fake profits of speculative instruments in the hands of our "elites." It is the post industrial, information age economy which must be transformed by very painful loss of control by these putative elites if the world is to survive their insane geopolitics. What the Chinese are doing by rapid build up of worldwide infrastructure needs to be replicated here. The only way of doing so is first by ending the Wall St./City of London derivatives nightmare and then by issuing trillions of credits needed for that very purpose.

    Lee Anderson , September 16, 2018 at 15:16

    Agreed, you speak wisely of the root of the problem. Those who create and distribute money make ALL the rules and dominate the political and media landscape.

    Freedomlover , September 17, 2018 at 15:20

    Hit the nail on the head.
    Thanks

    bevin , September 14, 2018 at 18:32

    This really is an excellent analysis. I would highlight the following point:
    "There is a longstanding explanation for this paralysis. Seven decades of global hegemony, the Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension. Those planning and executing American diplomacy lost all facility for imaginative thinking because there was no need of it. This holds true, in my view, but there is more to our specific moment than mere sclerosis within the policy cliques "

    Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington.

    Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 18:03

    You don't mention corruption and profiteering, which go hand-in-hand with American Exceptionalism and the National Security State (NSS) formed in 1947. The leader of the world which is also an NSS requires enemies, so the National Security Strategy designates enemies, a few of them in an Axis of Evil. Arming to fight them and dreaming up other reasons to go to war, including a war on terror of all things, bring the desired vast expenditures, trillions of dollars, which translate to vast profits to those involved.

    This focus on war has its roots in the Christian bible and in a sense of manifest destiny that has occupied Americans since before they were Americans, and the real Americans had to be exterminated. It certainly (as stated) can't be blamed on certain individuals, it's predominate and nearly universal. How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few.

    Homer Jay , September 14, 2018 at 22:09

    "How many Americans were against the assault by the Coalition of the Willing upon Iraq? Very few."

    Are you kidding me? Here is a list of polls of the American public regarding the Iraq War 2003-2007;

    https://www.politifact.com/iraq-war-polls/

    Even in the lead up the war when the public was force fed a diet comprised entirely of State Dept. lies about WMDs by a sycophantic media, there was still a significant 25-40 percent of the public who opposed the war. You clearly are not American or you would remember the vocal minority which filled the streets of big cities across this country. And again the consent was as Chomsky says "manufactured." And it took only 1 year of the war for the majority of the public to be against it. By 2007 60-70% of the public opposed the war.

    Judging from your name you come from a country whose government was part of that coalition of the willing. So should we assume that "very few" of your fellow country men and women were against that absolute horror show that is the Iraq war?

    Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 23:05

    You failed to address my major point, and instead picked on something you're wrong on.

    Iraq war poll –Pew Research
    http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/publications/770-1.gif

    PS: bevin made approximately the same point later (w/o the financial factor).
    "Conformism and its consequences, probably derived in part from Puritanism and further cemented by the alternating racisms of anti-indigenous and anti black attitudes- the history of the lynch mob and various wars against the poor which ended up in the anti-communist frenzies of the day before yesterday constitute the backbone of American history- is the disease which afflicts Washington."

    Homer Jay , September 17, 2018 at 14:47

    Respectfully, Your data backs up my comment/data. And to your larger point, again we must be careful when describing such attitudes as "American", a country with a wide range of attitudes/ beliefs. To suggest we are all just a war mongering mob is bigoted. You probably will say that's defensive but it's also right. And making the recklessly inaccurate claim that "very few" Americans opposed the war in Iraq, without taking into account the disinformation campaign that played into the initial consent, needs to corrected more than once.

    Sari , September 14, 2018 at 15:15

    I just encountered (via Voltairenet) "The Pentagon's New Map," a book written by Thomas Barnett, an assistant once to Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (now deceased). Barnett wrote an earlier article for the March 2003 Esquire entitled "Why the Pentagon Changes Its Map: And Why We'll Keep Going to War" ( https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a1546/thomas-barnett-iraq-war-primer/ ) describing their ideas which are introduced thusly:

    "Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been trying to come up with an operating theory of the world -- and a military strategy to accompany it. Now there's a leading contender. It involves identifying the problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis at the U.S. Naval War College, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now, he gives it to you."

    His basic premise: "Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and -- most important -- the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap."

    One more quote gives you the "Monarch Notes" edition: "Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure products of the Gap -- in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and which states they would like to take "offline" from globalization and return to some seventh-century definition of the good life (any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population, especially Saudi Arabia).

    If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity."

    Of course, we all recognize how much prevarication currently exists in "implementing" this strategy, but I would suggest that, very likely, the Pentagon is, indeed, following this "New Map." And, yes, this "map" shows us why the U.S. has been continually at war since 9/11 and subbornly refuses to leave Syria, Iraq, and the Middle East with their apparent justification being "Might Makes Right." Thierry Mayssen (Voltairenet) aptly describes the Gap states as "reservoirs of resources" driven into perpetual war, destabilization, and chaos by a preeminently overwhelming hegemonic U.S. military.

    I had to laugh. One of Barnett's reasons in promulgating this new "map" involves the continued stability of the Core; however, what do we see today? Huge waves of immigration greatly destabilizing every aspect of Europe and chaos and destabilization flooding the U.S. via false/contrived polarization in every sphere of life. BUT! The military has "a Map!"

    Psssstt!! Who's "creating" the Gap? Who has funded and armed Al Qaeda/DAESH/ISIS in the Middle East? We'll need GPS to keep up with the Pentagon's "new map!"

    Archie1954 , September 14, 2018 at 14:39

    I have often wondered why the US was unable to accept the position of first among equals. Why does it have to rule the World? I know it believes that its economic and political systems are the best on the planet, but surely all other nations should be able to decide for themselves, what systems they will accept and live under? Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else? The US was more than willing to kill 20 million people either directly or indirectly since the end of WWII to make its will sovereign in all nations of the World!

    Bob Van Noy , September 14, 2018 at 21:54

    Archie 1954, because 911 was never adequately investigated, our government was inappropriately allowed to act in the so-called public interest in completely inappropriate ways; so that in order for the Country to set things right, those decisions which were made quietly, with little public discussion, would have to be exposed and the illegalities addressed. But, as I'm sure you know, there are myriad other big government failures also left unexamined, so where to begin?

    That is why I invariably raise JFK's Assassination as a logical starting point. If a truly independent commission would fix the blame, we could move on from there. Sam F., on this forum, has mentioned a formal legal undertaking many times on this site, but now is the time to begin the discussion for a formal Truth And Reconciliation Commission in America Let's figure out how to begin.

    So,"Who gave the US the right to make those decisions for everyone else?", certainly not The People

    Lee Anderson , September 16, 2018 at 15:28

    Jill Stein said if elected she would boycott all countries guilty of human rights abuses and she included Saudi Arabia and Israel. She also said she would form a 9/11 commission comprised of those independent people and groups currently reporting on this travesty. Meanwhile we have the self-proclaimed "progressive" talk show hosts such as Thom Hartmann, defending the PNAC NEOCONS while making Stein persona non grata and throwing real progressive candidates under the bus.

    The PNAC NEOCONS understood the importance of creating a galvanizing, catastrophic and catalyzing event but the alternative media is afraid to call a spade a spade, something about the truth being too risky to ones career, I assume.

    See much more at youtopia.guru

    Bob Van Noy , September 17, 2018 at 09:19

    Lee Anderson thank you for your response, I agree and I appreciate the link suggestion, I'm impressed and will read more

    didi , September 14, 2018 at 13:49

    It is always the unintended consequences. Hence I disagree with some of your views. A president who takes actions which trigger unintended/unexpected consequences can be held accountable for such consequences even if he/she could not avert the consequences. It is also often true that corrections are possible when such consequences begin to appear. Given our system which makes only presidents powerful to act on war, peace, and foreign relationships there is no escaping that they must be blamed only.

    Jessika , September 14, 2018 at 13:36

    A very good article. Spoiler and bully describe US foreign policy, and foreign policy is in the driver's seat while domestic policy takes the pickings, hardly anything left for the hollowed-out society where people live paycheck to paycheck, homelessness and other assorted ills of a failing society continue to rise while oligarchs and the MIC rule the neofeudal/futile system. When are we going to make that connection of the wasteful expenditure on military adventurism and the problem of poverty in the US? The Pentagon consistently calls the shots, yet we consistently hear about unaccounted expenditures by the Pentagon, losing amounts in the trillions, and never do they get audited.

    nondimenticare , September 14, 2018 at 12:18

    I certainly agree that the policy is bereft, but not for all of the same reasons. There is the positing of a turnaround as a basis for the current spoiler role: "What had been an assertion of financial and economic power, albeit coercive in many instances, particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, took on further strategic and military dimensions."

    To substantiate this "crucial turn," Lawrence makes the unwarranted assumption that the goal post Soviet Union was simply worldwide free-market capitalism, not global domination: "Failures ensued. Iraq post–2003 is among the more obvious. Nobody ever planted democracy or built free markets in Baghdad"; and the later statement that the US wanted the countries it invaded to be "Just like us."

    Though he doesn't mention (ignores) US meddling in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, I presume from its absence that he attributes that, too, to the expansion of capital. Indeed, it was that, but with the more malevolent goal of control. "Just like us" is the usual "progressive" explanation for failures. "Controlled by us" was more like it, if we face the history of the country squarely.

    That is the blindness of intent that has led to the spoiler role.

    Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 11:15

    Is it really so wise to be speaking in terms of nationhood after we've undergone 50 years of Kochian/libertarian dismantlement of the nation-state in favor of bank and transnational governance? Remember the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski:

    "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970

    "Make no mistake, what we are seeing in geopolitics today is indeed a magic show. The false East/West paradigm is as powerful if not more powerful than the false Left/Right paradigm. For some reason, the human mind is more comfortable believing in the ideas of division and chaos, and it often turns its nose up indignantly at the notion of "conspiracy." But conspiracies and conspirators can be demonstrated as a fact of history. Organization among elitists is predictable.

    Globalists themselves are drawn together by an ideology. They have no common nation, they have no common political orientation, they have no common cultural background or religion, they herald from the East just as they herald from the West. They have no true loyalty to any mainstream cause or social movement.

    What do they have in common? They seem to exhibit many of the traits of high level narcissistic sociopaths, who make up a very small percentage of the human population. These people are predators, or to be more specific, they are parasites. They see themselves as naturally superior to others, but they often work together if there is the promise of mutual benefit."

    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3504-in-the-new-qmultipolar-worldq-the-globalists-still-control-all-the-players

    Jeff Davis , September 14, 2018 at 11:46

    Your comment is astute and valuable, and consequently deserves to be signed with your real name, so that you can be identified as someone worth listening to.

    Don Bacon , September 14, 2018 at 17:44

    Screen names don't matter, content does.

    OlyaPola , September 15, 2018 at 11:34

    "Screen names don't matter, content does."

    Apparently not for some where attribution is sought and the illusion of trust the source trust the content is held, leading to curveballs mirroring expectations whilst serving the purposes of others.

    JuanPZenter , September 17, 2018 at 07:31

    Why? The better to dox him with?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

    OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 13:35

    ""The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970"

    The date of publication is of significance as was Mr. Paul Craig Roberts' Alienation in the Soviet economy of 1971, as was Mr. Andrei Amalrik's "Can the Soviet Union last until 1984 published in 1969.

    The period 1968 – 1973 was one significant trajectory in the half-life of "we the people hold these truths to be self-evident" which underpinned and maintained the "nation state" misrepresented/branded as the "United States of America" through a change in the assays of the amalga mutual benefit/hold these truths to be self-evident.

    The last hurrah of the "red experts" – Mr. Brezhnev and associates – despite analyses/forecasts from various agencies agreed, detente based on spheres of influence facilitating through interaction/complicity various fiats including but not restricted to fiat currency, fiat economy, fiat politics all dependent on mutations of "we the people hold these truths to be self-evident".

    This interaction also facilitated processes which accelerated the demise of the "Soviet Union" and its continuing transcendence by the Russian Federation – the choice of title being a notice of intent that some interpreted as the "End of History" whilst others interpreted as lateral opportunity facilitated by the hubris of the "End of History".

    The "red experts" were not unique in their illusions; another pertinent example is the strategy of the PLO in maintaining the illusion of the two state solution/"Oslo accords" facilitating the continuing colonial project branded as "Israel".

    Mr. Brzezinski was one of the others who interpreted the "End of History" as linear opportunity where the assay of amalga of form could be changed to maintain content/function which was/is to "still" control all the players.

    However in any interactive system neither omniscience nor sole agency/control is possible, whilst by virtue of interaction the complicity of all can be encouraged in various ways to facilitate useful outcomes in furtherance of purpose, whilst illusions of the "End of History" and the search for the holy grail of "Full Spectrum Dominance" acted as both accelerators and multipliers in the process of encouragement, whilst obscuring this process in open sight through the opponents' amalga of reliance on "plausible belief based in part on projection", "exceptionalism" and associated hubris.

    The "nation state" subsuming illusions of mutual benefit and mutual purpose has always been a function of the half-lives of components of its ideological facades and practices – sexual intercourse wasn't invented in 1963 and "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force" wasn't initiated in 1970.

    Unfettered Fire , September 14, 2018 at 13:43

    "In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight." ~ Noam Chomsky

    Giants: The Global Power Elite – A talk by Peter Phillips
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6td-wzDYQ

    The Elite World Order in Jitters
    Review of Peter Phillips' book Giants: The Global Power Elite
    https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/09/the-elite-world-order-in-jitters/

    backwardsevolution , September 14, 2018 at 17:14

    Unfettered Fire – good posts. Thank you. Peter Phillips is definitely worth listening to.

    Jon Dhoe , September 14, 2018 at 11:02

    Israel, Israel, Israel.

    When are we going to start facing facts?

    Daniel Good , September 14, 2018 at 09:59

    Yet there is a thread that leads through US foreign policy. It all started with NSC 68. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSC_68 . Already in the 1950's, leading bankers were afraid of economic depression which would follow from a "peace dividend" following the end of WWII. To avoid this, and to avoid "socialism", the only acceptable government spending was on defense. This mentality never ended. Today 50% of discretionary govenmenrt spending is on the military. http://www.unz.com/article/americas-militarized-economy/ . We live in a country of military socialism, in which military citizens have all types of benefits, on condition they join the military-industrial-complex. This being so, there is no need for real "intelligence", there is no need to "understand" what goes on is foreign countries, there no need to be right about what might happen or worry about consequences. What is important is stimulate the economy by spending on arms. From Korean war, when the US dropped more bombs than it had on Nazi Germany, through Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc etc the US policy was a winning one not for those who got bombed (and could not fight back) but for the weapons industry and military contractors. Is the NYTimes ever going to discuss this aspect? Or any one in the MSM?

    Lee Anderson , September 16, 2018 at 15:42

    All that and we constantly have to endure the bankster/MIC-controlled media proclaiming everyone who joins the military as "heroes" defending our precious"freedoms." The media mafia is evil.

    Walter , September 14, 2018 at 09:26

    The "why" behind the US foreign policies was spoken with absolute honest clarity in the "Statement of A. Wess Mitchell
    Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs" to the Senate on August 21 this year. The transcript is at :

    https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/082118_Mitchell_Testimony.pdf

    Quoth the esteemed gentleman (inter alia)

    "It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundamentals of American power. "

    Tellingly the "official" State Department copy is changed and omits the true spoken words

    See yourself: https://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2018/285247.htm

    This is the essence of MacKinder's Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History and was the underlying reason for both world wars in the 20th century.

    An essay on this observed truth https://journal-neo.org/2018/09/11/behind-the-anglo-american-war-on-russia/

    A deeper essay on the same subject https://www.silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/Monographs/1006Rethinking-4.pdf

    I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade The ISIS?Saudi?Zionist games divides the New Silk Road and the Eurasian land mass and exists to throttle said pathways.

    Interestingly the latter essay is attributed to Eldar Ismailov and Vladimer Papava

    Brother Comrade Putin knows the game. The US has to maintain the fiction for the public that it does not know the game, and is consequently obliged to maintain a vast public delusion, hence "fake news" and all the rest.

    OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 13:49

    "I would propose that the zionish aspect exists due to the perceived necessity of "Forward Operating Base Israel" lookit a map, Comrade"

    Some have an attraction to book-ends.

    Once upon a time the Eurasian book-ends were Germany and Japan, and the Western Asian book-ends Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    This "strategy" is based upon the notion that bookend-ness is a state of inertia which in any interactive system is impossible except apparently to those embedded in "we the people hold these truths to be self-evident".

    Consequently some have an attraction to book-ends.

    Walter , September 15, 2018 at 12:31

    If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist. This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world, of course – especially because Chin and Rus are able to liquidate any counter-forces that attempt to create or maintain "book-ends.

    The actual spoken words to the Senate of Mr. Michell are very significant, as the removal of them from the ostensibly real, but actually false, State Department "Transcript" implies. Foolish Mr. Michell! He accidentally spoke the true objective of US foreign policy and also the domestic objective – total bamboozlement of the US population "prepare the country for " (Obvious, world war against the Heartland states that fail to "cooperate" (surrender).

    People ought to read the pdf what Michell actually spoke all of it and consider the logical implications. Michell has a big mouth Good. He confirms the dark truths

    The guilty according to circumstantial evidence has confessed his guilt so to say; confirming the crime

    An Israeli-Saudi "Greater Israel" dividing Syria between Saud and zion is of course a goal that in effect would be a "book-end".

    Too late now as it is clear that Syrian skies are probably going to soon be "no-fly-zone" for foreign invaders

    Then will come the "pitch-forks", as Napoleon's retreat from Moscow illustrated

    OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 04:25

    "If I understand you correctly, then yes, some imagine that a static situation can exist. This a natural but delusional way of seeing the world"

    Absolutes including stasis don't exist but the belief of others in book-ends including extensive foreign bases are lands of opportunities for others facilitating pitch forking without extensive travel.

    Consequently some perceive that the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to represent as "strategies" and "tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived there-from.

    Some would hold that the opponents' have a greater assay of the rubbing sticks school of thermo-dynamics in "their" amalga of perception, in some regards even less perceptive than Heraclitus although Heraclitus lived in his time/interactions as the interaction below suggests.

    One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the "unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the concept/construct "chaos".

    A further illustration of this and how it was/is not limited to present opponents citing trajectories during the period 1968 – 1973 and some subsequent consequences was broadcast through this portal on the 14th of September 2018 but not "published" possibly in ignorance of Mr. Bulgakov's contention that manuscripts don't burn.

    The examples used were detente on the bases of spheres of influence agreed by the Politburo despite contrary advice from many agencies, the strategy of the PLO and half-life of these beliefs in the strategies of Hamas.

    Detente on the basis of sphere of influence facilitated fiat currency, fiat politics, and fiat re-branding – "neo-liberalism" -, colonial projects in Western Asia, and how opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to deny lateral process (Stop the Empires War on Russia slogan being a useful example) and those not so immersed helped facilitate the ongoing transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation – the title being a notice of intent that opponents perceived as the "End of History" as functions of their framing and projection.

    OlyaPola , September 16, 2018 at 07:51

    Some hold that New York, New York was so good they named it twice, whilst some others wonder whether they named it twice to make it easier for the inhabitants to locate.

    Following the precautionary principle I attach below a further illustration of :

    " . the opponents have hopes and wishes which they seek to represent as "strategies" and "tactics" and some opportunities of lateral challenge derived there-from ..

    "One of the consequences is the opponents tendency to bridge doubt by belief to attain comfort through iteration and subsequent projection, facilitating lateral opportunities for others with greater perception of fission/metamorphosis/transcendence including the "unintended consequences" -at least in the opponents' perception – without resort to Mr. Heisenberg's deliberations, leading to some of the opponents resorting to snake-oil sales techniques suggesting that their intent/purpose was always what they perceived to be the concept/construct "chaos".

    which was alluded to in the "unpublished" broadcast which referenced

    1. "The "nation-state" as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." ~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970.

    2. Mr. P.C. Roberts' Alienation in the USSR (1971)

    3. Mr Andrei Amalrik's Can the Soviet Union last until 1984 (1969).

    in illustration of interactive amalga which some call Russiagate, presumably because the water had flowed but apparently not under the bridge.

    The recent US presidential election process including the "outcomes" were relatively easy to predict
    and required no encouragement from outside – doing "nothing" being a trajectory of doing for those not trapped in the can do/must do conflation.

    Some don't understand Russian very well and so instead of understanding Mr. Putin's remark that Mr. Trump was "colourful" which has connotations to some with facility in the Russian culture/language, some sought to bridge doubt by belief to attain expectation on the basis of "plausible belief".

    An increasing sum of some are no longer so immersed as illustrated in

    https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/438556-america-book-conversation-economy/

    whilst perceptual frames often have significant half-lives.

    exiled off mainstreet , September 14, 2018 at 00:42

    This is a great series of articles and the comments, including those having reservations, are intelligent. Since those comments appearing not to appear later seem to have appeared, mechanical difficulties of some sort seem to have been what occurred. I hope Mr. Tedesky, one of the most valued commentators writing in the comments, continues his work.

    Dennis Etler , September 13, 2018 at 21:05

    Patrick Lawrence's essay makes perfect sense only when it is applied to US foreign policy since the end of WW2. It is conventional wisdom that the US is now engaged in Cold War 2.0. In fact, Cold War 2.0 is an extension of Cold War 1.0. There was merely a 20 year interregnum between 1990 and 2010. Most analysts think that Cold War 1.0 was an ideological war between "Communism" and "Democracy". The renewal of the Cold War against both Russia and China however shows that the ideological war between East and West was really a cover for the geopolitical war between the two. Russia, China and Iran are the main geopolitical enemies of the US as they stand in the way of the global, imperialist hegemony of the US. In order to control the global periphery, i.e. the developing world and their emerging economies, the US must contain and defeat the big three. This was as true in 1948 as it is in 2018. Thus, what's happening today under Trump is no different than what occurred under Truman in 1948. Whatever differences exist are mere window dressing.

    Rob Roy , September 15, 2018 at 00:16

    Mr. Etler,
    I think you are mostly right except in the first Cold War, the Soviets and US Americans were both involved in this "war." What you call Cold War 2.0 is in the minds and policies of only the US. Russian is not in any way currently like the Soviet Union, yet the US acts in all aspects of foreign attitude and policy as though that (very unpleasant period in today's Russians' minds) still exists. It does not. You says there was "merely a 20 year interregnum" and things have picked up and continued as a Cold War. Only in the idiocy of the USA, certainly not in the minds of Russian leadership, particularly Putin's who now can be distinguished as the most logical, realistic and competent leader in the world.
    Thanks to H. Clinton being unable to become president, we have a full blown Russiagate which the MSM propaganda continues to spread. There is no Cold War 2.0. It's a fallacy to create a false flag for regime change in Russia. Ms. Clinton, the Kagan family, the MIC, etc., figure if we can take out Yanukovich and replace him with Fascists/Nazis, what could stop us from doing the same to Russia. The good news: all empires fail.

    Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 13:41

    "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."

    Mr. Lawrence is much too accommodating with his analysis. Imagine, linking US "foreign policy" in the same thought as "global stability", as if the two were somehow related. On the contrary, "global instability" seems to be our foreign policy goal, especially for those regions that pose a threat to US hegemony. Why? Because it is difficult to extract a region's wealth when its population is united behind a stable government that can't be bought off.

    Walter , September 13, 2018 at 13:30

    US is attempting to stop a process, to prevent Change see https://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/v-golstein-end-of-cold-war-and/

    Conjuring up Heraclitus..Time is a River, constantly changing. And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past.

    The attempt has an effect, many effects, but it cannot stop Time.

    The Russian and the Chinese have clinched the unification of the Earth Island, "Heartland" This ended the ability to control global commerce by means of navies – the methods of the Sea Peoples over the last 500 years are now failed. The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante .

    Thus World War, as we see

    Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US

    OlyaPola , September 14, 2018 at 09:38

    "Conjuring up Heraclitus "

    "And we face downstream, unable to see the Future and gazing upon the Past."

    Time is a synonym of interaction the perception of which and opportunities derived therefrom being functions of analysing interactions which require notions and analyses of upstream-perceived transition point (similar to the concept/construct zero)-downstream lateral processes, which Heraclitus perceived and practiced.

    Heraclitus lived in a previous time/interaction and the perception and uses of thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time.

    Omniscience can never exist in any lateral system, but time/interaction has facilitated the increase of perceptions and lateral opportunities to facilitate various futures and their encouragement through processes of fission – the process of strategy formulation, strategy implementation, strategy evaluation, and strategy modulation refers.

    Framing including attempts to deny agency to others and hence interaction thereby denying time, leads to strategic myopia, and when outcomes vary from expectations/hopes/wishes lead the myopic to attempt to bridge doubt by belief to attain comfort.

    Categorical imperatives are kant facilitating can't, best left to Kant, although apparently some are loathe to agree.

    "The US has no way of even seeing this fact other than force and violence to restore the status quo ante ."

    The temporary socio-economic arrangement misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America" has a vested interest in seeking to deny time/interaction including through "exceptionalism" and a history of flailings and consequences derived therefrom.

    "Recollecting Heraclitus again, the universe is populated by opposites as we see, China and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "

    As above, Heraclitus lived in a previous time and the perception and uses of thermodynamics have laterally changed since Heraclitus' time although apparently not informing the perceptions and practices of some.

    Understandably Heraclitus sometimes relied within his framing on notions of moments of stasis/absolutes (steady states) such as opposites, where as like in all areas of thermo-dynamics a more modern framework would include the notions of amalga with varying interactive half-lives.

    It would appear that your contribution is also subject to such "paradox" as in "China and Russia represent a cathodic opposite to the US "

    Perhaps a more illuminating but more complex formulation would be found in :

    "In other parts of planet earth the assay of amalga and their varying interactive half-lives differ from those asserted to exist within the temporary socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America" thereby facilitating opportunities to transcend coercive relationships such as those practiced by the temporary socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America", by co-operative socio-economic relations conditioned by the half-lives of perceptions and practices derived therefrom.

    In part that contributed and continues to contribute to the lateral process of transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation previously leading to a limited debate whether to nominate Mr. Brezhinsky, Mr.Clinton, Mr. Fukuyama or Mr. Wolfowitz for the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts facilitating the transcendence of the temporary socio-economic arrangements misrepresented/branded as "The United States of America".

    Jeff Harrison , September 13, 2018 at 13:29

    I guess I missed this one, Patrick. Great overview but let me put it in a slightly different context. You start with the end of the cold war but I don't. I could go all the way back to the early days of the country and our proclamation of manifest destiny. The US has long thought that it was the one ring to rule them all. But for most of that time the strength of individual members of the rest of the world constrained the US from running amok. That constraint began to be lifted after the ruling clique in Europe committed seppuku in WWI. It was completely lifted after WWII. But that was 75 years ago. This is now and most of the world has recovered from the world wide destruction of human and physical capital known as WWII. The US is going to have to learn how to live with constraints again but it will take a shock. The US is going to have to lose at something big time. Europe cancelling the sanctions? The sanctions on Russia don't mean squat to the US but it's costing Europe billions. This highlights the reality that the "Western Alliance" (read NATO) is not really an alliance of shared goals and objectives. It's an alliance of those terrified by fascism and what it can do. They all decided that they needed a "great father" to prevent their excesses again. One wonders if either the world or Europe would really like the US to come riding in like the cavalry to places like Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Blindly following Washington's directions can be remarkably expensive for Europe and they get nothing but refugees they can't afford. Something will ultimately have to give.

    The one thing I was surprised you didn't mention was the US's financial weakness. It's been a long time since the US was a creditor nation. We've been a debtor nation since at least the 80s. The world doesn't need debtor nations and the only reason they need us is the primacy of the US dollar. And there are numerous people hammering away at that.

    Gerald Wadsworth , September 13, 2018 at 12:59

    Why are we trying to hem in China, Russia and Iran? Petro-dollar hegemony, pure and simple. From our initial deal with Saudi Arabia to buy and sell oil in dollars only, to the chaos we have inflicted globally to retain the dollar's rule and role in energy trading, we are finding ourselves threatened – actually the position of the dollar as the sole trading medium is what is threatened – and we are determined to retain that global power over oil at all costs. With China and Russia making deals to buy and sell oil in their own currencies, we have turned both those counties into our enemies du jour, inventing every excuse to blame them for every "bad thing" that has and will happen, globally. Throw in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and a host of other countries who want to get out from under our thumb, to those who tried and paid the price. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and more. Our failed foreign policy is dictated by controlling, as Donald Rumsfeld once opined, "our oil under their sand." Oil. Pure and simple.

    Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 14:18

    I agree, Gerald. Enforcing the petro-dollar system seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If it were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases. Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.

    Maxwell Quest , September 13, 2018 at 15:33

    I agree, Gerald. Along with ensuring access to "our" off-shore oil fields, enforcing the petro-dollar system is equally significant, and seems to be the mainspring for much of our recent foreign policy militarism. If this system were to unravel, the dollar's value would tank, and then how could we afford our vast system of military bases which make the world safe for democracy? Death Star's aren't cheap, ya know.

    Anonymous Coward , September 13, 2018 at 22:40

    +1 Gerald Wadsworth. It's not necessarily "Oil pure and simple" but "Currency Pure and Simple." If the US dollar is no longer the world's currency, the US is toast. Also note that anyone trying to retain control of their currency and not letting "The Market" (private banks) totally control them is a Great Devil we need to fight, e.g. Libya and China. And note (2) that Wall Street is mostly an extension of The City; the UK still thinks it owns the entire world, and the UK has been owned by the banks ever since it went off tally sticks

    MichaelWme , September 13, 2018 at 12:18

    It's called the Thucydides trap. NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) have said they will force regime change in Syria. Russia says it will not allow regime change in Syria. Fortunately, as a Frenchman and an Austrian explained many years ago, and NATO experts say is true today, regime change in Russia is a simple matter, about the same as Libya or Panamá. I forget the details, but I assume things worked out well for the Frenchman and the Austrian, and will work out about the same for NATO.

    Jeff Davis , September 14, 2018 at 12:53

    Very dry. Kudos.

    Anastasia , September 13, 2018 at 12:04

    Putin said years ago, and I cannot quote him, but remember most of it, that it doesn't matter who is the candidate for President, or what his campaign promises are, or how sincere he is in making them, whenever they get in office, it is always the same policy.

    Truer words were never spoken, and it is the reason why I know, at least, that Russia did not interfere in the US elections. What would be the point, from his viewpoint, and it is not only just his opinion. You cannot help but see at this point that that he said is obviously true.

    TJ , September 13, 2018 at 13:47

    What an excellent point. Why bother influencing the elections when it doesn't matter who is elected -- the same policies will continue.

    Bart Hansen , September 13, 2018 at 15:43

    Anastasia, I saved it: From Putin interview with Le Figaro:

    "I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration."

    rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:02

    Pres. Putin explained this several times when he was asked about preferring Trump to Hillary Clinton, and he carefully said that he would accept whoever the US population chose, he was used to dealing with Hillary and he knew that very little changed between Administrations. This has been conveniently cast aside by the Dems, and Obama's disgraceful expulsion of Russian diplomats started the avalanche of Russiagate.

    James , September 13, 2018 at 09:24

    Great to see Patrick Lawrence writing for Consortium News.

    He ends his article with: "This is the logic of spoilage as a substitute for foreign policy. Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability. "

    Speaking of consequences, how about the human toll this foreign policy has taken on so many people in this world. To me, the gravest sin of all.

    Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 08:46

    I agree with Patric Lawrence when he states "Personalizing Washington's regression into the role of spoiler by assigning all blame to one man, now Donald Trump, deprives one of deeper understanding." and I also agree that 'Seven decades of global hegemony have left the State Department, Cold War notwithstanding, left the State Department with little to think about other than the simplicities of East-West tension.' But I seriously disagree when he declares that: "The crisis of U.S. foreign policy -- a series of radical missteps -- are systemic. Having little to do with personalities, they pass from one administration to the next with little variance other than at the margins.'' Certainly the missteps are true, but I would argue that the "personalities" are crucial to America's crisis of Foreign Policy. After all it was likely that JFK's American University address was the public declaration of his intention to lead America in the direction of better understanding of Sovereign Rights that likely got him killed. It is precisely those "personalities" that we must understand and identify before we can move on

    Skip Scott , September 13, 2018 at 09:35

    Bob-

    I see what you're saying, but I believe Patrick is also right. Many of the people involved in JFK's murder are now dead themselves, yet the "system" that demands confrontation rather than cooperation continues. These "personalities" are shills for that system, and if they are not so willingly, they are either bribed or blackmailed into compliance. Remember when "Dubya" ran on a "kinder and gentler nation" foreign policy? Obama's "hope and change" that became "more of the same"? And now Trump's views on both domestic and foreign policy seemingly also doing a 180? There are "personalities" behind this "system", and they are embedded in places like the Council on Foreign Relations. The people that run our banking system and the global corporate empire demand the whole pie, they would rather blow up the world than have to share.

    Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:42

    You're completely right Skip, that's what we all must recognize and ultimately react to, and against.
    Thank you.

    JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:46

    I would add that human beings are the key components in this system. The system is built and shaped by them. Some are greedy, lying predators and some are honest and egalitarian. Bob Parry was one of the latter, thankfully.

    JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:30

    Skip, very good points. For those interested further, here's an excellent talk on the bankers behind the manufacutured wars, including the role of the Council on Foreign Relations as a front organization and control mechanism.
    "The Shadows of Power; the CFR and decline of America"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6124&v=wHa1r4nIaug

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 09:42

    Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

    Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

    The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

    Bob Van Noy , September 13, 2018 at 14:51

    Many thanks Joe, I admire your persistence. Clearly Bob Woodward has been part of the problem rather than the solution. The swamp is deep and murky

    JWalters , September 13, 2018 at 18:36

    Bob and Joe, here's a solid review of Woodward's book Fear that points out his consistent service to the oligarchy, including giving Trump a pass for killing the Iran deal. Interesting background on Woodward in the comments as well.
    https://mondoweiss.net/2018/09/woodward-national-security/

    will , September 15, 2018 at 22:30

    people have been pointing out that Woodward is the exact kind of guy the CIA would recruit since shortly after Watergate.

    O Society , September 13, 2018 at 18:21

    The document Gary Cohen removed off Trump's desk – which you can read here – states an intent to end a free trade agreement with South Korea.

    "White House aides feared if Trump sent the letter, it could jeopardize a top-secret US program that can detect North Korean missile launches within seven seconds."

    Sounds like Trump wanted to play the "I am such a great deal maker, the GREATEST deal maker of all times!" game with the South Koreans. Letter doesn't say anything about withdrawing troops or missiles.

    Funny how ***TOP-SECRET US PROGRAMS*** find their way into books and newspapers these days, plentiful as acorns falling out of trees.

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 19:59

    Thanks for the clarification. Joe

    O Society , September 14, 2018 at 13:38

    You're welcome, Joe. These things get confusing. Who knows anymore what is real and what isn't?

    Trump did indeed say something about ending military exercises and pulling troops out of South Korea. His staff did indeed contradict him on this. It just wasn't in relation to the letter Cohn "misplaced," AFAIK.

    Nobody asked me, but if they did, I'd say the US interfered enough in Korean affairs by killing a whole bunch of 'em in the Korean War. Leave'em alone. Let North and South try to work it out. Tired of hearing about "regime change.'

    Republicans buck Trump on Korea troop pullout talk

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 10:17

    Bob once again my comment disappeared I hope someone retrieves it. Joe

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24

    Here's what I wrote:

    Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

    Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

    The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:24

    Again

    Bob, you are right. I find it most interesting and sad at the same time that in Woodward's new book 'Fear' that he describes a pan 'almost tragic incident' whereas Trump wanted to sign a document removing our missiles and troops out of S Korea, but save for the steady hand of his 'anonymous' staffers who yanked the document off his presidential desk . wow, close one there we almost did something to enforce a peace. Can't have that though, we still have lots to kill in pursue of liberty and freedom and the hegemonic way.

    Were these 'anonymous' staffers the grandchildren of the staffers and bureaucracy that undermined other presidents? Would their grandparents know who the Gunmen were on the grassy knoll? Did these interrupters of Executive administrations fudge other presidents dreams and hopes of a peaceful world? And in the end were these instigators rewarded by the war industries they protected?

    The problem is, is that this bureaucracy of war has out balanced any other rival agency, as diversity of thought and mission is only to be dealt with if it's good for military purposes. Too much of any one thing can be overbearingly bad for a person, and likewise too much war means your country is doing something wrong.

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 14:03

    Thanks for retrieving my comments sorry for the triplicating of them. Joe

    Joe Tedesky , September 13, 2018 at 12:25

    3 of my comments disappeared boy does this comment board have issues. I'm beginning to think I'm being targeted.

    Deniz , September 13, 2018 at 17:58

    Dont take it personally, I see it more of a lawnmower than a scalpel.

    rosemerry , September 14, 2018 at 08:36

    My comment has disappeared too-it was a reply to anastasia.

    Kiwiantz , September 13, 2018 at 08:20

    Spoiler Nation of America! You got that dead right! China builds infrastructure in other Countries & doesn't interfere with the citizens & their Sovereignty. Contrast that with the United Spoiler States of America, they run roughshod over overs & just bomb the hell out of Countries & leaves devastation & death wherever they go! And there is something seriously wrong & demented with the US mindset concerning, the attacks on 9/11? In Syria the US has ended up arming & supporting the very same organisation of Al QaedaTerrorists, morphed into ISIS, that hijacked planes & flew them into American targets! During 2017 & now in 2018, it defies belief how warped this US mentality is when ISIS can so easily & on demand, fake a chemical attack to suck in the stupid American Military & it's Airforce & get them to attack Syria, like lackeys taking orders from Terrorist's! The US Airforce is the airforce of Al Qaeda & ISIS! Why? Because the US can't stomach Russia, Syria & Iran winning & defeating Terrorism thus ending this Proxy War they started! Russia can't be allowed to win at any cost because the humiliation & loss of prestige that the US would suffer as a Unipolar Empire would signal the decline & end of this Hegemonic Empire so they must continue to act as a spoiler to put off that inevitable decline! America can't face reality that it's time in the sun as the last Empire, is over!

    Sally Snyder , September 13, 2018 at 07:57

    Here is what Americans really think about the rabid anti-Russia hysteria coming from Washington:

    https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/08/americans-on-russia-will-of-people.html

    Washington has completely lost touch with what Main Street America really believes.

    Waynes World , September 13, 2018 at 07:37

    Finally some words of truth about how we want our way not really democracy. A proper way to look at the world is what you said toward the end a desire to make people's lives better.

    mike k , September 13, 2018 at 07:14

    Simply put – the US is the world's biggest bully. This needs to stop. Fortunately the bully's intended victims are joining together to defeat it's crazy full spectrum dominance fantasies. Led by Russia and China, we can only hope for the success of the resistance to US aggression.

    This political, economic, military struggle is not the only problem the world is facing now, but is has some priority due to the danger of nuclear war. Global pollution, climate disaster, ecological collapse and species extinction must also be urgently dealt with if we are to have a sustainable existence on Earth.

    OlyaPola , September 13, 2018 at 04:39

    Alpha : "America's three principal adversaries signify the shape of the world to come: a post-Western world of coexistence. But neoliberal and neocon ideology is unable to to accept global pluralism and multipolarity, argues Patrick Lawrence."

    Omega: "Among its many consequences are countless lost opportunities for global stability."

    Framing is always a limiter of perception.

    Among the consequences of the lateral trajectories from Alpha to Omega referenced above, is the "unintended consequence" of the increase of the principal opponents, their resolve and opportunities to facilitate the transcendence of arrangements based on coercion by arrangements based on co-operation.

    Opening Pandora's box was/is only perceived as wholly a disadvantage for those seeking to deny lateral process.

    JOHN CHUCKMAN , September 13, 2018 at 04:32

    Yes, I certainly agree with author's view.

    https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/31/john-chuckman-comment-empire-corrupts-all-the-principles-of-economics-as-well-as-principles-of-ethics-and-good-government-there-is-nothing-good-to-say-about-empire-and-the-american-one-is-no-excep/

    https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/john-chuckman-comment-how-american-politics-really-work-why-there-are-terrible-candidates-and-constant-wars-and-peoples-problems-are-ignored-why-heroes-like-julian-assange-are-persecuted-and-r/

    HomoSapiensWannaBe , September 13, 2018 at 08:23

    John Chuckman,
    Wow. Thanks! I have just begun reading your commentaries this week and I am impressed with how clearly you analyze and summarize key points about many topics.

    Thank you so much for writing what are often the equivalent of books, but condensed into easy to read and digest summaries.

    I have ordered your book and look forward to reading that.

    Cheers from Southeast USA!

    [Jan 04, 2020] Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.

    Jan 04, 2020 | thesaker.is

    Nate on January 03, 2020 , · at 8:32 pm EST/EDT

    Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.

    1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").

    2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.

    3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.

    Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.

    [Jan 03, 2020] Skripals false flag along with Douma false flag and OPCW role in it, as well as DNC hack and Gussifer 2.0 false flags might be a watershed events in terms of the ability of the neoliberal MSM to control public opinion.

    Notable quotes:
    "... That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the rug. ..."
    "... The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility ..."
    "... What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well, for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors! ..."
    Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    BM , Dec 31 2019 17:18 utc | 15

    B, under the "major stories covered" title you should include Skripal, about which you wrote many important articles; I believe ultimately - like OPCW and Russiagate - it will prove to be history-making event in terms of impact on public perceptions of media and the ability of the media to control public opinion. Probably eventually whistleblowers will come forward like the OPCW, and only thin will it have it's maximum impact.

    (Well, the original event was 2018 not 2019, but some of the reports were in 2019 anyway)

    BM , Dec 31 2019 17:36 utc | 20

    My predictions on these issue for next year are:
    ...
    Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if major new evidence comes to light.

    That is if the MSM get their way! Maybe I am being overoptimistic, but Russia - as a permanent member of the UNSC and a member of the OPCW - will do everything in it's powers to pursue this matter, and it seems quite possible they will be able to force it onto the main agenda within 2020. If that happens it will be impossible for the MSM to push it under the rug.

    The other aspect it is that the MSM ability to suppress this news is dependent on behaviour of the MSM community in its totality, and the relationship to reader plausibility. There are a few factors that could influence this independently of major new evidence, such as the behaviour of a few outlier MSM's that decide to release information (and whether or not that information then takes off in the public consciousness); pressure that could build up in social media calling for the MSM to respond and attacking MSM credibility; or other forms of pressure from the public calling on the MSM to respond. It is therefore a dynamic that is not entirely predictable.

    Both of the above are distinct from the emergence of new major evidence, although both cases would seem likely to provoke new revelations in turn.

    What determines whether one MSM decides to break the pack and publish news on OPCW? Well, for one thing, MoA articles can influence individual journalists and individual editors!

    [Jan 03, 2020] Skirpals, OPCW, and MH17, Assange, Russian athletic doping. Are there any believers still out there?

    Jan 03, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Robert Fisk via The Independent,

    In the very early spring of this year, I gave a lecture to European military personnel interested in the Middle East. It was scarcely a year since Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chlorine gas against the civilian inhabitants of the Damascus suburb of Douma on 7 April 2018, in which 43 people were said to have been killed.

    Few present had much doubt that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which represents 193 member states around the world, would soon confirm in a final report that Assad was guilty of a war crime which had been condemned by Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May.

    But at the end of my talk, a young Nato officer who specialises in chemical weapons – he was not British – sought me out for a private conversation.

    "The OPCW are not going to admit all they know," he said. "They've already censored their own documents."

    I could not extract any more from him. He smiled and walked away, leaving me to guess what he was talking about. If Nato had doubts about the OPCW, this was a very serious matter.

    When it published its final report in March this year, the OPCW said that testimony, environmental and biomedical samples and toxicological and ballistic analyses provided "reasonable grounds" that "the use of a toxic chemical had taken place" in Douma which contained "reactive chlorine".

    The US, Britain and France, which launched missile attacks on Syrian military sites in retaliation for Douma – before any investigation had taken place – thought themselves justified. The OPCW's report was splashed across headlines around the world – to the indignation of Russia, Assad's principal military ally, which denied the validity of the publication.

    Then, in mid-May 2019, came news of a confidential report by OPCW South African ballistics inspector Ian Henderson – a document which the organisation excluded from its final report – which took issue with the organisation's conclusions. Canisters supposedly containing chlorine gas may not have been dropped by Syrian helicopters, it suggested, and could have been placed at the site of the attack by unknown hands.

    Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday reported in detail on the Henderson document. No other mainstream media followed up this story . The BBC, for example, had reported in full on the OPCW's final report on the use of chlorine gas, but never mentioned the subsequent Henderson story.

    And here I might myself have abandoned the trail had I not received a call on my Beirut phone shortly after the Henderson paper, from the Nato officer who had tipped me off about the OPCW's apparent censorship of its own documents. "I wasn't talking about the Henderson report," he said abruptly. And immediately terminated our conversation. But now I understand what he must have been talking about.

    For in the past few weeks, there has emerged deeply disturbing new evidence that the OPCW went far further than merely excluding one dissenting voice from its conclusions on the 2018 Douma attack.

    The most recent information – published on WikiLeaks, in a report from Hitchens again and from Jonathan Steele, a former senior foreign correspondent for The Guardian – suggests that the OPCW suppressed or failed to publish, or simply preferred to ignore, the conclusions of up to 20 other members of its staff who became so upset at what they regarded as the misleading conclusions of the final report that they officially sought to have it changed in order to represent the truth . (The OPCW has said in a number of statements that it stands by its final report.)

    At first, senior OPCW officials contented themselves by merely acknowledging the Henderson report's existence a few days after it appeared without making any comment on its contents. When the far more damaging later reports emerged in early November, Fernando Arias, the OPCW's director general, said that it was in "the nature of any thorough enquiry for individuals in a team to express subjective views. While some of the views continue to circulate in some public discussion forums, I would like to reiterate that I stand by the independent, professional conclusion [of the investigation]." The OPCW declined to respond to questions from Hitchens or Steele.

    But the new details suggest that other evidence could have been left unpublished by the OPCW. These were not just from leaked emails, but given by an OPCW inspector – a colleague of Henderson – who was one of a team of eight to visit Douma and who appeared at a briefing in Brussels last month to explain his original findings to a group of disarmament, legal, medical and intelligence personnel.

    As Steele reported afterwards, in a piece published by Counterpunch in mid-November 2019, the inspector – who gave his name to his audience, but asked to be called "Alex" – said he did not want to undermine the OPCW but stated that "most of the Douma team" felt the two reports on the incident (the OPCW had also published an interim report in 2018) were "scientifically impoverished, procedurally irregular and possibly fraudulent". Alex said he sought, in vain, to have a subsequent OPCW conference to address these concerns and "demonstrate transparency, impartiality and independence".

    For example, Alex cited the OPCW report's claim that "various chlorinated organic chemicals (COCs) were found" in Douma, but said that there were "huge internal arguments" in the OPCW even before its 2018 interim report was published . Findings comparing chlorine gas normally present in the atmosphere with evidence from the Douma site were, according to Alex, kept by the head of the Douma mission and not passed to the inspector who was drafting the interim report. Alex said that he subsequently discovered that the COCs in Douma were "no higher than you would expect in any household environment", a point which he says was omitted from both OPCW reports. Alex told his Brussels audience that these omissions were "deliberate and irregular".

    Alex also said that a British diplomat who was OPCW's chef de cabinet invited several members of the drafting team to his office, where they found three US officials who told them that the Syrian regime had conducted a gas attack and that two cylinders found in one building contained 170 kilograms of chlorine. The inspectors, Alex remarked, regarded this as unacceptable pressure and a violation of the OPCW's principles of "independence and impartiality".

    Regarding the comments from Alex, the OPCW has pointed to the statement by Arias that the organisation stands by its final report.

    Further emails continue to emerge from these discussions. This weekend, for example, WikiLeaks sent to The Independent an apparent account of a meeting held by OPCW toxicologists and pharmacists "all specialists in CW (Chemical Warfare)", according to the document. The meeting is dated 6 June 2018 and says that "the experts were conclusive in their statements that there is no correlation between symptoms [of the victims] and chlorine exposure."

    In particular, they stated that "the onset of excessive frothing, as a result of pulmonary edema observed in photos and reported by witnesses would not occur in the short time period between the reported occurrence of the alleged incident and the time the videos were recorded". When I asked for a response to this document, a spokesman for the OPCW headquarters in Holland said that my request would be "considered". That was on Monday 23 December.

    Any international organisation, of course, has a right to select the most quotable parts of its documentation on any investigation, or to set aside an individual's dissenting report – although, in ordinary legal enquiries, dissenting voices are quite often acknowledged. Chemical warfare is not an exact science – chlorine gas does not carry a maker's name or computer number in the same way that fragments of tank shells or bombs often do.

    But the degree of unease within the OPCW's staff surely cannot be concealed much longer. To the delight of the Russians and the despair of its supporters, an organisation whose prestige alone should frighten any potential war criminals is scarcely bothering to confront its own detractors. Military commanders may conceal their tactics from an enemy in time of war, but this provides no excuse for an important international organisation dedicated to the prohibition of chemical weapons to allow its antagonists to claim that it has "cooked the books" by permitting political pressure to take precedence over the facts. And that is what is happening today.

    The deep concerns among some of the OPCW staff and the deletion of their evidence does not mean that gas has not been used in Syria by the government or even by the Russians or by Isis and its fellow Islamists. All stand guilty of war crimes in the Syrian conflict. The OPCW's response to the evidence should not let war criminals off the hook. But it certainly helps them.

    And what could be portrayed as acts of deceit by a supposedly authoritative body of international scientists can lead some to only one conclusion: that they must resort to those whom the west regards as "traitors" to security – WikiLeaks and others – if they wish to find out the story behind official reports . So far, the Russians and the Syrian regime have been the winners in the propaganda war. Such organisations as the OPCW need to work to make sure the truth can be revealed to everyone. Tags Politics

    https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919 Show 41 Comments Login

    ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

    General: [email protected]

    Legal: [email protected]

    Advertising: Click here

    Abuse/Complaints: [email protected] Suggested Reading Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide

    It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer , our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .

    How to report offensive comments

    Notice on Racial Discrimination .

    Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else? Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox. Please enter a valid email

    [Jan 03, 2020] Did Winston Churchill really say: "Poland is a greedy hyena of Europe."?

    See also https://www.quora.com/Did-Winston-Churchill-really-say-Poland-is-a-greedy-hyena-of-Europe-In-what-context
    Jan 03, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile December 30, 2019 at 11:30 am

    US Ambassador to Poland gets her 2 cents in as regards the comments of Vladimir Putin and others in the Empire of Evil concerning the Molotov – Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact and Polish pre-WWII connivings with Nazi Germany.

    Russian politicians had earlier strongly condemned the position of Warsaw, which does not consider itself responsible for any of the events leading up to the outbreak of WWII in Europe. Thus, the speaker of the state Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, urged Polish "colleagues" to apologize for the anti-Semitic remarks of Jozef Lipsky, former Polish Ambassador to Nazi Germany, who supported some ideas of Adolf Hitler and even suggested putting up a monument to him in honour of his plans to deport European Jews to Madagascar. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also criticized the attempt of Poland to rewrite history in favour of its political interests.

    On Sunday, the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, criticized the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and actually laid the blame on the USSR for starting WWII along with Nazi Germany.

    Head of the scientific Department of the Russian Military Historical Society, Yuri Nikiforov, noted that the Warsaw version of events leading to WWII was a "totally ideologized interpretation of history by orderr" and had nothing to do with the historical truth, and was promoting its version of history in order to weaken Russian influence on the world stage.

    Drogi Prezydencie Putin, to Hitler i Stalin zmówili się, aby rozpocząć II wojnę światową. To jest fakt. Polska była ofiarą tego okropnego konfliktu.

    -- Georgette Mosbacher (@USAmbPoland) December 30, 2019

    Dear President Putin, it was Hitler and Stalin who agreed to start World War II. This is a fact. Poland was a victim of this terrible conflict.

    Dear American business executive, entrepreneur and untrained diplomat now acting as US Ambassador to Poland, try studying some history.

    By the way, before your plum appointment as ambassador to Poland, wasn't it you who suggested that Poland was responsible for the re-emergence of anti-Semitism across the continent of Europe because of a law which criminalizes blaming Poland for the actions of Nazi Germany on its soil during the Holocaust?

    And wasn't it headbanger of a Polish President Andrzej Duda who stated that if you were to be appointed as the new U.S. ambassador to Poland, then you would be accepted, despite having made "unnecessary and mistaken" comments about his country?

    Can't you see that the truth as regards WWII matters is only that which is approved by the Poles?

    source

    yalensis December 31, 2019 at 4:19 am
    The Poles are putting Germany in an awkward position.
    The official position of the modern German government (based on Nurnberg, etc.) is that Germany, and Germany alone, is responsible for the outbreak of WWII. Not the Soviet Union. Just Germany, ma'am, just Germany.

    So, in the face of this Polish revisionism, as Russian analysts are pointing out, Germany will either have to (a) bitch-slap Poland, or (b) renounce their entire official state policy and historical ideology since their defeat in WWII and start singing Horst Wessel Lied again.

    What, oh what, will Germany do?

    [Jan 02, 2020] The Art of Doublespeak Bellingcat and Mind Control by Edward Curtin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine. ..."
    "... The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The workshop, which cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative journalism." ..."
    Dec 17, 2019 | countercurrents.org

    In the 1920s, the influential American intellectual Walter Lippman argued that the average person was incapable of seeing or understanding the world clearly and needed to be guided by experts behind the social curtain. In a number of books he laid out the theoretical foundations for the practical work of Edward Bernays , who developed "public relations" (aka propaganda) to carry out this task for the ruling elites. Bernays had honed his skills while working as a propagandist for the United States during World War I, and after the war he set himself up as a public relations counselor in New York City.

    There is a fascinating exchange at the beginning of Adam Curtis's documentary, The Century of Self , where Bernays, then nearly 100 years old but still very sharp, reveals his manipulative mindset and that of so many of those who have followed in his wake. He says the reason he couldn't call his new business "propaganda" was because the Germans had given propaganda a "bad name," and so he came up with the euphemism "public relations." He then adds that "if you could use it [i.e. propaganda] for war, you certainly could use it for peace." Of course, he never used PR for peace but just to manipulate public opinion (he helped engineer the CIA coup against the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954 with fake news broadcasts). He says "the Germans gave propaganda a bad name," not Bernays and the United States with their vast campaign of lies, mainly aimed at the American people to get their support for going to a war they opposed (think weapons of mass destruction). He sounds proud of his war propaganda work that resounded to his credit since it led to support for the "war to end all wars" and subsequently to a hit movie about WWI , Yankee Doodle Dandy , made in 1942 to promote another war, since the first one somehow didn't achieve its lofty goal.

    As Bernays has said in his book Propaganda ,

    The American motion picture is the greatest unconscious carrier of propaganda in the world today.

    He was a propagandist to the end. I suspect most viewers of the film are taken in by these softly spoken words of an old man sipping a glass of wine at a dinner table with a woman who is asking him questions. I have shown this film to hundreds of students and none has noticed his legerdemain. It is an example of the sort of hocus-pocus I will be getting to shortly, the sly insertion into seemingly liberal or matter-of-fact commentary of statements that imply a different story. The placement of convincing or confusing disingenuous ingredients into a truth sandwich – for Bernays knew that the bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.

    In the following years, Bernays, Lippman, and their ilk were joined by social "scientists," psychologists, and sundry others intent on making a sham out of the idea of democracy by developing strategies and techniques for the engineering of social consensus consonant with the wishes of the ruling classes. Their techniques of propaganda developed exponentially with the development of technology, the creation of the CIA, its infiltration of all the major media, and that agency's courting of what the CIA official Cord Meyer called in the 1950s "the compatible left," having already had the right in its pocket. Today most people are, as is said, "wired," and they get their information from the electronic media that is mostly controlled by giant corporations in cahoots with government propagandists. Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda and spy networks increased or decreased over your lifetime. The answer is obvious: the average people that Lippman and Bernays trashed are losing and the ruling elites are winning.

    This is not just because powerful propagandists are good at controlling so-called "average" people's thinking, but, perhaps more importantly, because they are also adept – probably more so – at confusing or directing the thinking of those who consider themselves above average, those who still might read a book or two or have the concentration to read multiple articles that offer different perspectives on a topic. This is what some call the professional and intellectual classes, perhaps 15-20 % of the population, most of whom are not the ruling elites but their employees and sometimes their mouthpieces. It is this segment of the population that considers itself "informed," but the information they imbibe is often sprinkled with bits of misdirection, both intentional and not, that beclouds their understanding of important public matters but leaves them with the false impression that they are in the know.

    Recently I have noticed a group of interconnected examples of how this group of the population that exerts influence incommensurate with their numbers has contributed to the blurring of lines between fact and fiction. Within this group there are opinion makers who are often journalists, writers, and cultural producers of some sort or other, and then the larger number of the intellectual or schooled class who follow their opinions. This second group then passes on their received opinions to those who look up to them.

    There is a notorious propaganda outfit called Bellingcat , started by an unemployed Englishman named Eliot Higgins, that has been funded by The Atlantic Council, a think-tank with deep ties to the U.S. government, NATO, war manufacturers, and their allies, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), another infamous U.S. front organization heavily involved in so-called color revolution regime change operations all around the world, that has just won the International Emmy Award for best documentary. The film with the Orwellian title, Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World, received its Emmy at a recent ceremony in New York City.

    Bellingcat is an alleged group of amateur on-line researchers who have spent years shilling for the U.S. instigated war against the Syrian government, blaming the Douma chemical attack and others on the Assad government, and for the anti-Russian propaganda connected to, among other things, the Skripal poisoning case in England, and the downing of flight MH17 plane in Ukraine.

    It has been lauded by the corporate mainstream media in the west. Its support for the equally fraudulent White Helmets (also funded by the US and the UK) in Syria has also been praised by the western corporate media while being dissected as propaganda by many excellent independent journalists such as Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Catte Black, among others. It's had its work skewered by the likes of Seymour Hersh and MIT professor Theodore Postol, and its US government connections pointed out by many others, including Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal at The Gray Zone. And now we have the mainstream media's wall of silence on the leaks from the Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concerning the Douma chemical attack and the doctoring of their report that led to the illegal U.S. bombing of Syria in the spring of 2018. Bellingcat was at the forefront of providing justification for such bombing, and now the journalists Peter Hitchens, Tareq Harrad (who recently resigned from Newsweek after accusing the publication of suppressing his revelations about the OPCW scandal) and others are fighting an uphill battle to get the truth out.

    Yet Bellingcat: Truth in a Post-Truth World won the Emmy , fulfilling Bernays' point about films being the greatest unconscious carriers of propaganda in the world today.

    Who presented the Emmy Award to the film makers, but none other than the rebel journalist Chris Hedges . Why he did so, I don't know. But that he did so clearly sends a message to those who follow his work and trust him that it's okay to give a major cultural award to a propaganda outfit. But then, perhaps he doesn't consider Bellingcat to be that.

    Nor, one presumes, does The Intercept , the billionaire Pierre Omidyar owned publication associated with Glen Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, and also read by many progressive-minded people. The Intercept that earlier this year disbanded the small team that was tasked with reviewing and releasing more of the massive trove of documents they received from Edward Snowden six years ago, a minute number of which have ever been released or probably ever will be. As Whitney Webb pointed out , last year The Intercept hosted a workshop for Bellingcat. She wrote:

    The Intercept , along with its parent company First Look Media, recently hosted a workshop for pro-war, Google-funded organization Bellingcat in New York. The workshop, which cost $2,500 per person to attend and lasted five days, aimed to instruct participants in how to perform investigations using "open source" tools -- with Bellingcat's past, controversial investigations for use as case studies Thus, while The Intercept has long publicly promoted itself as an anti-interventionist and progressive media outlet, it is becoming clearer that – largely thanks to its ties to Omidyar – it is increasingly an organization that has more in common with Bellingcat, a group that launders NATO and U.S. propaganda and disguises it as "independent" and "investigative journalism."

    Then we have Jefferson Morley , the editor of The Deep State, former Washington Post journalist, and JFK assassination researcher, who has written a praiseworthy review of the Bellingcat film and who supports Bellingcat. "In my experience, Bellingcat is credible," he writes in an Alternet article, "Bellingcat documentary has the pace and plot of a thriller."

    Morley has also just written an article for Counterpunch "Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn't a 'Managed Massacre'" – in which he disputes the claim that the April 7, 2018 attack in the Damascus suburb was a false flag operation carried out by Assad's opponents. "I do not see any evidence proving that Douma was a false flag incident," he writes in this article that is written in a style that leaves one guessing as to what exactly he is saying. It sounds convincing unless one concentrates, and then his double messages emerge. Yet it is the kind of article that certain "sophisticated" left-wing readers might read and feel is insightful. But then Morley, who has written considerably about the CIA, edits a website that advertises itself as "the thinking person's portal to the world of secret government," and recently had an exchange with former CIA Director John Brennan where "Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest," said in February 2017, less than a month after Trump was sworn in as president, that:

    With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State are the most -- perhaps the only -- credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's " wrecking ball presidency ."

    Is it any wonder that some people might be a bit confused?

    "I know what you're thinking about," said Tweedledum; "but it isn't so, nohow."

    "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."

    As a final case in point, there is a recent book by Stephen Kinzer , Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb And The CIA Search For Mind Control, t he story of the chemist known as Dr. Death who ran the CIA's MK-ULTRA mind control project, using LSD, torture, electric shock therapy, hypnosis, etc.; developed sadistic methods of torture still used in black sites around the world; and invented various ingenious techniques for assassination, many of which were aimed at Fidel Castro. Gottlieb was responsible for brutal prison and hospital experiments and untold death and suffering inflicted on all sorts of innocent people. His work was depraved in the deepest sense; he worked with Nazis who experimented on Jews despite being Jewish himself.

    Kinzer writes in depth about this man who considered himself a patriot and a spiritual person – a humane torturer and killer. It is an eye-opening book for anyone who does not know about Gottlieb, who gave the CIA the essential tools they use in their "organized crime" activities around the world – in the words of Douglass Valentine, the author of The CIA as Organized Crime and The Phoenix Program . Kinzer's book is good history on Gottlieb; however, he doesn't venture into the present activities of the CIA and Gottlieb's patriotic followers, who no doubt exist and go about their business in secret.

    After recounting in detail the sordid history of Gottlieb's secret work that is nauseating to read about, Kinzer leaves the reader with these strange words:

    Gottlieb was not a sadist, but he might well have been . Above all he was an instrument of history. Understanding him is a deeply disturbing way of understanding ourselves.

    What possibly could this mean? Not a sadist? An instrument of history? Understanding ourselves? These few sentences, dropped out of nowhere, pull the rug out from under what is generally an illuminating history and what seems like a moral indictment. This language is pure mystification.

    Kinzer also concludes that because Gottlieb said so, the CIA failed in their efforts to develop methods of mind control and ended MK-ULTRA's experiments long ago. Why would he believe the word of a man who personified the agency he worked for: a secret liar? He writes,

    When Sydney Gottlieb brough MK-ULTRA to its end in the early 1960s, he told his CIA superiors that he had found no reliable way to wipe away memory, make people abandon their consciences, or commit crimes and then forget them.

    As for those who might think otherwise, Kinzer suggests they have vivid imaginations and are caught up in conspiracy thinking: "This [convincing others that the CIA had developed methods of mind control when they hadn't] is Sydney Gottlieb's most unexpected legacy," he asserts. He says this although Richard Helms, the CIA Director, destroyed all MK-Ultra records. He says that Allen Dulles, Gottlieb, and Helms themselves were caught up in a complete fantasy about mind control because they had seen too many movies and read too many books; mind control was impossible, a failure, a myth, he maintains. It is the stuff of popular culture, entertainment. In an interview with Chris Hedges, interestingly posted by Jefferson Morley at his website, The Deep State , Hedges agrees with Kinzer. Gottlieb, Dulles, et al. were all deluded. Mind control was impossible. You couldn't create a Manchurian Candidate; by implication, someone like Sirhan Sirhan could not have been programmed to be a fake Manchurian Candidate and to have no memory of what he did, as he claims. He could not have been mind-controlled by the CIA to perform his part as the seeming assassin of Senator Robert Kennedy while the real killer shot RFK from behind. People who think like this should get real.

    Furthermore, as is so common in books such as Kinzer's, he repeats the canard that JFK and RFK knew about and pressured the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro. This is demonstrably false, as shown by the Church Committee and the Assassinations Record Review Board, among many others. That Kinzer takes the word of notorious liars like Richard Helms and the top-level CIA operative Samuel Halpern is simple incredible, something that is hard to consider a mistake. Slipped into a truth sandwich, it is devoured and passed on. But it is false. Bullshit meant to deceive.

    But this is how these games are played. If you look carefully, you will see them widely. Inform, enlighten, while throwing in doubletalk and untruths. The small number of people who read such books and articles will come away knowing some history that has no current relevance and being misinformed on other history that does. They will then be in the know, ready to pass their "wisdom" on to those who care to listen. They will not think they are average.

    But they will be mind controlled, and the killer cat will roam freely without a bell, ready to devour the unsuspecting mice.

    Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

    [Jan 02, 2020] In his 2007 Munich speech wherein Putin made one very prescient observation: "It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."

    Jan 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    karlof1 , Dec 31 2019 22:14 utc | 51

    Patrick Armstrong recaps the past 20 years since Putin wrote "Russia at the turn of the millennium" , where Putin stressed the aspects of geoeconomics as most important while barely mentioning Russia's military.

    What Armstrong fails to connect is the need for the first to be accomplished so that the second has a chance of complete success: Russia's political-economy needed resuscitating and strong-arming in the case of the kleptocrats for Russia's condition to be as bright as it is on the dawn of a new decade 1/5 of the way into the 21st Century.

    Armstrong also tarries at length with Putin's 2007 Munich speech wherein Putin made one very prescient observation: "It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within."

    Armstrong uses Putin's observation made after the Outlaw US Empire's failed attempt to prolong its Unipolar Moment in Iraq after it attacked itself to cause that conlict to show the self-inflicted damage has yet to stop:

    "Do we not see this today? The USA is tearing itself apart over imagined Russian collusion, imagined Russian electoral interference and real Ukrainian corruption. And, meanwhile, the forever wars go on and on."

    In 2016, I thought there was an excellent chance the D-Party would splinter in a manner similar to 1860 that was generated by both bottom->up and top->down forces. And in light of the court decision allowing the DNC to name whomever it wants as its POTUS and VEEP candidates regardless of both primary and convention balloting, IMO that possibility is even greater as like 2016 the DNC will not--cannot--anoint Sanders as its POTUS candidate. But all that's the subject for another comment.

    The dynamics of geopolitics has allowed the China/Russia team and its allies to usher the EU into Eurasian integration over the next decade while exposing the Outlaw US Empire as nothing but a Ponzi Scheme that will collapse upon itself at some point in time.

    karlof1 , Dec 31 2019 23:28 utc | 54

    Xi Jinping's New Years speech is motivational as one would expect. His closing exhortations:

    "2020 will be a year of milestone significance. We will finish building a moderately prosperous society in all respects and realize the first centenary goal. 2020 will also be a year of decisive victory for the elimination of poverty....

    "Human history, like a river, runs forever, witnessing both peaceful moments and great disturbances. We are not afraid of storms and dangers and barriers. China is determined to walk along the road of peaceful development and will resolutely safeguard world peace and promote common development. We are willing to join hands with people of all countries in the world to build together the Belt and Road Initiative, and push forward the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, and make unremitting efforts for the creation of a beautiful future for mankind ." [My Emphasis]

    Clearly, China has grasped the leadership role abandoned by the Outlaw US Empire for promoting humanity, Trump and Pompeo's daily actions giving China's position a continual boost.

    Putin's New Year speech is short but emphasizes his key points. Do note that for Russians the New Year celebration is akin to the West's Christmas (or perhaps was is the better verb):

    "Friends, we always prepare for the New Year in advance and, despite being busy, we believe that the warmth of human relations and companionship are the most important thing. We strive to do something important and useful for other people and to help those who require our support, to make them happy by giving them presents and our attention.

    "Such sincere impulses, pure thoughts and selfless generosity are the true magic of the New Year holiday. It brings out the best in people and transforms the world filling it with joy and smiles.

    "Uplifting New Year's feelings and wonderful impressions have been living in us since childhood and come back every New Year, when we hug our loved ones, our parents, prepare surprises for our children and grandchildren, decorate the New Year tree with them and unpack once again paper cut-outs, baubles and glass garlands. These, sometimes ancient, but beloved family trinkets give their warmth to the younger generations."

    His preamble is nationalist; his message paternalistic and humanist.

    IMO, the Scrooges of the Outlaw US Empire's Current Oligarchy haven't a chance versus the likes of Putin, Xi and their likeminded allies.

    I'll leave my fellow barflies with this 32 year-old music video that IMO well expresses the heart sets of Putin, Xi, and those of us who want to share the world they're trying to build instead of what the Outlaw US Empire's trying to pull down and destroy.

    Happy New Year!

    [Jan 01, 2020] In one poll 18% of the USA respondents are clearly suicidal

    Jan 01, 2020 | twitter.com

    Reply 1 Retweet 2 Retweeted 2 Like 5 Liked 5 Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo Undo stefania maurizi Retweeted

    David Santoro ‏ 4:29 PM - 28 Dec 2019

    Should (and can) we re-confirm the Reagan-Gorbatchev statement that "A # nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought?" Plus say why

    [Jan 01, 2020] Building a Russian Bogeyman Washington Intentionally 'Overcharged' Relations with Moscow for Strategic Advantage by Robert Bridge

    Jul 30, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Last week, we considered how the Bush and Obama administrations worked in tandem – wittingly or unwittingly, but I'm betting on the former – to move forward with the construction of a US missile defense system smack on Russia's border following the attacks of 9/11 and Bush's decision to scrap the ABM Treaty with Moscow.

    That aggressive move will go down in the (non-American) history books as the primary reason for the return of Cold War-era atmosphere between Washington and Moscow. Currently, with the mainstream news cycle top-heavy with 24/7 'Russiagate' baloney, many people have understandably forgotten that it was during the Obama administration when US-Russia relations really hit rock bottom. And it had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's home computer getting allegedly compromised by some Russia hackers.

    The year is 2008; welcome to the international peace tour – although 'farce tour' would be much more accurate. Fatigued by 8 long years of Bush's disastrous war on terror, with over 1 million dead, maimed or on the run, the world has just let out a collective sigh of relief as Barack Obama has been elected POTUS. Due to Obama's velvety delivery, and the fact that he was not George W. Bush, he was able to provide the perfect smokescreen as far as Washington's ulterior motives with regards to Russia were concerned; the devious double game America was playing required a snake-oil salesman of immeasurable skill and finesse.

    Just months into his presidency, with 'hope and change' hanging in the air like so many helium balloons, Obama told a massive crowd in Prague that, "To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold (Applause!)."

    It would take another 8 years for the world – or at least the awakened part – to come to grips with the fact that America's 'first Black president' was just another smooth-talking, Wall Street-bought operator in sheep clothing. In the last year of the Obama reign, it has been conservatively estimated that some 26,000 bombs of various size and power were duly dropped against enemies in various nations. In other words, nearly three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.

    But more to the point, US-Russia relations on Obama's watch experienced their deepest deterioration since the days of the US-Soviet standoff. In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, we can say that the 44th US president picked up almost seamlessly where Bush left off, and then some. Initially, however, it looked as though relations with Russia would improve as Obama announced he would "shelve" the Bush plan for ground-based interceptors in Poland and a related radar site in the Czech Republic. Then, the very same day, he performed a perfect flip-flop into the geopolitical pool, saying he would deploy a sea-based variety – which is every bit as lethal as the land version, as then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted – instead of a land-locked one.

    Following that announcement, Obama appeared intent on lulling Moscow into a false sense of security that the system was somehow less dangerous than the Bush model, or that the Americans would eventually agree and cooperate with them in the system. In March 2009, a curious thing happened at the same time relations between the two global nuclear powers were hitting the wall. A meeting – more of a photo opportunity than any significant summit – took place between then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva. To the delight of the phalanx of photographers present, Clinton, in a symbolic gesture of "resetting relations" with Russia, produced a yellow box with a red button and the Russian word "peregruzka" printed on it.

    "You got it wrong," Lavrov said to general laughter. "It should be "perezagruzka" [reset]," he corrected somewhat pedantically. "This says 'peregruzka,' which means 'overcharged.'"

    Clinton gave a very interesting response, especially in light of where we are today in terms of the bilateral breakdown: "We won't let you do that to us, I promise. We mean it and we look forward to it."

    As events would prove, the US State Department's 'mistaken' use of the Russian word for 'overcharged' instead of 'reset' was far closer to the truth. After all, can anybody remember a time in recent history, aside from perhaps the Cuban Missile Crisis, when US-Russia relations were more "overcharged" than now? In hindsight, the much-hyped 'reset' was an elaborate ploy by the Obama administration to buy as much time as possible to get a strategic head start on the Russians.

    It deserves mentioning that the fate of the New START Treaty (signed into force on April 8, 2010), the nuclear missile reduction treaty signed between Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, hung in the balance on mutual cooperation between the nuclear powers. Nevertheless, it became clear the Obama sweet talk was just a lot of candy-coated nothing.

    What is truly audacious about the Obama administration's moves is that it somehow believed Moscow would radically reduce its ballistic missile launch capabilities, as prescribed in the New START treaty, at the very same time the United States was building a mighty sword along the entire length of its Western border.

    The Obama administration clearly underestimated Moscow, or overestimated Obama's charm powers.

    By the year 2011, after several years of failed negotiations to bring Russia onboard the system, Moscow's patience was clearly over. During the G-8 Summit in France, Medvedev expressed frustration with the lack of progress on the missile defense system with the US.

    "When we ask for the name of the countries that the shield is aimed at, we get silence," he said. "When we ask if the country has missiles (that could target Europe), the answer is 'no.'"

    "Now who has those types of missiles (that the missile defense system could counter)?"

    "We do," Medvedev explained. "So we can only think that this system is being aimed against us."

    In fact, judging by the tremendous strides Russia has made in the realm of military technologies over a very short period, it is apparent the Kremlin understood from the outset that the 'reset' was an elaborate fraud, designed to cover the administration's push to Russian border.

    As I wrote last week on these pages: "In March, Putin stunned the world, and certainly Washington's hawks, by announcing in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems – including those with hypersonic capabilities – designed to overcome any missile defense system in the world.

    These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.

    As far as 'Russiagate', the endless probe into the Trump administration for its alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, not a shred of incriminating evidence has ever been provided that would prove such a thing occurred. And when Putin offered to cooperate with Washington in determining exactly what happened, the offer was rebuffed.

    In light of such a scenario, it is my opinion that the Democrats, fully aware – despite what the skewed media polls erringly told them – that Hillary Clinton stood no chance of beating the Republican Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential contest, set about crafting the narrative of 'Russian collusion' in order to not only delegitimize Trump's presidency, possibly depriving him of a second term in 2010, but to begin the process of severely curtailing the work of 'alternative media,' which are in fact greatly responsible for not only Trump's victory at the polls, but for exposing the dirt on Clinton's corrupt campaign.

    These alternative media sites have been duly linked to Russia in one way or another as a means of silencing them. Thus, it is not only Russia that has been victimized by the lunacy of Russiagate; every single person who stands for the freedom of speech has suffered a major setback one way or another.

    Part I of this story is available here . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Cold War George W. Bush Obama Russiagate START

    [Jan 01, 2020] 'Vladimir the Terrible' US Deep State Desperately Needs a Russian Villain to Cover Its Tracks -- Strategic Culture

    Jan 01, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    'Vladimir the Terrible': US Deep State Desperately Needs a Russian Villain to Cover Its Tracks Robert Bridge July 26, 2018 © Photo: Public domain

    Conventional wisdom would have us believe that Russia became America's sworn enemy in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. As is often the case, however, conventional wisdom can be illusory.

    In the momentous 2016 showdown between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, a faraway dark kingdom known as Russia, the fantastic fable goes, hijacked that part of the American brain responsible for critical thinking and lever pulling with a few thousand dollars' worth of Facebook and Twitter adverts, bots and whatnot. The result of that gross intrusion into the squeaky clean machinery of the God-blessed US election system is now more or less well-documented history brought to you by the US mainstream media: Donald Trump, with some assistance from the Russians that has never been adequately explained, pulled the presidential contest out from under the wobbly feet of Hillary Clinton.

    For those who unwittingly bought that work of fiction, I can only offer my sincere condolences. In fact, Russiagate is just the latest installment of an anti-Russia story that has been ongoing since the presidency of George W. Bush.

    Act 1: Smokescreen

    Rewind to September 24 th , 2001. Having gone on record as the first global leader to telephone George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Putin showed his support went beyond mere words. He announced a five-point plan to support America in the 'war against terror' that included the sharing of intelligence, as well as the opening of Russian airspace for US humanitarian flights to Central Asia.

    In the words of perennial Kremlin critic, Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, Putin's "acquiescence to NATO troops in Central Asia signaled a reversal of two hundred years of Russian foreign policy. Under Yeltsin, the communists, and the tsars, Russia had always considered Central Asia as its 'sphere of influence.' Putin broke with that tradition."

    In other words, the new Russian leader was demonstrating his desire for Russia to have, as Henry Kissinger explained it some seven years later, "a reliable strategic partner, with America being the preferred choice."

    This leads us to the question for the ages: If it was obvious that Russia was now fully prepared to enter into a serious partnership with the United States in the 'war on terror,' then how do we explain George W. Bush announcing the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty just three months later? There are some things we may take away from that move, which Putin tersely and rightly described as a "mistake."

    First, Washington must not have considered a security partnership with Moscow very important, since they certainly understood that Russia would respond negatively to the decision to scrap the 30-year-old ABM Treaty. Second, the US must not considered the 'war on terror' very serious either; otherwise it would not have risked losing Russian assistance in hunting down the baddies in Central Asia and the Middle East, geographical areas where Russia has gained valuable experience over the years. This was a remarkably odd choice considering that the US military apparatus had failed spectacularly to defend the nation against a terrorist attack, coordinated by 19 amateurs, armed with box cutters, no less. Third, as was the case with the decision to invade Iraq, a country with nodiscernible connection to the events of 9/11, as well as the imposition of the pre-drafted Patriot Act on a shell-shocked nation, the decision to break with Russia seems to have been a premeditated move on the global chessboard. Although it would be hard to prove such a claim, we can take some guidance from Rahm Emanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, who notoriously advised, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pb-YuhFWCr4

    So why did Bush abrogate the ABM Treaty with Russia? The argument was that some "rogue state," rumored to be Iran, might be tempted to launch a missile attack against "US interests abroad." Yet there was absolutely no logic to the claim since Tehran was inextricably bound by the same principle of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) as were any other states that tempted fate with a surprise attack on US-Israeli interests. Further, it made no sense to focus attention on Shia-dominant Iran when the majority of the terrorists, allegedly acolytes of Osama bin Laden, reportedly hailed from Sunni-dominant Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Bush administration happily sacrificed an invincible relationship with Russia in the war on terror in order to guard against some external threat that only nominally existed, with a missile defense system that was largely unproven in the field. Again, zero logic.

    However, when it is considered that the missile defense system was tailor-made by America specifically with Russia in mind, the whole scheme begins to make more sense, at least from a strategic perspective. Thus, the Bush administration used the attacks of 9/11 to not only dramatically curtail the civil rights of American citizens with the passage of the Patriot Act, it also took the first steps towards encircling Russia with a so-called 'defense system' that has the capacity to grow in effectiveness and range.

    For those who thought Russia would just sit back and let itself be encircled by foreign missiles, they were in for quite a surprise. In March 2018, Putin stunned the world, and certainly Washington's hawks, by announcing in the annual Address to the Federal Assembly the introduction of advanced weapons systems – including those with hypersonic capabilities – designed to overcome any missile defense system in the world.

    These major developments by Russia, which Putin emphasized was accomplished "without the benefit" of Soviet-era expertise, has fueled the narrative that "Putin's Russia" is an aggressive nation with "imperial ambitions," when in reality its goal was to form a bilateral pact with the United States and other Western states almost two decades ago post 9/11.

    Now, US officials can only wring their hands in angst while speaking about an "aggressive Russia."

    "Russia is the most significant threat just because they pose the only existential threat to the country right now. So we have to look at that from that perspective," declared Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, or STRATCOM.

    Putin reiterated in his Address, however, that there would have been no need for Russia to have developed such advanced weapon systems if its legitimate concerns had not been dismissed by the US.

    "Nobody wanted to talk with us on the core of the problem," he said. "Nobody listened to us. Now you listen!"

    To be continued: Part II: Reset, or 'Overcharged' The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Deep State Russiagate

    [Jan 01, 2020] In one poll 18% of the USA respondents are clearly suicidal

    Jan 01, 2020 | twitter.com

    Reply 1 Retweet 2 Retweeted 2 Like 5 Liked 5 Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo Undo stefania maurizi Retweeted

    David Santoro ‏ 4:29 PM - 28 Dec 2019

    Should (and can) we re-confirm the Reagan-Gorbatchev statement that "A # nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought?" Plus say why

    [Dec 28, 2019] Senior OPCW Official Busted Leaked Email Exposes Orders To Delete All Traces Of Dissent On Douma

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
    "... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
    "... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
    "... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
    "... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
    "... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
    "... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
    "... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
    "... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
    "... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
    "... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
    Dec 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

    Senior OPCW Official Busted: Leaked Email Exposes Orders To "Delete All Traces" Of Dissent On Douma by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 10:30 0 SHARES

    Via AlMasdarNews.com,

    Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation, revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the fact-finding mission.

    RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk

    -- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 27, 2019

    "One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:

    " Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"

    According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than dropped.

    "The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.

    It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018 over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.

    AP file image.

    Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the minutes).

    Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
    no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN

    -- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 27, 2019

    The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims."

    More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."

    According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure ."

    The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".

    * * *

    See full details at Wikileaks.org


    JohnFrodo , 28 minutes ago link

    pity the human pawns at the center of this mess.

    africoman , 38 minutes ago link

    There has been a Newsweek reporter who quite over editorial block of this OPCW case here also another interview by Grayzone

    https://youtu.be/qqK8KgxuCPI

    The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed except being a misdirected na

    ponyboy99 , 40 minutes ago link

    If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar drinking Blatz.

    ponyboy99 , 47 minutes ago link

    If you go thru life assuming every single thing is a farce and a lie (Roddy Piper) these events can not only be explained, they can be predicted.

    Ace006 , 57 minutes ago link

    SOMEbody's got to ensure the intergrity of the Documents Registry Archive

    Weihan , 58 minutes ago link

    The globalist deep-state's reach is legendary.

    Nothing , 1 hour ago link

    yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?

    Greed is King , 36 minutes ago link

    That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.

    And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.

    africoman , 16 minutes ago link

    It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks

    I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on false flag

    I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as retribution etc

    Thordoom , 1 hour ago link

    This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.

    British elite is the worst of all.

    DCFusor , 1 hour ago link

    Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).

    They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite some time.

    I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the clown in chief's tie is.

    St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago link

    Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.

    This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.

    veritas semper vinces , 2 hours ago link

    Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.

    holgerdanske , 1 hour ago link

    It was May that insisted on this attack. Remember the "poison" attack and the evil Russians?

    lwilland1012 , 3 hours ago link

    Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is being set, we might as well not have any.

    ken , 1 hour ago link

    Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going forward....?

    WorkingClassMan , 3 hours ago link

    Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on behalf of Isn'treal.

    The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.

    turkey george palmer , 3 hours ago link

    Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain

    adonisdemilo , 3 hours ago link

    Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us.

    johnnycanuck , 3 hours ago link

    It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW. In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".

    Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.

    And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep secret from the world.

    If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press.

    https://johnmenadue.com/robert-fisk-the-evidence-we-were-never-meant-to-see-about-the-douma-gas-attack-counterpunch-27-may-2019/

    5fingerdiscount , 3 hours ago link

    Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup?

    Helg Saracen , 3 hours ago link

    The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.

    And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.

    carbonmutant , 4 hours ago link

    You gotta wonder how much the deep state has deleted about their interference in Trump's administration...

    dogbert8 , 4 hours ago link

    Pretty much everyone with a brain realizes this all was a lie; only the M5M and the DC swamp continue to pretend it wasn't.

    Joiningupthedots , 4 hours ago link

    Who really made the order though?

    ClickNLook , 3 hours ago link

    Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW needs to be interrogated to find out.

    Condor_0000 , 4 hours ago link

    Newsweek Reporter Quits After Editors Block Coverage of OPCW Syria Scandal

    December 19, 2019

    Aaron Mate

    https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/19/newsweek-reporter-quits-after-editors-block-coverage-of-opcw-syria-scandal/

    According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this."

    New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded.

    This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure, suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.

    [Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam

    Highly recommended!
    Looks like Brennan ears are all over this false flag operation...
    Dec 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    Mark McCarty , 21 December 2019 at 02:34 PM

    Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.

    And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer 2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.

    So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know that DNC EMAILS would be released?

    Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).

    So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.

    That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.

    Highly recommended!
    Dec 21, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com

    Watcher x Ignored says: 12/13/2019 at 6:27 am

    The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.

    This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.

    Hightrekker x Ignored says: 12/13/2019 at 12:28 pm
    So much for the "Free Market".
    Hickory x Ignored says: 12/12/2019 at 11:28 pm
    Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand. But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil. For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.

    Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions, socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.

    And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond peak.
    I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
    We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
    How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
    People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
    "... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
    "... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
    "... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
    "... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
    "... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
    "... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
    "... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
    "... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
    "... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
    Aug 26, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    Azblue on July 31, 2006

    Global cop

    Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language.

    The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap, may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.

    The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing globalization.

    After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S. now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle East), but a condition (disconnectedness).

    Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs. individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."

    Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea, Syria or Iran.

    Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future, system-wide dangers to globalization.

    At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.

    Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built.

    What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are) the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are, leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.

    Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."

    Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen 18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.

    The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?

    Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?

    Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history as Barnett councils; heed it.

    Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride. Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.

    I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.

    It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.

    I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed.

    Alan H. Macdonald on April 1, 2013
    A misused book waiting for redemption

    I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire gets its hands on.

    For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama (but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing "The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.

    "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.

    Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful, guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets ---- quite yet!

    Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
    Alan MacDonald
    Sanford, Maine

    We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.

    "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country."

    [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson

    Highly recommended!
    Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
    So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality is pretty logical.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
    "... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
    "... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
    "... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
    "... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
    "... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
    "... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
    "... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
    "... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
    "... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
    "... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
    "... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
    Dec 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization, the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me explain why.

    Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following explanation about methodology:

    When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment

    To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary evidence."

    Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:

    We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

    We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

    Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan.

    Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):

    DCLeaks

    "The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter. Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and later made unrestricted to the public.


    Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts (in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140


    GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141 The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142


    GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected] to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144


    The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."

    Guccifer 2.0

    On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents. In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear") were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including "some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer 2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146

    That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.

    The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

    Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150

    The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the Black Lives Matter movement.153"

    Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.

    In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.

    We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents :

    Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016, include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6

    One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE. Hackernews explains the purpose and function of MARBLE:

    Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
    The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.

    Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.

    "...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks explains.

    So guess what gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."

    We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.

    Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)

    Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.

    Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.

    The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.

    It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."

    Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:

    1. It was 29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible. And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
    2. According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
      • Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
    3. The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
    4. 10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office."
    5. On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
      • Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.
      • The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
      • The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
    6. 15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:

    The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable event.

    Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.

    It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.

    The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU.

    Posted at 02:13 PM in Larry Johnson , Russiagate | Permalink


    Factotum , 20 December 2019 at 02:45 PM

    LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU."
    Paul Damascene , 20 December 2019 at 02:54 PM
    Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
    walrus , 20 December 2019 at 03:51 PM
    Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts long enough to be extradited.

    You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published. Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.

    Ghost Ship , 20 December 2019 at 04:04 PM
    I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?

    With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.

    [Dec 20, 2019] NSA Whistleblower: "Mueller Report based on fabricated evidence" Former NSA technical chief, Bill Binney, says it looked like the CIA did this, and made it look like the Russians were doing the hack to implicate Russians by Eric Zuesse

    Highly recommended!
    Looks like CrowdStrike was was to plant the evidence of the Russian hack
    Notable quotes:
    "... All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government -- namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA court. ..."
    "... All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0 character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as "supposed trolls of the Russian government". ..."
    "... Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government. ..."
    "... Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the public domain. ..."
    Dec 18, 2019 | off-guardian.org

    Larry Johnson & Bill Binney Helping the President Dismantle the Empire - YouTube

    Streamed live on Dec 12, 2019

    On December 12th, the retired NSA whistleblower and former Technical Director of the NS A, Bill Binney asserted (at 39:00-44:00 in the above video):

    BILL BINNEY: I basically have always been saying that all of this Russian hack never happened, but we have some more evidence coming out recently.

    We haven't published it yet, but what we have seen is that there are at least five items that we've found that were produced by Guccifer 2.0 back on June 15th, where they had the Russian fingerprints in them, suggesting the Russians made the hack. Well, we found the same five items published by Wikileaks in the Podesta emails.

    Those items do not have the Russian fingerprints, which directly implies that Guccifer 2.0 was inserting these into the files to make it look like the Russians did this hack. Taking that into account with all the other evidence we have; like the download speeds from Guccifer 2.0 were too fast, and they couldn't be managed by the web.

    And that the files he was putting together and saying that he actually hacked, the two files he said he had were really one file, and he was playing with the data; moving it to two different files to claim two hacks.

    Taking that into account with the fabrication of the Russian fingerprints, it leads us back to inferring that in fact the marble framework out of the Vault 7 compromise of CIA hacking routines was a possible user in this case.

    In other words, it looked like the CIA did this, and that it was a matter of the CIA making it look like the Russians were doing the hack. So, when you look at that and also look at the DNC emails that were published by Wikileaks that have this phat file format in them, all 35,813 of these emails have rounded off times to the nearest even second.

    That's a phat file format property; that argues that those files were, in fact, downloaded to a thumb drive or CD-rom and physically transported before Wikileaks posted them. Which again argues that it wasn't a hack.

    So, all of the evidence we're finding is clearly evidence that the Russians were not in fact hacking; it was probably our own people. It's very hard for us to get this kind of information out. The mainstream media won't cover it; none of them will. It's very hard. We get some bloggers to do that and some radio shows.

    Also, I put all of this into a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. I did that because all of the attack on him was predicated on him being connected with this Russian hack which was false to being with.

    All the evidence we're accumulating clearly says and implies, the US government -- namely the FBI, CIA, the DOJ, and of course State Department -- all these people involved in this hack, bought a dossier and all of the information going forward to the FISA court.

    All of them knew that this was a fake from the very beginning, because this Guccifer 2.0 character was fabricating it. They were using him plus the Internet Research Agency [IRA] as "supposed trolls of the Russian government".

    Well, when they sent their lawyers over to challenge that in a court of law, the government failed to prove they had any connection with the Russian government.

    They basically were chastised by the judge for fabricating a charge against this company. So, if you take the IRA and the trolls away from that argument, and Guccifer 2.0, then the entire Mueller report is a provable fabrication; because it's based on Guccifer 2.0 and the IRA.

    Then the entire Rosenstein indictment is also a fabrication and a fake and a fraud for the same reasons. The judges seem to be involved in trying to keep this information out of the public domain.

    So, we have a really extensive shadow government here at work, trying to keep the understanding and knowledge of what's really happening away from the public of the United States. That's the really bad part. And the mainstream media is a participant in this; they're culpable.

    The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, in its article about Binney , accuses him by saying:

    His dissent from the consensus view that Russia interfered with the 2016 US election appears to be based on Russian disinformation."

    They provide no footnote or linked-to source for their allegation

    Ever since Binney went public criticizing U.S. intelligence agencies, they have been trying to discredit him.

    Thus far, however, their efforts have been nothing more than insinuations against his person, without any specific allegation of counter-evidence that discredits any of his actual assertions.


    Martin Usher ,

    The "Russia" thing was never able to differentiate between "Russians" and "the Russian state". Its a product of a Cold War mindset that can't conceive of that country without it being 150 million puppets all controlled by string from an office in the Kremlin. In reality its just another country, one that offers goods and services to the world just like anywhere else. So while we just assume that a company like SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent) would have personnel from and offices in many countries and have contracts with various political parties in many countries we just can't seem to get our heads around the idea that a company operating inside -- or even headquartered -- in Russia isn't automatically some kind of Kremlin front. (Well, yes, it could be but the same way that a company in the UK could be a front for the UK government, e.g. the Gateside Mill story in Scotland's Daily Record).

    Another factor that might come into play is the idea that 'analytics', the key to business on the Internet, is actually nothing more than a sophisticated form of traffic analysis, a well known espionage tool. Any government worth its salt that's likely to be on the receiving end of a propaganda campaign would be very interested in understanding the reach of such a tool and learning how to manage that reach. So its possible that if we find the Russian government taking out advertisements on Facebook through a front company to 'influence' people its likely that they're more interested in evaluating that reach than the simplistic view that they're 'trying to influence an election' (its not as if foreign interests or even governments ever try to influence elections)(color revolution, anyone?). Allowing unfettered access by these tools to one's nation is a bit like taking down one's defenses -- fine if you're happy with vassal state ("ally") status but not if you're potentially an adversary -- so its important to know how to control it, no less important than having a decent air defense system.

    RobG ,

    And in a further retort to all this nonsense, Harold Wilson, the last socialist leader of the Labour Party back in the 1970s, won four general elections, a feat that's never been repeated by any party leader.

    Here's the Wiki nonsense/propaganda

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

    And here's a more historical record

    https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/harold-wilson

    This does directly relate to this thread, because the Americans overthrew Wilson. Just as they have done now with Corbyn. You really need to take your country back, whether you're a Brit or American.

    paul ,

    We are fortunate that there are still persons of integrity even in the spook organisations – Binney, Kyriakou, Manning, Snowden. Without them and Assange a lot of this criminality would never have seen the light of day.

    Jack_Garbo ,

    Diagnosing the disease does not imply the cure has been found. You simply know how much sicker you are. Not helpful. Nothing has changed despite all the revelations of intelligence shenanigans. Apologies do not cure the patient when they're still spreading the disease. In fact, the opposite.

    paul ,

    Wikipedia holds out the begging bowl to anybody who uses it now. I don't know why – they get plenty of CIA and Soros money.

    RobG ,

    All they've got to do now is wheel out the psychopath and war criminal, Tony Blair, to say: "it's the Russians wot dunnit".

    Oh my God

    Jen ,

    They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met start their investigations.

    ZigZagWanderer ,

    @ 1.15.58 "Intelligence community has become a self licking ice cream cone"

    Larry Johnson and Bill Binney always worth listening to. Try to find the time.

    Antonym ,

    True except for Trump. Just look how hard deep state tries to unseat him.
    Damaging your own puppet is not normal for a puppeteer.

    J_Garbo ,

    I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire, continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence make sense. IMO as I said.

    Gary Weglarz ,

    I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time that – "hell freezes over" – as they say.

    Thanks for posting this latest info.

    [Dec 20, 2019] The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc

    Highly recommended!
    Dec 20, 2019 | www.unz.com

    Realist , says: December 19, 2019 at 5:17 pm GMT

    The Year of Manufactured Hysteria

    The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc.

    The unimportant internecine squabbles of the 'two parties' strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Sep 28, 2020] Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate' Published on Aug 21, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Sep 26, 2020] Galloway- Lying industry may be the only sector of Western economies still in full production TAXPAYERS pay for it Published on Sep 26, 2020 | www.rt.com

    [Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques Published on Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 23, 2020] How fake media actually works: reporter are given the narrative and they should rehash their stories to fit it Published on Sep 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 23, 2020] The deviousness of Russians is completly off the charts. Published on Sep 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen- The Ukrainian Crisis - It s not All Putin s Fault Published on Sep 21, 2020 | www.youtube.com

    [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen Cohen at the AJC 2017 Forum, about Russia and Terrorism Published on Jun 23, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Sep 20, 2020] CJ Hopkins Exposes The Final Act In 'The War On Populism' Published on Sep 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Sep 17, 2020] Military desperados and Mattis "military messiah syndrome" by Scott Ritter Published on Sep 16, 2020 | www.rt.com

    [Sep 09, 2020] Proof of collusion at last! - IRRUSSIANALITY Published on Sep 09, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

    [Sep 01, 2020] Are We Deliberately Trying to Provoke a Military Crisis With Russia by Ted Galen Carpenter Published on Aug 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    [Sep 01, 2020] How Democrats and Republicans made deals to pass Magnitsky Act by Lucy Komisar Published on Aug 19, 2020 | www.thekomisarscoop.com

    [Aug 27, 2020] The Ceaseless Lies of Eva Bartlett; or, The Partisan Scrubbing of Western Consciousness. The New Kremlin Stooge Published on Aug 27, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

    [Aug 23, 2020] Catapulting Russian-Meddling Propaganda by Ray McGovern Published on Aug 23, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 19, 2020] The Republican led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence repeats the lies about Guccifer 2.0 Published on Aug 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 17, 2020] Who's Afraid of QAnon- by Gregory Hood Published on Aug 17, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 16, 2020] CIA Behind Guccifer Russiagate A Plausible Scenario Published on Aug 16, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 08, 2020] Russia Hoax- Are We All Being Played- Put Up Or Shut Up! - Zero Hedge Published on Aug 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Aug 04, 2020] Russia never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend by The Saker Published on Aug 04, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Aug 03, 2020] Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The dynamic of cancellation predates the internet. Published on Aug 03, 2020 | crookedtimber.org

    [Aug 03, 2020] KEEPING YOUR MOUTH SHUT by James L. Gibson & Joseph L. Sutherland Published on Aug 03, 2020 | poseidon01.ssrn.com

    [Aug 02, 2020] Russiagate, Nazis, and the CIA by ROB URIE Published on Jul 31, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

    [Jul 23, 2020] Demorats defeat amedment ot cut Defence by 10% Published on Jul 23, 2020 | news.antiwar.com

    [Jul 21, 2020] This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier. Published on Apr 20, 2019 | theduran.com

    [Jul 20, 2020] The Real 'Russian Playbook' Is Written in English -- Strategic Culture Published on Jul 17, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

    [Jul 18, 2020] Divide We Fall -- America Has Been Blacklisted and McCarthyism Refashioned for a New Age Published on Jul 18, 2020 | www.mintpressnews.com

    [Jul 07, 2020] Mutiny on the Bounties by RAY McGOVERN Published on Jul 03, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone Published on Jul 06, 2020 | thegrayzone.com

    [Jul 01, 2020] Putin s economic and social policies have a neoliberal bent but Putin is far from a classic neoliberal Published on Jul 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jul 01, 2020] Russiagate's Last Gasp by Ray McGovern Published on Jun 29, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    [Jun 28, 2020] Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did Not Respond' - NYT, WaPo Publish It Published on Jun 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 28, 2020] Russian position for Start talks: "We don't believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever". Published on Jun 28, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jun 23, 2020] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ( soft neoliberals ) to counter the defection of trade union members from the party Published on Dec 28, 2019 | crookedtimber.org

    [Jun 23, 2020] Surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real or not) Published on Jun 23, 2020 | irrussianality.wordpress.com

    [Jun 23, 2020] Putin Tries To Set Record Straight by Published on Jun 22, 2020 | www.antiwar.com

    [Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'. Published on Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded Published on Jun 14, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

    [Jun 13, 2020] Korea is just another distraction: false conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year Published on Jun 13, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jun 03, 2020] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed Published on Jul 25, 2019 | www.unz.com

    [Jun 03, 2020] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow Published on Jul 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jun 03, 2020] Requiem to Russiagate: this was the largest and the most successful attempt to gaslight the whole US population ever attempted by CIA and Clinton wing of Dems by CJ Hopkins Published on Apr 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson Published on Jun 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson Published on Jun 01, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 Published on May 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0's Hidden Agenda : looks like Gussifer 2.0 was a false flag operation designed to smear WikiLeaks and distract from the content of the stolen by Seth Rich or some other insider DNC emails Published on May 24, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

    [May 23, 2020] China is still in great danger. Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3 Published on May 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [May 22, 2020] No US president who can withdraw the USA from the Forever Wars Published on May 22, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [May 20, 2020] McGovern Turn Out The Lights, Russiagate Is Over by Ray McGovern Published on May 19, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [May 19, 2020] Russophobia in the Age of Donald Trump Published on May 19, 2020 | www.oxfordscholarship.com

    [May 16, 2020] Bought MSM experts typically are just MIC prostitutes: most are neocons and "Russiagaters" Published on May 16, 2020 | www.rt.com

    [May 16, 2020] Putin's Call For A New System and the 1944 Battle Of Bretton Woods Published on May 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    [May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy Published on May 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [May 11, 2020] Twin Pillars of Russiagate Crumble by Ray McGovern Published on May 11, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

    [May 10, 2020] Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security by Kevin R. Brock Published on May 10, 2020 | thehill.com

    [May 10, 2020] Does Obama now feels his potential liability for staging coup d' tat and gaslighting the whole nation? Published on May 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [May 08, 2020] Thiefs stole from a Russian fifth column critter: NY Times Accused Of Ripping Off Pulitzer Prize-Winning Stories From Russian Journalists For 2nd Time Published on May 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [May 07, 2020] Media Malpractice Is Criminalizing Better Relations With Russia by Stephen F. Cohen Published on Dec 13, 2017 | thenation.com

    [May 05, 2020] Is there a "6th column" trying to subvert Russia, by The Saker Published on May 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [May 05, 2020] UK government experince with the White Helmets and the Skripal affair definitly halps in anti-china propaganda. Published on May 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Apr 22, 2020] Especially as the insane neoliberal economy we live in, we are ruled by a group of kleptocrats and vicious stooges. Which make allegations against Biden deserving a closer look but that does not make them automatically credible Published on Apr 22, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    [Apr 17, 2020] Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to sabotage Trump. Published on Apr 17, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Apr 02, 2020] Bloomberg spent north of $500 millions to become president with zero results, and you want me to believe that Russians spent 1% of that and got better results Published on Apr 02, 2020 | hub.jhu.edu

    [Apr 02, 2020] We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them, attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military adventure since 1945 Published on Apr 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Mar 28, 2020] Russians again were outsmarted by the US intelligence agencies Published on Mar 28, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 28, 2020] Why You Should Never Watch RT -- Ever! Published on Mar 26, 2020 | russia-insider.com

    [Mar 24, 2020] This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda Published on Mar 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Mar 21, 2020] When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply Published on Mar 22, 2020 | https://www.moonofalabama.org

    [Mar 17, 2020] DOJ drops charges against Russian trolls after they dared demand evidence in US court -- RT USA News Published on Mar 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

    [Mar 12, 2020] Did Joe Biden's Former IT Guy Masquerade as Guccifer 2.0 by Larry C Johnson Published on Mar 12, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Mar 05, 2020] Intelligence Officials Sow Discord By Stoking Fear of Russian Election Meddling by Dave DeCamp Published on Feb 24, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

    [Mar 04, 2020] Russiagate should be viewed as classic, textbook case of gaslighting and projecting election interference Published on Mar 04, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

    [Mar 03, 2020] Russia isn't backing Sanders and Trump as much as hoping for chaos Published on Mar 03, 2020 | www.usatoday.com

    [Mar 03, 2020] Whacking Rich is a reminder to Sanders what the party establishmen is capable of Published on Mar 03, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Feb 29, 2020] A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change" Published on Feb 29, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

    [Feb 24, 2020] Seven signs of the neoliberal apocalypse by Van Badham Published on Apr 26, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

    [Feb 21, 2020] Why Both Republicans And Democrats Want Russia To Become The Enemy Of Choice by Philip Giraldi Published on Feb 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Feb 19, 2020] During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a neoliberal coup d' tat) changed sides and betrayed the working class Published on Feb 19, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

    [Feb 19, 2020] On Michael Lind's "The New Class War" by Gregor Baszak Published on Jan 08, 2020 | lareviewofbooks.org

    [Jan 29, 2020] For the last three years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia Published on Jan 29, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    [Jan 24, 2020] Peter Hitchen to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat: You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now, sweetie Published on Jan 24, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    [Jan 24, 2020] Crimes of the century truth, perception and punishment Published on Jan 24, 2020 | off-guardian.org

    [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan Published on Jan 20, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Jan 18, 2020] Putin plants to prohibit dual citizens to serve in government Published on Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

    [Jan 09, 2020] It looks like UK and the USA intelligences agencies run the contest to see who can come up with the most surreal anti-Russian propaganda psy-ops Published on Nov 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

    [Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

    [Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

    [Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker Published on Jan 05, 2020 | thesaker.is

    [Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko Published on Jan 05, 2020 | astutenews.com

    [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus Published on Feb 23, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 28, 2019] Senior OPCW Official Busted Leaked Email Exposes Orders To Delete All Traces Of Dissent On Douma Published on Dec 28, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

    [Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam Published on Dec 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point. Published on Dec 21, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com

    [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century Published on Aug 26, 2017 | www.amazon.com

    [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson Published on Dec 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    [Dec 20, 2019] NSA Whistleblower: "Mueller Report based on fabricated evidence" Former NSA technical chief, Bill Binney, says it looked like the CIA did this, and made it look like the Russians were doing the hack to implicate Russians by Eric Zuesse Published on Dec 18, 2019 | off-guardian.org

    [Dec 20, 2019] The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc Published on Dec 20, 2019 | www.unz.com

    Oldies But Goodies

  • [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia
  • [Oct 12, 2016] NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by US intelligence
  • [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou
  • [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
  • [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt
  • [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?
  • [Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye
  • [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry
  • [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time
  • [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews
  • [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein
  • [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal
  • [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules
  • [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic
  • [Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo
  • [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast
  • [Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson
  • [Nov 29, 2017] The Russian Question by Niall Ferguson
  • [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter
  • [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik
  • [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry
  • [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules
  • [Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras
  • [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins
  • [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven
  • [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins
  • [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class
  • [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter
  • [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign
  • [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald
  • [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar
  • [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed
  • [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames
  • [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro
  • [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras
  • [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies
  • [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry
  • [Aug 08, 2017] The Tale of the Brothers Awan by Philip Giraldi
  • [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills
  • [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary
  • [Jul 30, 2017] the Ukrainingate emerging from the evidence on Hillary campaign sounds like a criminal conspiracy of foreign state against Trump
  • [Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped
  • [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras
  • [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern
  • [Jul 01, 2017] MUST SEE video explains the entire 17 Intelligence Agencies Russian hacking lie
  • [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman
  • [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney
  • [May 23, 2017] Trumped-up claims against Trump by Ray McGovern
  • [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff
  • [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins
  • [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap
  • [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -
  • [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray
  • [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter
  • [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat
  • [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi
  • [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders
  • [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi
  • [Nov 24, 2018] MI6 Scrambling To Stop Trump From Releasing Classified Docs In Russia Probe
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda
  • [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns
  • [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)
  • [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.
  • [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Oct 25, 2018] DNC Emails--A Seth Attack Not a Russian Hack by Publius Tacitus
  • [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives
  • [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.
  • [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir
  • [Oct 09, 2018] The Skripals Are an MI6 Hoax - 'Not Worthy of Ladies' Detective Novels' - Israeli Expert Demolishes UK Case
  • [Oct 08, 2018] British intelligence now officially is a by-word for organized crime by John Wight
  • [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum
  • [Oct 02, 2018] I m puzzled why CIA is so against Kavanaugh?
  • [Sep 23, 2018] UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited Grave Concerns Over Steele Involvement
  • [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin
  • [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence
  • [Sep 15, 2018] BBC is skanky state propaganda
  • [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone
  • [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov
  • [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement
  • [Aug 08, 2018] Sergei Skripal was linked to a consultant with former UK spy Christopher Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence
  • [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography
  • [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.
  • [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?
  • [Jul 23, 2018] Chickens with Their Heads Cut Off, Coming Home to Roost. The "Treason Narrative" by Helen Buyniski
  • [Jul 22, 2018] Tucker Carlson SLAMS Intelligence Community On Russia
  • [Jul 20, 2018] So many (ex-) MI6 operators (Steele, Tait, etc) involved in the story. It is interesting that the media don t question the intense involvement of the British in all this. And of course, the British haven t been laggards in adding fuel to the fire by the whole novichok hoax
  • [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent
  • [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.
  • [Jul 16, 2018] Five Things That Would Make The CIA-CNN Russia Narrative More Believable
  • [Jul 15, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis HILLARY CLINTON S COMPROMISED EMAILS WERE GOING TO A FOREIGN ENTITY – NOT RUSSIA! FBI Agent Ignored Evide
  • [Jul 15, 2018] Peter Strzok Ignored Evidence Of Clinton Server Breach
  • [Jul 15, 2018] Something Rotten About the DOJ Indictment of the GRU by Publius Tacitus
  • [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?
  • [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team
  • [Jul 05, 2018] Britain's Most Censored Stories (Non-Military)
  • [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it
  • [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare
  • [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern
  • [May 29, 2018] Guccifer 2.0's American Fingerprints Reveal An Operation Made In The USA by Elizabeth Lea Vos
  • [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b
  • [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice
  • [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
  • [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia
  • [Jun 14, 2018] Problem with US and British MSM control of narrative
  • [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI
  • [Jun 12, 2018] The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream media
  • [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith
  • [May 31, 2018] Journalists and academics expose UK's criminal actions in the Middle East by Julie Hyland
  • [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press
  • [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy
  • [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump
  • [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris
  • [May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris
  • [May 03, 2018] Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased coverage, the British haven't bought it
  • [Apr 23, 2018] The Tony Blair Rule: The Truth Takes 15 Years to Come Out, Skripal Countdown Starts Now - Simonyan
  • [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.
  • [Apr 16, 2018] British Propaganda and Disinformation An Imperial and Colonial Tradition by Wayne MADSEN
  • [Apr 10, 2018] The Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21, 2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad.
  • [Mar 17, 2018] How the gas was administred in a place which was under surveillance and why passersby were not affected
  • [Mar 15, 2018] The UK will promptly expel 23 Russian diplomats without waiting for the end of the investigation
  • [Mar 13, 2018] The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.
  • [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus
  • [Apr 05, 2018] The Three Most Important Aspects of the Skripal Case so Far and Where They by Rob Slane
  • [Apr 05, 2018] An Interview with Retired Russian General Evgeny Buzhinsky The National Interest
  • [Apr 03, 2018] This Washington Post Headline Is Fake News
  • [Apr 03, 2018] Exercise TOXIC DAGGER - the sharp end of chemical warfare
  • [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov
  • [Apr 02, 2018] Russia 'Novichok' Hysteria Proves Politicians and Media Haven't Learned the Lessons of Iraq by Patrick Henningsen
  • [Apr 02, 2018] The Litvinenko Conspiracy
  • [Apr 01, 2018] UK may have staged Skripal poisoning to rally people against Russia, Moscow believes
  • [Mar 31, 2018] FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible for anthrax attack! That was Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq.
  • [Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar
  • [Mar 27, 2018] The Stormy Daniels scandal Political warfare in Washington hits a new low by Patrick Martin
  • [Mar 27, 2018] Perfidious Albion The Fatally Wounded British Beast Lashes Out by Barbara Boyd
  • [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker
  • [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie
  • [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras
  • [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.
  • [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK
  • [Mar 21, 2018] Arafat and Litvinenko: an Interesting Turn to a Mysterious Story
  • [Mar 21, 2018] Whataboutism Is A Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used To Defend The Failed Status Quo by Mike Krieger
  • [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies
  • [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater
  • [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou
  • [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus
  • [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills
  • [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary
  • [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia
  • [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row
  • [Mar 16, 2018] NATO to display common front in Skripal case
  • [Mar 15, 2018] The UK will promptly expel 23 Russian diplomats without waiting for the end of the investigation
  • [Mar 14, 2018] Russian UN anvoy> alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended to harm Russia s reputation by Julian Borger
  • [Mar 14, 2018] UNSC holds urgent meeting over Salisbury attack
  • [Mar 12, 2018] New Huge Anti-Russian Provocation ahead of Russian election by Robert Stevens
  • [Mar 12, 2018] State Department's War on Political Dissent
  • [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney
  • [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit
  • [Mar 11, 2018] The Elephant In The Room by Craig Murray
  • [Mar 11, 2018] It is highly probably that Steele and Skripal knew each other
  • [Mar 11, 2018] Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack
  • [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II
  • [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case?
  • [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.
  • [Mar 08, 2018] A key piece of evidence pointing to 'Guccifer 2.0' being a fake personality created by the conspirators in their attempt to disguise the fact that the materials from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' were obtained by a leak rather than a hack had to do with the involvement of the former GCHQ person Matt Tait.
  • [Mar 08, 2018] Mueller determines the US foreign policy toward Russia; The Intel Community Lies About Russian Meddling by Publius Tacitus
  • [Mar 06, 2018] Is MSNBC Now the Most Dangerous Warmonger Network by Norman Solomon
  • [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge
  • [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.
  • [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill
  • [Mar 02, 2018] Contradictions In Seth Rich Murder Continue To Challenge Hacking Narrative
  • [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus
  • [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis
  • [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All
  • [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt
  • [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia
  • [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham
  • [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern
  • [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know
  • [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER
  • [Feb 18, 2018] This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war profiteers, the retired generals intelligence members who prostitute themselves as media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting
  • [Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy
  • [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.
  • [Feb 14, 2018] Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court
  • [Feb 14, 2018] The Anti-Trump Coup by Michael S. Rozeff
  • [Feb 14, 2018] A Russian Trump by Israel Shamir
  • [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine
  • [Feb 12, 2018] Too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics involved in the Olympic
  • [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore
  • [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war
  • [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine
  • [Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review
  • [Feb 08, 2018] Control of narrative means that creation of the simplistic picture in which the complexities of the world are elided in favor of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' dichotomy
  • [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative
  • [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone
  • [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir
  • [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0
  • [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor
  • [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken
  • [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
  • [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer
  • [Jan 14, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The Trump Dossier Timeline, A Democrat Disaster Looming by Publius Tacitus
  • [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear
  • [Nov 29, 2019] Where s the Collusion
  • [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry
  • [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]
  • [Jan 02, 2018] The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate by Dennis J. Bernstein
  • [Jan 02, 2018] Some investigators ask a sensible question: "It is likely that all the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheming, Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America except the Russians who talked to Christopher Steele?"
  • [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears
  • [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney
  • [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi
  • [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia
  • [Dec 28, 2019] Senior OPCW Official Busted Leaked Email Exposes Orders To Delete All Traces Of Dissent On Douma
  • [Jun 23, 2020] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ( soft neoliberals ) to counter the defection of trade union members from the party
  • [Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century
  • [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson
  • [Dec 20, 2019] NSA Whistleblower: "Mueller Report based on fabricated evidence" Former NSA technical chief, Bill Binney, says it looked like the CIA did this, and made it look like the Russians were doing the hack to implicate Russians by Eric Zuesse
  • [Dec 20, 2019] The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc
  • [Dec 19, 2019] Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials, often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and incipient tyranny.
  • [Dec 14, 2019] A Determined Effort to Undermine Russia
  • [Dec 10, 2019] The level of Neo-McCarthyism and the number of lunitics this NYT forums is just astonishing: When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
  • [Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default.
  • [Dec 06, 2019] Who Is Making US Foreign Policy by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [Dec 04, 2019] The central question of Ukrainegate is whether CrowdStrike actions on DNC leak were a false flag operation designed to open Russiagate and what was the level of participation of Poroshenko government and Ukrainian Security services in this false flag operation by Factotum
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Common Funding Themes Link 'Whistleblower' Complaint and CrowdStrike Firm Certifying DNC Russia 'Hack' by Aaron Klein
  • [Dec 04, 2019] DNC Russian Hackers Found! You Won't Believe Who They Really Work For by the Anonymous Patriots
  • [Dec 04, 2019] June 4th, 2017 Crowdstrike Was at the DNC Six Weeks by George Webb
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Cyberanalyst George Eliason Claims that the "Fancy Bear" Who Hacked the DNC Server is Ukrainian Intelligence – In League with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike
  • [Dec 04, 2019] Fancy Bear - Conservapedia
  • [Dec 04, 2019] June 2nd, 2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams by George Webb
  • [Nov 29, 2019] Where s the Collusion
  • [Nov 26, 2019] John Solomon Everything Changes In The Ukraine Scandal If Trump Releases These Documents
  • [Nov 07, 2019] Rigged Again Dems, Russia, The Delegitimization Of America s Democratic Process by Elizabeth Vos
  • [Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq
  • [Nov 03, 2019] Growing Indicators of Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis
  • [Nov 02, 2019] WATCH Udo Ulfkotte – Bought Journalists by Terje Maloy
  • [Nov 01, 2019] Viable Opposition The Legal Connection Between Washington and Kiev
  • [Nov 01, 2019] Color revolution is a method of using a minority to render the country ungovernble, waving a simplistic banner against corruption and for (undefined) democracy, which leaves the masses unorganized and eschews even a platform, in favor of a secret coterie run by intelligence againces
  • [Oct 28, 2019] Expert Panel Finds Gaping Plot-Holes In OPCW Report On Alleged Syrian Chemical Attack by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Oct 25, 2019] Trump-Haters, Not Trump, Are The Ones Wrecking America s Institutions, WSJ s Strassel Says
  • [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism
  • [Oct 19, 2019] Russian agents under every bed
  • [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism
  • [Oct 19, 2019] Russian agents under every bed
  • [Sep 23, 2019] Apparently now that the notion Russia interfered in the US presidential election to tip the vote to Trump has become an article of faith that much of the world regards as established fact
  • [Sep 22, 2019] US reconnaissance plane operated drones that attacked Hmeymim
  • [Sep 22, 2019] It was neoliberalism that won the cold war
  • [Sep 22, 2019] Shoigu calls US belief in its superiority the major threat to Russia and other states
  • [Sep 18, 2019] To End Endless Wars, We Must Give Up Hegemony by Daniel Larison
  • [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin
  • [Sep 15, 2019] Demythologizing the Roots of the New Cold War by Ted Snider
  • [Sep 10, 2019] The idea tha the USA won the Cold War is questionable
  • [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage
  • [Sep 03, 2019] Russiagate as crocodile tears of western propaganda
  • [Sep 03, 2019] Russiagate as crocodile tears of western propaganda
  • [Aug 24, 2019] George Kennan on Russia Insights and Recommendations
  • [Aug 21, 2019] Solomon If Trump Declassifies These 10 Documents, Democrats Are Doomed
  • [Aug 17, 2019] Debunking the Putin Panic by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)
  • [Aug 16, 2019] Ministry of truth materialized in XXI century in a neoliberal way by Kit Knightly
  • [Aug 16, 2019] Lapdogs for the Government and intelligence agencies by Greg Maybury
  • [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)
  • [Aug 12, 2019] Russiagate is the idea around which varied interests can be organized
  • [Jul 29, 2019] The Real Reason The Propagandists Have Been Promoting Russia Hysteria by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Jul 28, 2019] Mueller Crumbles Under Questioning by Barbara Boland
  • [Jul 28, 2019] Antisemitism prejudices projection on Russians
  • [Jul 27, 2019] Russia interfered on a massive scale ($3,684 was spends on ads on which $1932 on promoting Trump) and is doing it again as we sit here! Just how massive? They spent $100,000 on clickbait ads from a company owned by a man who was in a photo with the evil mastermind!
  • [Jul 27, 2019] Understanding the Roots of the Obama Coup Against Trump by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America. But he is A daft old man blinking in the sunlight once the curtain has been opened
  • [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker What should happen to those who lied about Russian collusion
  • [Jul 27, 2019] Russia interfered on a massive scale ($3,684 was spends on ads on which $1932 on promoting Trump) and is doing it again as we sit here! Just how massive? They spent $100,000 on clickbait ads from a company owned by a man who was in a photo with the evil mastermind!
  • [Jul 26, 2019] Tucker: Democrats believed Mueller would save America. But he is A daft old man blinking in the sunlight once the curtain has been opened
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed
  • [Jul 23, 2019] John Helmer MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt To Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephon
  • [Jul 23, 2019] Ukraine Election - Voters Defeat Second Color Revolution
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow
  • [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then
  • [Jul 06, 2019] Mueller Report Gets the Trump Tower Meeting Wrong; Promotes Browder Hoax by Lucy Komisar
  • [Jun 30, 2019] USG's Bizarre Change of Position in the Roger Stone Case by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas
  • [Jun 21, 2019] America's Confrontation With Iran Goes Deeper Than Trump by Trita Parsi
  • [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters
  • [Jun 19, 2019] Investigation Nation Mueller, Russiagate, and Fake Politics by Jim Kavanagh
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Rule of law in Murrika is kaput
  • [Jun 14, 2019] Comments on Yasha Levin article: With Russiagate, we Soviet immigrants were finally forced to reckon with the bigotry of America's elite
  • [Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf
  • [May 29, 2019] With Russiagate, we Soviet immigrants were finally forced to reckon with the bigotry of America's elite by Yasha Levine
  • [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.
  • [May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries
  • [May 20, 2019] "Us" Versus "Them"
  • [May 19, 2019] How Russiagate replaced Analysis of the 2016 Election by Rick Sterling
  • [May 19, 2019] Intel agencies of the UK and US are guilty of fabricating evidence, breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing fake analysis and operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity
  • [May 16, 2019] The Disinformationists by C.J. Hopkins
  • [May 15, 2019] Russia-gate s Monstrous Offspring
  • [May 14, 2019] The Propaganda Multiplier How Global News Agencies and Western Media Report on Geopolitics
  • [May 13, 2019] In defense of Maria Butina Spectator USA by Michael Tracey
  • [May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi
  • [May 12, 2019] Charting a Progressive Foreign Policy for the Trump Era and Beyond
  • [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear
  • [May 11, 2019] Doug Ross @ Journal A TIMELINE OF TREASON How the DNC and FBI Leadership Tried to Fix a Presidential Election [Updated]
  • [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus
  • [May 11, 2019] CIA Paid $100,000 To Shadowy Russian For Dirt on Trump, Including Sex Video by Chuck Ross
  • [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson
  • [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!
  • [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors
  • [May 07, 2019] Look! A whale!
  • [May 05, 2019] The Left Needs to Stop Crushing on the Generals by Danny Sjursen
  • [Apr 29, 2019] The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory by Aaron Maté
  • [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed
  • [Apr 28, 2019] Breath of fresh air--real journalism again! Have so much respect for Chris Hedges and Aaron Mate, great work!
  • [Apr 28, 2019] On Contact Russiagate Mueller Report w- Aaron Mate
  • [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi
  • [Apr 26, 2019] Intelligence agencies meddling in elections
  • [Apr 22, 2019] FBI top brass have been colluding with top brass of CIA and MI6 to pursue ambitious anti-Russian agenda
  • [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany
  • [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA
  • [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
  • [Apr 20, 2019] Trump has certainly made the world safer
  • [Apr 20, 2019] Sure, blame those guys over there for Hillary fiasco and hire Mueller to get the goods . That s the ultimate the dog ate my homework excuse.
  • [Apr 17, 2019] The media's interest in the well-being of a foreign population is directly proportional to the West's interest in toppling its government, while editorial standards are inversely proportional to its enemy status
  • [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump
  • [Apr 15, 2019] I wonder if the Middle East is nothing more than a live-fire laboratory for the military
  • [Apr 13, 2019] Russophobia, A WMD (Weapon Of Mass Deception) by Jean Ranc
  • [Apr 12, 2019] Putin was KGB agent crowd forgets that Bush Sr was long time senior CIA operative and the director of CIA
  • [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times
  • [Apr 08, 2019] Aaron Maté Was Also Right About Russiagate
  • [Apr 06, 2019] The Magnitsky Act-Behind the Scenes ASEEES
  • [Apr 04, 2019] TEST IT YOURSELF, THE 2-SECOND-ROUNDING FACT PATTERN IN THE DNC EMAILS By William Binney and Larry Johnson
  • [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry
  • [Apr 01, 2019] Amazon.com War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate (9781510745810) Stephen F. Cohen Books
  • [Mar 31, 2019] What is the purpose of Russiagate hysteria?
  • [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil
  • [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate
  • [Mar 30, 2019] You don't like Trump? Bolton? Clinton? All of these people who are in or have passed through leadership positions in America are entirely valid representatives of Americans in general. You may imagine they are faking cluelessness to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their crimes, but the cluelessness is quite real and extends to the entire population.
  • [Mar 25, 2019] Spygate The True Story of Collusion (plus Infographic) by Jeff Carlson
  • [Mar 24, 2019] The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
  • [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report
  • [Mar 24, 2019] "Russia Gate" investigation was a color revolution agaist Trump. But a strnge side effect was that Clintons have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug to the status of some kind of martyr.
  • [Mar 24, 2019] With RussiaGate Over Where's Hillary
  • [Mar 24, 2019] One thing left out is the ability of readers to call BS on a story i.e. a robust comment section for debates.
  • [Mar 23, 2019] Brennan pipe dream obliterated. The color revolution against Trump failed
  • [Mar 22, 2019] Glenn Greenwald on Twitter The Mueller investigation is complete and this is a simple fact that will never go away
  • [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies
  • [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?
  • [Mar 17, 2019] VIPS- Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
  • [Mar 06, 2019] Disinformation destroys reality
  • [Feb 22, 2019] Neo-McCarthyism is used to defend the US imperial policies. Branding dissidents as Russian stooges is a loophole that allow to suppress dissident opinions
  • [Feb 21, 2019] The Empire Now or Never by Fred Reed
  • [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds
  • [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube
  • [Feb 17, 2019] Trump is Russian asset memo is really neocon propaganda overkill
  • [Feb 16, 2019] MSM Begs For Trust After Buzzfeed Debacle by Caitlin Johnstone
  • [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished
  • [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber
  • [Feb 09, 2019] Did The Department Of Justice Protect Brenda Snipes From Prosecution For Ballot Destruction by Elizabeth Lea Vos
  • [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back
  • [Jan 22, 2019] War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate
  • [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald
  • [Jan 20, 2019] Doctor, nurse, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army, whatever.
  • [Jan 19, 2019] Coincidence - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First Person To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene
  • [Jan 11, 2019] New Documents Reveal a Covert British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine Meddling In American Politics by Mark Ames
  • [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything
  • [Jan 08, 2019] Shock Files- What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair- - Sputnik International
  • [Jan 08, 2019] Skripal spin doctors- Documents link UK govt-funded Integrity Initiative to anti-Russia narrative
  • [Jan 06, 2019] British elite fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.
  • [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News
  • [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo
  • [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?
  • [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap
  • [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -
  • [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray
  • [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts
  • [Dec 21, 2018] Virtually no one in neoliberal MSM is paying attention to the fact that a group of Pakistani muslims, working for a Jewish Congresswoman from Florida, had full computer access to a large number of Democrat Representatives. Most of the press is disinterested in pursuing this matter
  • [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat
  • [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi
  • [Sep 28, 2020] Truth be told: political operatives own and run our MSM. This is why the press is called the 'Fourth Estate'
  • [Sep 26, 2020] Galloway- Lying industry may be the only sector of Western economies still in full production TAXPAYERS pay for it
  • [Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques
  • [Sep 23, 2020] How fake media actually works: reporter are given the narrative and they should rehash their stories to fit it
  • [Sep 23, 2020] The deviousness of Russians is completly off the charts.
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen- The Ukrainian Crisis - It s not All Putin s Fault
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen Cohen at the AJC 2017 Forum, about Russia and Terrorism
  • [Sep 20, 2020] CJ Hopkins Exposes The Final Act In 'The War On Populism'
  • [Sep 17, 2020] Military desperados and Mattis "military messiah syndrome" by Scott Ritter
  • [Sep 09, 2020] Proof of collusion at last! - IRRUSSIANALITY
  • [Sep 01, 2020] Are We Deliberately Trying to Provoke a Military Crisis With Russia by Ted Galen Carpenter
  • [Sep 01, 2020] How Democrats and Republicans made deals to pass Magnitsky Act by Lucy Komisar
  • [Aug 27, 2020] The Ceaseless Lies of Eva Bartlett; or, The Partisan Scrubbing of Western Consciousness. The New Kremlin Stooge
  • [Aug 23, 2020] Catapulting Russian-Meddling Propaganda by Ray McGovern
  • [Aug 19, 2020] The Republican led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence repeats the lies about Guccifer 2.0
  • [Aug 17, 2020] Who's Afraid of QAnon- by Gregory Hood
  • [Aug 16, 2020] CIA Behind Guccifer Russiagate A Plausible Scenario
  • [Aug 08, 2020] Russia Hoax- Are We All Being Played- Put Up Or Shut Up! - Zero Hedge
  • [Aug 04, 2020] Russia never saw Trump as a potential ally or friend by The Saker
  • [Aug 03, 2020] Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.
  • [Aug 03, 2020] KEEPING YOUR MOUTH SHUT by James L. Gibson & Joseph L. Sutherland
  • [Aug 02, 2020] Russiagate, Nazis, and the CIA by ROB URIE
  • [Jul 23, 2020] Demorats defeat amedment ot cut Defence by 10%
  • [Jul 21, 2020] This Skripal thing smelled to high heaven from day 1. My opinion is that Sergei Skripal was involved (to what degree is open to speculation) with the Steele dossier.
  • [Jul 20, 2020] The Real 'Russian Playbook' Is Written in English -- Strategic Culture
  • [Jul 18, 2020] Divide We Fall -- America Has Been Blacklisted and McCarthyism Refashioned for a New Age
  • [Jul 07, 2020] Mutiny on the Bounties by RAY McGOVERN
  • [Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone
  • [Jul 01, 2020] Putin s economic and social policies have a neoliberal bent but Putin is far from a classic neoliberal
  • [Jul 01, 2020] Russiagate's Last Gasp by Ray McGovern
  • [Jun 28, 2020] Evidence Free Press Release Claims 'Russia Did Bad, Trump Did Not Respond' - NYT, WaPo Publish It
  • [Jun 28, 2020] Russian position for Start talks: "We don't believe the US in its current shape is a counterpart that is reliable, so we have no confidence, no trust whatsoever".
  • [Jun 23, 2020] Identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ( soft neoliberals ) to counter the defection of trade union members from the party
  • [Jun 23, 2020] Surely 'legitimacy' goes to the victor. Once you've won you can build a sort of legitimacy that the majority will agree with (whether its real or not)
  • [Jun 23, 2020] Putin Tries To Set Record Straight by
  • [Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'.
  • [Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded
  • [Jun 13, 2020] Korea is just another distraction: false conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Dems ratpack of reparations freaks, weird sexual curiosities, and race hustlers is actually a fifth column for Trump re-election by Fred Reed
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Not The Onion: NY Times Urges Trump To Establish Closer Ties With Moscow
  • [Jun 03, 2020] Requiem to Russiagate: this was the largest and the most successful attempt to gaslight the whole US population ever attempted by CIA and Clinton wing of Dems by CJ Hopkins
  • [Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
  • [Jun 01, 2020] More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
  • [May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0
  • [May 24, 2020] Guccifer 2.0's Hidden Agenda : looks like Gussifer 2.0 was a false flag operation designed to smear WikiLeaks and distract from the content of the stolen by Seth Rich or some other insider DNC emails
  • [May 23, 2020] China is still in great danger. Of the existing 30 or so high-tech productive chains, China only enjoys superiority at 2 or 3
  • [May 22, 2020] No US president who can withdraw the USA from the Forever Wars
  • [May 20, 2020] McGovern Turn Out The Lights, Russiagate Is Over by Ray McGovern
  • [May 19, 2020] Russophobia in the Age of Donald Trump
  • [May 16, 2020] Bought MSM experts typically are just MIC prostitutes: most are neocons and "Russiagaters"
  • [May 16, 2020] Putin's Call For A New System and the 1944 Battle Of Bretton Woods
  • [May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy
  • [May 11, 2020] Twin Pillars of Russiagate Crumble by Ray McGovern
  • [May 10, 2020] Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security by Kevin R. Brock
  • [May 10, 2020] Does Obama now feels his potential liability for staging coup d' tat and gaslighting the whole nation?
  • [May 08, 2020] Thiefs stole from a Russian fifth column critter: NY Times Accused Of Ripping Off Pulitzer Prize-Winning Stories From Russian Journalists For 2nd Time
  • [May 07, 2020] Media Malpractice Is Criminalizing Better Relations With Russia by Stephen F. Cohen
  • [May 05, 2020] Is there a "6th column" trying to subvert Russia, by The Saker
  • [May 05, 2020] UK government experince with the White Helmets and the Skripal affair definitly halps in anti-china propaganda.
  • [Apr 22, 2020] Especially as the insane neoliberal economy we live in, we are ruled by a group of kleptocrats and vicious stooges. Which make allegations against Biden deserving a closer look but that does not make them automatically credible
  • [Apr 17, 2020] Barr just said the Russia collusion probe was a travesty, had no basis and was intended to sabotage Trump.
  • [Apr 02, 2020] Bloomberg spent north of $500 millions to become president with zero results, and you want me to believe that Russians spent 1% of that and got better results
  • [Apr 02, 2020] We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them, attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military adventure since 1945
  • [Mar 28, 2020] Russians again were outsmarted by the US intelligence agencies
  • [Mar 28, 2020] Why You Should Never Watch RT -- Ever!
  • [Mar 24, 2020] This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda
  • [Mar 21, 2020] When reading any article concerning current events (ie. Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, or Coronavirus) consider how the The Seven Principles of Propaganda may apply
  • [Mar 17, 2020] DOJ drops charges against Russian trolls after they dared demand evidence in US court -- RT USA News
  • [Mar 12, 2020] Did Joe Biden's Former IT Guy Masquerade as Guccifer 2.0 by Larry C Johnson
  • [Mar 05, 2020] Intelligence Officials Sow Discord By Stoking Fear of Russian Election Meddling by Dave DeCamp
  • [Mar 04, 2020] Russiagate should be viewed as classic, textbook case of gaslighting and projecting election interference
  • [Mar 03, 2020] Russia isn't backing Sanders and Trump as much as hoping for chaos
  • [Mar 03, 2020] Whacking Rich is a reminder to Sanders what the party establishmen is capable of
  • [Feb 29, 2020] A very interesting and though provoking presentation by Ambassador Chas Freeman "America in Distress: The Challenges of Disadvantageous Change"
  • [Feb 24, 2020] Seven signs of the neoliberal apocalypse by Van Badham
  • [Feb 21, 2020] Why Both Republicans And Democrats Want Russia To Become The Enemy Of Choice by Philip Giraldi
  • [Feb 19, 2020] During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a neoliberal coup d' tat) changed sides and betrayed the working class
  • [Feb 19, 2020] On Michael Lind's "The New Class War" by Gregor Baszak
  • [Jan 29, 2020] For the last three years, all the "resistance oxygen" was sucked up by the warmongering against Russia
  • [Jan 24, 2020] Peter Hitchen to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat: You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now, sweetie
  • [Jan 24, 2020] Crimes of the century truth, perception and punishment
  • [Jan 20, 2020] Fake Investigations... Designed To Fool by Bryce Buchanan
  • [Jan 18, 2020] Putin plants to prohibit dual citizens to serve in government
  • [Jan 09, 2020] It looks like UK and the USA intelligences agencies run the contest to see who can come up with the most surreal anti-Russian propaganda psy-ops
  • [Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains
  • [Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low
  • [Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable
  • [Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker
  • [Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko
  • [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus
  • [Dec 28, 2019] Senior OPCW Official Busted Leaked Email Exposes Orders To Delete All Traces Of Dissent On Douma
  • [Dec 22, 2019] So US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks. That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack was born -- distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam
  • [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.
  • [Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century
  • [Dec 20, 2019] Did John Brennan's CIA Create Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks by Larry C Johnson
  • [Dec 20, 2019] NSA Whistleblower: "Mueller Report based on fabricated evidence" Former NSA technical chief, Bill Binney, says it looked like the CIA did this, and made it look like the Russians were doing the hack to implicate Russians by Eric Zuesse
  • [Dec 20, 2019] The purpose of manufactured hysteria in the US is to obfuscate the issues important to the Deep State like destroying the first amendment, renewing the 'Patriot' act, extremely increasing the war/hegemony budget, etc
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen F. Cohen- The Ukrainian Crisis - It s not All Putin s Fault
  • [Sep 21, 2020] Stephen Cohen at the AJC 2017 Forum, about Russia and Terrorism
  • [Sep 20, 2020] CJ Hopkins Exposes The Final Act In 'The War On Populism'
  • 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, 11, 2021