ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION – INFORMAÇÃO ALTERNATIVA – ALTERNATIVE NEWS – NOTÍCIAS ALTERNATIVAS – REAL FACTS AND INFORMATION –
YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION – SUA FONTE DE INFORMAÇÃO
-INFORMATION AS IN A BOTTLE THROWN TO THE SEVEN SEAS-
ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION – INFORMAÇÃO ALTERNATIVA – ALTERNATIVE NEWS – NOTÍCIAS ALTERNATIVAS – REAL FACTS AND INFORMATION –
YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION – SUA FONTE DE INFORMAÇÃO
-INFORMATION AS IN A BOTTLE THROWN TO THE SEVEN SEAS-
Fleeing to Canada is no longer an option
Liberals are supposed to be antiwar, right? I went to college in the 1960s, when students nationwide were rising up in opposition to the Vietnam War. I was a Young Republican back then and supported the war through sheer ignorance and dislike of the sanctimoniousness of the protesters, some of whom were surely making their way to Canada to live in exile on daddy’s money while I was on a bus going to Fort Leonard Wood for basic combat training. I can’t even claim that I had some grudging respect for the antiwar crowd because I didn’t, but I did believe that at least some of them who were not being motivated by being personally afraid of getting hurt were actually sincere in their opposition to the awful things that were happening in Southeast Asia.
As I look around now, however, I see something quite different. The lefties I knew in college are now part of the Establishment and generally speaking are retired limousine liberals. And they now call themselves progressives, of course, because it sounds more educated and sends a better message, implying as it does that troglodytic conservatives are anti-progress. But they also have done a flip on the issue of war and peace. In its most recent incarnation some of this might be attributed to a desperate desire to relate to the Hillary Clinton campaign with its bellicosity towards Russia, Syria and Iran, but I suspect that the inclination to identify enemies goes much deeper than that, back as far as the Bill Clinton Administration with its sanctions on Iraq and the Balkan adventure, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the creation of a terror-narco state in the heart of Europe. And more recently we have seen the Obama meddling in Libya, Yemen and Syria in so called humanitarian interventions which have turned out to be largely fraudulent. Yes, under the Obama Dems it was “responsibility to protect time” (r2p) and all the world trembled as the drones were let loose.
Last Friday I started to read an op-ed in The Washington Post by David Ignatius that blew me away. It began “President Trump confronts complicated problems as the investigation widens into Russia’s attack on our political system.” It then proceeded to lay out the case for an “aggressive Russia” in the terms that have been repeated ad nauseam in the mainstream media. And it was, of course, lacking in any evidence, as if the opinions of coopted journalists and the highly politicized senior officials in the intelligence community should be regarded as sacrosanct. These are, not coincidentally, the same people who have reportedly recently been working together to undercut the White House by leaking and then reporting highly sensitive transcripts of phone calls with Russian officials.
Ignatius is well plugged into the national security community and inclined to be hawkish but he is also a typical Post politically correct progressive on most issues. So here was your typical liberal asserting something in a dangerous fashion that has not been demonstrated and might be completely untrue. Russia is attacking “our political system!” And The Post is not alone in accepting that Russia is trying to subvert and ultimately overthrow our republic. Reporting from The New York Times and on television news makes the same assumption whenever they discuss Russia, leading to what some critics have described as mounting American ‘hysteria’ relating to anything coming out of Moscow.
Rachel Maddow is another favorite of mine when it comes to talking real humanitarian feel good stuff out one side of her mouth while beating the drum for war from the other side. In a bravura performance on January 26th she roundly chastised Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. Rachel, who freaked out completely when Donald Trump was elected, is now keen to demonstrate that Trump has been corrupted by Russia and is now controlled out of the Kremlin. She described Trump’s lord and master Putin as an “intense little man” who murders his opponents before going into the whole “Trump stole the election with the aid of Moscow” saga, supporting sanctions on Russia and multiple investigations to get to the bottom of “Putin’s attacks on our democracy.” Per Maddow, Russia is the heart of darkness and, by way of Trump, has succeeded in exercising control over key elements in the new administration.
Unfortunately, people in the media like Ignatius and Maddow are not alone. Their willingness to sell a specific political line that carries with it a risk of nuclear war as fact, even when they know it is not, has been part of the fear-mongering engaged in by Democratic Party loyalists and many others on the left. Their intention is to “get Trump” whatever it takes, which opens the door to some truly dangerous maneuvering that could have awful consequences if the drumbeat and military buildup against Russia continues, leading Putin to decide that his country is being threatened and backed into a corner. Moscow has indicated that it would not hesitate use nuclear weapons if it is being confronted militarily and facing defeat.
The current wave of Russophobia is much more dangerous than the random depiction of foreigners in negative terms that has long bedeviled a certain type of American know-nothing politics. Apart from the progressive antipathy towards Putin personally, there is a virulent strain of anti-Russian sentiment among some self-styled conservatives in congress, best exemplified by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Graham has recently said “2017 is going to be a year of kicking Russia in the ass in Congress.”
It is my belief that many in the National Security State have convinced themselves that Russia is indeed a major threat against the United States and not because it is a nuclear armed power that can strike the U.S. That appreciation, should, if anything constitute a good reason to work hard to maintain cordial relations rather than not, but it is seemingly ignored by everyone but Donald Trump.
No, the new brand of Russophobia derives from the belief that Moscow is “interfering” in places like Syria and Ukraine. Plus, it is a friend of Iran. That perception derives from the consensus view among liberals and conservatives alike that the U.S. sphere of influence encompasses the entire globe as well as the particularly progressive conceit that Washington should serve to “protect” anyone threatened at any time by anyone else, which provides a convenient pretext for military interventions that are euphemistically described as “peace missions.”
There might be a certain cynicism in many who hate Russia as having a powerful enemy also keeps the cash flowing from the treasuring into the pockets of the beneficiaries of the military industrial congressional complex, but my real fear is that, having been brainwashed for the past ten years, many government officials are actually sincere in their loathing of Moscow and all its works. Recent opinion polls suggest that that kind of thinking is popular among Americans, but it actually makes no sense. Though involvement by Moscow in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is undeniable, calling it a threat against U.S. vital interests is more than a bit of a stretch as Russia’s actual ability to make trouble is limited. It has exactly one overseas military facility, in Syria, while the U.S. has more than 800, and its economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of the United States. In fact, it is Washington that is most guilty of intervening globally and destabilizing entire regions, not Moscow, and when Donald Trump said in an interview that when it came to killing the U.S. was not so innocent it was a gross understatement.
Ironically, pursuing a reset with Russia is one of the things that Trump actually gets right but the new left won’t give him a break because they reflexively hate him for not embracing the usual progressive bromides that they believe are supposed to go with being antiwar. Other Moscow trashing comes from the John McCain camp which demonizes Russia because warmongers always need an enemy and McCain has never found a war he couldn’t support. It would be a tragedy for the United States if both the left and enough of the right were to join forces to limit Trump’s options on dealing with Moscow, thereby enabling an escalating conflict that could have tragic consequences for all parties.
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 16.02.2017
It is not very often that a documentary film can set a new paradigm about a recent event, let alone, one that is still in progress. But the new film Ukraine on Fire has the potential to do so – assuming that many people get to see it.
Usually, documentaries — even good ones — repackage familiar information in a different aesthetic form. If that form is skillfully done, then the information can move us in a different way than just reading about it.
A good example of this would be Peter Davis’s powerful documentary about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Hearts and Minds. By 1974, most Americans understood just how bad the Vietnam War was, but through the combination of sounds and images, which could only have been done through film, that documentary created a sensation, which removed the last obstacles to America leaving Indochina.
Ukraine on Fire has the same potential and could make a contribution that even goes beyond what the Davis film did because there was very little new information in Hearts and Minds. Especially for American and Western European audiences, Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia.
Key people in the film’s production are director Igor Lopatonok, editor Alex Chavez, and writer Vanessa Dean, whose screenplay contains a large amount of historical as well as current material exploring how Ukraine became such a cauldron of violence and hate. Oliver Stone served as executive producer and conducted some high-profile interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
The film begins with gripping images of the violence that ripped through the capital city of Kiev during both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 removal of Yanukovich. It then travels back in time to provide a perspective that has been missing from mainstream versions of these events and even in many alternative media renditions.
A Longtime Pawn
Historically, Ukraine has been treated as a pawn since the late Seventeenth Century. In 1918, Ukraine was made a German protectorate by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Ukraine was also a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 signed between Germany and Russia, but violated by Adolf Hitler when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.
German dictator Adolf Hitler
The reaction of many in Ukraine to Hitler’s aggression was not the same as it was in the rest of the Soviet Union. Some Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis. The most significant Ukrainian nationalist group, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), had been established in 1929. Many of its members cooperated with the Nazis, some even enlisted in the Waffen SS and Ukrainian nationalists participated in the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar ravine in Kiev in September 1941. According to scholar Pers Anders Rudling, the number of Ukrainian nationalists involved in the slaughter outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 4 to 1.
But it wasn’t just the Jews that the Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered. They also participated in massacres of Poles in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia from March 1943 until the end of 1944. Again, the main perpetrators were not Germans, but Ukrainians.
According to author Ryazard Szawlowksi, the Ukrainian nationalists first lulled the Poles into thinking they were their friends, then turned on them with a barbarity and ferocity that not even the Nazis could match, torturing their victims with saws and axes. The documentary places the number of dead at 36,750, but Szawlowski estimates it may be two or three times higher.
OUN members participated in these slaughters for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, wanting Ukraine to be preserved for what OUN regarded as native Ukrainians. They also expected Ukraine to be independent by the end of the war, free from both German and Russian domination. The two main leaders in OUN who participated in the Nazi collaboration were Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was a virulent anti-Semite, and Lebed was rabidly against the Poles, participating in their slaughter.
After the war, both Bandera and Lebed were protected by American intelligence, which spared them from the Nuremburg tribunals. The immediate antecedent of the CIA, Central Intelligence Group, wanted to use both men for information gathering and operations against the Soviet Union. England’s MI6 used Bandera even more than the CIA did, but the KGB eventually hunted down Bandera and assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Lebed was brought to America and addressed anti-communist Ukrainian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The CIA protected him from immigration authorities who might otherwise have deported him as a war criminal.
The history of the Cold War was never too far in the background of Ukrainian politics, including within the diaspora that fled to the West after the Red Army defeated the Nazis and many of their Ukrainian collaborators emigrated to the United States and Canada. In the West, they formed a fierce anti-communist lobby that gained greater influence after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.
This history is an important part of Dean’s prologue to the main body of Ukraine on Fire and is essential for anyone trying to understand what has happened there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. For instance, the U.S.-backed candidate for president of Ukraine in 2004 — Viktor Yushchenko — decreed both Bandera and Lebed to be Ukrainian national heroes.
Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi collaborator
Bandera, in particular, has become an icon for post-World War II Ukrainian nationalists. One of his followers was Dmytro Dontsov, who called for the birth of a “new man” who would mercilessly destroy Ukraine’s ethnic enemies.
Bandera’s movement was also kept alive by Yaroslav Stetsko, Bandera’s premier in exile. Stetsko fully endorsed Bandera’s anti-Semitism and also the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Stetsko, too, was used by the CIA during the Cold War and was honored by Yushchenko, who placed a plaque in his honor at the home where he died in Munich in 1986. Stetsko’s wife, Slava, returned to Ukraine in 1991 and ran for parliament in 2002 on the slate of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party.
Stetsko’s book, entitled Two Revolutions, has become the ideological cornerstone for the modern Ukrainian political party Svoboda, founded by Oleh Tyahnybok, who is pictured in the film calling Jews “kikes” in public, which is one reason the Simon Wiesenthal Center has ranked him as one of the most dangerous anti-Semites in the world.
Another follower of Bandera is Dymytro Yarosh, who reputedly leads the paramilitary arm of an even more powerful political organization in Ukraine called Right Sektor. Yarosh once said he controls a paramilitary force of about 7,000 men who were reportedly used in both the overthrow of Yanukovych in Kiev in February 2014 and the suppression of the rebellion in Odessa a few months later, which are both fully depicted in the film.
This historical prelude and its merging with the current civil war is eye-opening background that has been largely hidden by the mainstream Western media, which has downplayed or ignored the troubling links between these racist Ukrainian nationalists and the U.S.-backed political forces that vied for power after Ukraine became independent in 1991.
The Rise of a Violent Right
That same year, Tyahnybok formed Svoboda. Three years later, Yarosh founded Trident, an offshoot of Svoboda that eventually evolved into Right Sektor. In other words, the followers of Bandera and Lebed began organizing themselves immediately after the Soviet collapse.
The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine
In this time period, Ukraine had two Russian-oriented leaders who were elected in 1991 and 1994, Leonid Kravchuk, and Leonid Kuchma. But the hasty transition to a “free-market” economy didn’t go well for most Ukrainians or Russians as well-connected oligarchs seized much of the wealth and came to dominate the political process through massive corruption and purchase of news media outlets. However, for average citizens, living standards went down drastically, opening the door for the far-right parties and for foreign meddling.
In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was strongest among ethnic Russians in the east and south, won the presidential election by three percentage points over the U.S.-favored Viktor Yushchenko, whose base was mostly in the country’s west where the Ukrainian nationalists are strongest.
Immediately, Yushchenko’s backers claimed fraud citing exit polls that had been organized by a group of eight Western nations and four non-governmental organizations or NGOs, including the Renaissance Foundation founded by billionaire financial speculator George Soros. Dick Morris, former President Bill Clinton’s political adviser, clandestinely met with Yushchenko’s team and advised them that the exit polls would not just help in accusations of fraud, but would bring protesters out into the streets. (Cambridge Review of InternationalAffairs, Vol. 19, Number 1, p. 26)
Freedom House, another prominent NGO that receives substantial financing from the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), provided training to young activists who then rallied protesters in what became known as the Orange Revolution, one of the so-called “color revolutions” that the West’s mainstream media fell in love with. It forced an election rerun that Yushchenko won.
But Yushchenko’s presidency failed to do much to improve the lot of the Ukrainian people and he grew increasingly unpopular. In 2010, Yushchenko failed to make it out of the first round of balloting and his rival Yanukovych was elected president in balloting that outside observers judged free and fair.
If this all had occurred due to indigenous factors within Ukraine, it could have been glossed over as a young nation going through some painful growing pains. But as the film points out, this was not the case. Ukraine continued to be a pawn in big-power games with many Western officials hoping to draw the country away from Russian influence and into the orbit of NATO and the European Union.
Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
In one of the interviews in Ukraine on Fire, journalist and author Robert Parry explains how the National Endowment for Democracy and many subsidized political NGOs emerged in the 1980s to replace or supplement what the CIA had traditionally done in terms of influencing the direction of targeted countries.
During the investigations of the Church Committee in the 1970s, the CIA’s “political action” apparatus for removing foreign leaders was exposed. So, to disguise these efforts, CIA Director William Casey, Reagan’s White House and allies in Congress created the NED to finance an array of political and media NGOs.
As Parry noted in the documentary, many traditional NGOs do valuable work in helping impoverished and developing countries, but this activist/propaganda breed of NGOs promoted U.S. geopolitical objectives abroad – and NED funded scores of such projects inside Ukraine in the run-up to the 2014 crisis.
Ukraine on Fire goes into high gear when it chronicles the events that occurred in 2014, resulting in the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych and sparking the civil war that still rages. In the 2010 election, when Yushchenko couldn’t even tally in the double-digits, Yanukovych faced off against and defeated Yulia Tymoshenko, a wealthy oligarch who had served as Yushchenko’s prime minister.
After his election, Yanukovych repealed Bandera’s title as a national hero. However, because of festering economic problems, the new president began to search for an economic partner who could provide a large loan. He first negotiated with the European Union, but these negotiations bogged down due to the usual draconian demands made by the International Monetary Fund.
So, in November 2013, Yanukovych began to negotiate with Russian President Putin who offered more generous terms. But Yanukovych’s decision to delay the association agreement with the E.U. provoked street protests in Kiev especially from the people of western Ukraine.
As Ukraine on Fire points out, other unusual occurrences also occurred, including the emergence of three new TV channels – Spilno TV, Espreso TV, and Hromadske TV – going on the air between Nov. 21 and 24, with partial funding from the U.S. Embassy and George Soros.
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
Pro-E.U. protests in the Maidan square in central Kiev also grew more violent as ultra-nationalist street fighters from Lviv and other western areas began to pour in and engage in provocations, many of which were sponsored by Yarosh’s Right Sektor. The attacks escalated from torch marches similar to Nazi days to hurling Molotov cocktails at police to driving large tractors into police lines – all visually depicted in the film. As Yanukovich tells Stone, when this escalation happened, it made it impossible for him to negotiate with the Maidan crowd.
One of the film’s most interesting interviews is with Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who was Minister of the Interior at the time responsible for law enforcement and the conduct of the police. He traces the escalation of the attacks from Nov. 24 to 30, culminating with a clash between police and protesters over the transport of a giant Christmas tree into the Maidan. Zakharchenko said he now believes this confrontation was secretly approved by Serhiy Lyovochkin, a close friend of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, as a pretext to escalate the violence.
At this point, the film addresses the direct involvement of U.S. politicians and diplomats. Throughout the crisis, American politicians visited Maidan, as both Republicans and Democrats, such as Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut. stirred up the crowds. Yanukovych also said he was in phone contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who he claims was misleading him about how to handle the crisis.
The film points out that the real center of American influence in the Kiev demonstrations was with Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland. As Parry points out, although Nuland was serving under President Obama, her allegiances were really with the neoconservative movement, most associated with the Republican Party.
Her husband is Robert Kagan, who worked as a State Department propagandist on the Central American wars in the 1980s and was the co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the 1990s, the group that organized political and media pressure for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Kagan also was McCain’s foreign policy adviser in the 2008 presidential election (although he threw his support behind Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race).
As Parry explained, the neoconservatives have become quite adept at disguising their true aims and have powerful allies in the mainstream press. This combination has allowed them to push the foreign policy debate to such extremes that, when anyone objects, they can be branded a Putin or Yanukovych “apologist.”
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
Thus, Pyatt’s frequent meetings with the demonstrators in the embassy and Nuland’s handing out cookies to protesters in the Maidan were not criticized as American interference in a sovereign state, but were praised as “promoting democracy” abroad. However, as the Maidan crisis escalated, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists moved to the front, intensifying their attacks on police. Many of these extremists were disciples of Bandera and Lebed. By February 2014, they were armed with shotguns and rapid-fire handguns.
On Feb. 20, 2014, a mysterious sniper, apparently firing from a building controlled by the Right Sektor, shot both police and protesters, touching off a day of violence that left about 14 police and some 70 protesters dead.
With Kiev slipping out of control, Yanukovich was forced to negotiate with representatives from France, Poland and Germany. On Feb. 21, he agreed to schedule early elections and to accept reduced powers. At the urging of Vice President Biden, Yanukovych also pulled back the police.
But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.
On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”
Calling a Coup a Coup
But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016.[State Department Photo)
Not everyone in Ukraine agreed with the new regime, however. Crimea, which had voted heavily for Yanukovych, decided to hold a referendum on whether to split from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. The results of the referendum were overwhelming. Some 96 percent of Crimeans voted to unite with Russia. Russian troops – previously stationed in Crimea under the Sevastopol naval base agreement – provided security against Right Sektor and other Ukrainian forces moving against the Crimean secession, but there was no evidence of Russian troops intimidating voters or controlling the elections. The Russian government then accepted the reunification with Crimea, which had historically been part of Russia dating back hundreds of years.
Two eastern provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk, also wanted to split off from Ukraine and also conducted a referendum in support of that move. But Putin would not agree to the request from the two provinces, which instead declared their own independence, a move that the new government in Kiev denounced as illegal. The Kiev regime also deemed the insurgents “terrorists” and launched an “anti-terrorism operation” to crush the resistance. Ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi militias, such as the Azov Battalion, took the lead in the bloody fighting.
Anti-coup demonstrations also broke out in the city of Odessa to the south. Ukrainian nationalist leader Andrei Parubiy went to Odessa, and two days later, on May 2, 2014, his street fighters attacked the demonstrators, driving them into the Trade Union building, which was then set on fire. Forty-two people were killed, some of whom jumped to their deaths.
‘Other Side of the Story’
If the film just got across this “other side of the story,” it would provide a valuable contribution since most of this information has been ignored or distorted by the West’s mainstream media, which simply blames the Ukraine crisis on Vladimir Putin. But in addition to the fine work by scenarist Vanessa Dean, the direction by Igor Lopatonok and the editing by Alexis Chavez are extraordinarily skillful and supple.
Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)
The 15-minute prologue, where the information about the Nazi collaboration by Bandera and Lebed is introduced, is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. It moves at a quick pace, utilizing rapid cutting and also split screens to depict photographs and statistics simultaneously. Lopatonok also uses interactive graphics throughout to transmit information in a visual and demonstrative manner.
Stone’s interviews with Putin and Yanukovych are also quite newsworthy, presenting a side of these demonized foreign leaders that has been absent in the propagandistic Western media.
Though about two hours long, the picture has a headlong tempo to it. If anything, it needed to slow down at points since such a large amount of information is being communicated. On the other hand, it’s a pleasure to watch a documentary that is so intelligently written, and yet so remarkably well made.
When the film ends, the enduring message is similar to those posed by the American interventions in Vietnam and Iraq. How could the State Department know so little about what it was about to unleash, given Ukraine’s deep historical divisions and the risk of an escalating conflict with nuclear-armed Russia?
In Vietnam, Americans knew little about the country’s decades-long struggle of the peasantry to be free from French and Japanese colonialism. Somehow, America was going to win their hearts and minds and create a Western-style “democracy” when many Vietnamese simply saw the extension of foreign imperialism.
In Iraq, President George W. Bush and his coterie of neocons was going to oust Saddam Hussein and create a Western-style democracy in the Middle East, except that Bush didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Moslems and how Iraq was likely to split over sectarian rivalries and screw up his expectations.
Similarly, the message of Ukraine on Fire is that short-sighted, ambitious and ideological officials – unchecked by their superiors – created something even worse than what existed. While high-level corruption persists today in Ukraine and may be even worse than before, the conditions of average Ukrainians have deteriorated.
And, the Ukraine conflict has reignited the Cold War by moving Western geopolitical forces onto Russia’s most sensitive frontier, which, as scholar Joshua Shifrinson has noted, violates a pledge made by Secretary of State James Baker in February 1990 as the Soviet Union peacefully accepted the collapse of its military influence in East Germany and eastern Europe. (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/ 2016)
This film also reminds us that what happened in Ukraine was a bipartisan effort. It was begun under George W. Bush and completed under Barack Obama. As Oliver Stone noted in the discussion that followed the film’s premiere in Los Angeles, the U.S. painfully needs some new leadership reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, people who understand how America’s geopolitical ambitions must be tempered by on-the-ground realities and the broader needs of humanity to be freed from the dangers of all-out war.
The Neocons and the “deep state” have neutered the Trump Presidency, it’s over folks!
February 14, 2017
Less than a month ago I warned that a ‘color revolution ‘ was taking place in the USA. My first element of proof was the so-called “investigation” which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump’s candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation. Trump accepted it.
Now let’s immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump’s national security policy. For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover, the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests. That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC.
The Neocon run ‘deep state’ has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador.
And Trump accepted this resignation.
Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking “stars” and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous “you are fired!” to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope.
But now Trump has betrayed us all.
Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.? Today, Trump has shown us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn’s resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don’t care about reality.
Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump’s hero. And Trump betrayed him.
The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the ‘deep state’ only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be. Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.
It’s over, folks, the deep state has won.
From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy, the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him ‘an idiot’.
The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won’t – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight.
The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU.
Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous ‘deplorables’ who try as best we can to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice?
I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington ‘swamp’ will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of solace in two undeniable facts:
1 Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency.
2 In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist Empire. Just like Erdogan’ purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump ‘color revolution’ has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of the USA.
The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka “the basket of deplorables”) the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.
Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that ‘more of the same’ was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality.
Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not “great again”, but at least stronger, a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from the others. That’s over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level.
I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the ‘color revolution’ started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine?
Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns.
Today Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try to minimize it all. But the reality is that barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it’s over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen.
I see very dark clouds on the horizon.
This article is also available here below.
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as «The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News», illustrates how interest groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke’s article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran, and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that work closely with the US government.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is «increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and wants». Sweetening the honey trap is official recognition of «Crimea as part of Russia».
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia’s most dangerous threat is the country’s neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development projects with the issuance of central bank credit. But when central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project’s bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their own development. Indeed, China is the world’s largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries who lack the internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, technology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China’s development was given a boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia’s government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke’s article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable deals with the West. As Russia’s neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat ourselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists who have been thoroughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
This article is co-authored by Michael HUDSON
Material Strategic Culture Foundation – http://www.strategic-culture.org
Trump and the New Iran GambitBy , February 13, 2017
Neocons Use Ukraine to Reverse Trump Plan to Thaw Relations with Putin and Wage Global War
After three weeks as president, Donald Trump has turned out to be “same as the old boss,” definitely when it comes to US foreign policy. The short explanation is every US president merely plays a puppet figurehead role, taking his orders directly from the New World Order elite and their neocon surrogates, fast moving us towards one world government tyranny that will be the ultimate outcome of a simultaneous collapse of the global economy timed with the launch of another world war.
Just as there was no difference between the same neocon interventionist aggression displayed under Obama and the war crime-ridden Bush-Cheney administration, President Trump is now also marching quickstep down that same seamless path towards world war as did Obama. Regardless of who or what party occupies the White House, the one constant is an aggressive foreign policy delivered by deep state neocons entrenched in Washington power for many decades now. And the neocons take their orders from the ruling elite.
Trump the candidate promised a major shift in US foreign policy towards a far more sensible, even planet-saving, non-interventionist, “America first” approach, avoiding the constant meddling entanglements in other nations’ internal affairs that only polarizes the geopolitical chessboard towards increasing global conflict.
It appeared as though the United States might finally be free of the near four decade long bipartisan neo-conned control bent on maintaining US Empire at all cost, insisting on the status quo of unipolar sole world superpower hegemony and full frontal military dominance. The neocons refuse to live in a world where power is shared with emerging regional players Russia and China.
And since neocons are still in control in Washington, after just three weeks in the White House, it’s already disturbingly clear that the Trump presidency will be no different from the rest, racing full speed ahead, plunging the earth straight into a homicidal if not suicidal course toward World War III. Be it through escalating existing wars in Syria and Ukraine that lead to bigger wars with Iran, China and Russia, the Bush-Obama-Trump regime seems hell bent on world destruction. Meanwhile even at home, Washington’s ever-rising authoritarian control and the violent anti-Trump mania are creating conditions ripe for even a domestic civil war to break out.
Evidence of this disastrous road we’re already traveling at breakneck speed on is overwhelming. Just the fact that Elliot Abrams, a neocon from way back to the Reagan-Bush senior-Iran Contra days is currently up for consideration as deputy secretary of state, speaks volumes that we’re about to be pushed off the doomsday cliff.
This presentation will focus on specific actions that the Trump administration has already completed that provide more than enough proof that we’re perhaps just weeks if not months away from escalating yet more catastrophic war. This analysis addresses the likelihood of imminent global war based on the three year old violent conflict in Ukraine ratcheting up now, and how that hotspot is being used to undermine, neutralize and effectively reverse promises that Trump the candidate made to cooperate with Putin. The bottom line is neocon forces greater than the president still hold the agenda to continue to demonize Putin in their race to global war.
Reminiscent of the tag team duo of the corporate press working in tandem with the federal government, first we had Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham over in Ukraine egging on the US illegally installed puppet neo-Nazi regime in Kiev to launch yet another offensive into the former Ukraine eastern provinces, now the Donbass region on January 2nd as a new year’s prelude of what’s to come in 2017. Then like predictable, synchronized clockwork, US mainstream media as typically represented by a February 1st Foreign Policy article was quick to claim that Putin delivered the Trump administration its first foreign policy test. The hit piece falsely charged Russia with firing off countless rocket and artillery rounds at Ukrainian forces, killing a dozen Kiev soldiers the last few days of January. Another MSM war propaganda headline, this time Newsweek’s, read “While Trump Fiddles, Putin Steps Up The War In Ukraine.”
These articles emphasize that the renewed volley of Russian “aggression” came just one day after Trump and Putin’s hour long first phone conversation agreeing to work peaceably together as partners fighting the common ISIS/al Qaeda enemy as well as forging a plan to diminish hostilities in Ukraine. As is typical of Western press to vilify Putin, Foreign Policy conspicuously plants the notion that Putin launching artillery strikes in Ukraine has already proven he is betraying Trump’s trust.
The piece goes on to report that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) contends that Russia unilaterally stepped up its shelling against Kiev forces to the extent that after 2600 counted rounds fired on January 29th, so many came later that OSCE lost track. As far back as a decade ago Putin exposed OSCE as a propaganda front for Western aggression in Ukraine as well as throughout Eastern Europe to further its own imperialistic and geopolitical interests to encircle, isolate and weaken Russia. Of course that has been the US foreign policy all along with both Russia and China.
The 2014 conflict erupted in eastern Ukraine after the Russian ethnic majority residing in Donetsk and Lugansk voted in a spring referendum for their independence from Ukraine, prompting the Kiev government to invade the Donbass region to oppose the freedom fighting separatists. Once again the West backing Ukraine is lined up on the wrong side of history as Kiev has engaged in ethnic cleansing and as of two years ago killed over 10,000 civilians in Donbass. In the meantime Kiev has made repeated accusations that OSCE is failing its assigned task as a neutral monitoring observer but instead favors the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) military. This underlying dynamic may contribute to OSCE now pointing the finger at Putin as the latest aggressor, as a demonstration to Kiev and the West that it can act “impartially.”
In any case, an anonymous defense official reiterated the Pentagon’s position that it was anticipating Putin aggression in Ukraine designed to assess what he could get away with early on in the Trump administration. The US defense propagandist stated to FP:
This is all very calculated to have this open, bleeding sore on Ukraine’s body politic that will allow [Russia] to manipulate the situation and the politics of the country, and thereby keep Ukraine in this post-Soviet kleptocratic orbit.
The FP article goes on to innocuously slip in a sentence that’s clearly intended to soften Ukraine’s long planned Donbass offensive backed by US war hawks McCain and Graham, clearly violating the 2014 Minsk cease-fire agreement:
Ukrainian forces also appear to be advancing into the no-man’s land separating government-controlled territory from rebel-held areas…
Reports from on the ground indicate that the real aggressor on January 28th was the Ukrainian army that began shelling DPR forces. The Kiev military moved on the offensive south of Donetsk, only to encounter minefields, in large part accounting for the couple dozen fatalities. Accusing DPR of a false flag attack was mainly to recruit Western sympathy, material support and more mercenaries for the unstable Poroshenko regime that’s steeped in political corruption and economic upheaval.
Earlier in the month the McCain-Graham envoy had promised additional support for another campaign into Donbass despite never having any legal authority, as still acting President Obama at least officially did not send them abroad. Thus, the bobsy twins may have in effect violated the Logan Act of 1799 which prohibits Americans in foreign countries operating outside presidential authority to interfere with foreign policy as set by the president. For their undermining the Trump presidency and ceaseless warmongering, even Trump called them out for their latest devious ploy to trigger World War III.
The fact that Trump has made statements during his campaign indicating that he would be open to normalizing relations with Moscow, lifting sanctions and advocates disbanding NATO poses a serious threat to the likes of the two treasonous senators and their nucleus of neocon policymakers who’ve been consistently aiming to provoke war against Russia for over three years now. Ever since the February 2014 US induced Kiev coup and a month later Putin’s legal annexation of Crimea after the ethnic Russians in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia (which from 1783-1954 Crimea had always been part of Russia). And then even from 1954-1990, Crimea was part of the Soviet Union as a USSR state within Ukraine, but still belonged to the nation that was the USSR.
While Obama was still president and the chicken hawk senators snuck over to Ukraine, Kiev then waited till after Trump’s inauguration before unleashing its greenlighted invasion further into Donbass. The Kiev military incursion has far more to do with testing what Western backed Ukraine can get away with on both Trump and Putin’s watch than any Putin testing of Trump waters. After all, Putin once again is not the aggressor. The offensive was solely executed so Empire neocons could sabotage the Trump-Putin relationship and prevent peace from breaking out. Only war is permitted by the Washington evildoers.
As part of the anti-Moscow propaganda to justify the latest Kiev military campaign, the Ukraine defense minister accused a Russian oil rig in the Black Sea of firing upon and damaging a Ukraine Navy transport plane. A Russian defense ministry spokesperson denies any Russian ground fire occurred, reporting that the Ukrainian plane was merely warned with four flash signals by rig security that the plane was flying too low, endangering Russian personnel working on two oil rig platforms and nearly hitting a rig tower in two simulated fly-overs.
These types of aerial aggression stunts are common forms of intimidation and provocation used for propaganda purposes as yet another false flag to further justify war escalation and retaliation. The just retired NATO deputy secretary general pounced on it, claiming the incident proves that Russia is not at all interested in peace with Ukraine. In his words:
[The Kremlin] may be trying to test the new administration to see if they distance themselves from Kiev, and tell [Ukraine President] Petro Poroshenko that he has to make the best deal with Russia, which of course would destroy him politically.
Last week formerly disgraced CIA director General David Petraeus testified before the House Armed Services Committee. It’s a bad sign when Congress seeks the “expert” testimony from a top US spy who lied to the FBI after violating the Espionage Act, breeching national security by handing over highly classified material to his mistress. Prior to that crime, the war criminal was a military war commander on two fronts. Petraeus was singularly the most responsible general for causing the sectarian civil war in Iraq that eventually led to the ISIS Sunni invasion as well as contributed to the US still ongoing military defeat in Afghanistan. Petraeus trained Shiite death squads that killed thousands of Sunnis who later became Islamic State terrorists.
And it was Petraeus who wrote the war bible – the US Army Counter Insurgency (COIN) manual – that strategically defined how America’s twenty-first century wars would be fought and lost, at enormous costs and wastes replacing many military functions with private civilian security contractors (such as hired mercenaries like Blackwater) in a failed “nation-building” attempt to imperialistically “democratize” the Middle East, proving a complete humiliating disaster in both Iraq and Afghanistan. But Petraeus’ notorious career of abject failures has now apparently earned him the status of a foreign policy guru. On February 1st the guru warned the House:
[Putin] understands that, while conventional aggression may occasionally enable Russia to grab a bit of land on its periphery, the real center of gravity is the political will of major democratic powers to defend Euro-Atlantic institutions like NATO and the EU.
You can see where all this is going. Petraeus reporting that Russia, China, Iran as well as the terrorists all pose an “unprecedented threat” is part of the staged war prepping narrative. The Washington political war machine is in full swing, ensuring that an alliance with Russia can never happen, despite whatever Trump the candidate may have uttered. That was then, this is now. So war in Ukraine once again becomes the bogus rallying cry to ensure the US-EU-NATO glue sticks together against those “imperialistic, warring” Russians bent on splintering centuries’ old allies. The elite and their neocons will not allow Brexit, strained Washington-Brussels relations or Trump nationalism ever get in their way.
Western press explains the enormous troop buildup of US-NATO forces complete with US-German-NATO tanks amassed along the Baltic state-Russian border to “protect” NATO allies from big bad Russian expansion. This again is all fabricated prewar propaganda prepping us for the war to come. Trump the candidate grumbled how once he becomes president, Europe will need to pay for its own defense. The former secretary general of NATO called that “a breach of solidarity” with Europe, warning:
The Russians would see that as a bonanza that they would try and exploit by convincing countries like Bulgaria and the Czech Republic that the US couldn’t be counted on.
Another lockdown to prevent thawed Russia-US relations is the rigid adherence to extending economic sanctions against Russia over Crimea and Donbass. After Trump the candidate had hinted to lift the sanctions, UK Prime Minister Theresa May rushed to Washington to ensure they stay in place and that Trump renews US commitment to NATO. GOP faithful like McCain threatened to pass laws to codify the sanctions should Trump let up. So you can see that the anti-Putin vilification and cold war still rage on with the latest lying rhetoric and external threats brought to bear against the US president to stay with status quo or else.
And to prove that Trump the president has succumbed to holding the anti-Russian hardline, Trump’s brand new UN ambassador Nikki Haley on her very first day at the office sounded the alarm at the UN Security Council, mimicking the same broken record as her neocon predecessor Samantha Power:
I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia. It is unfortunate because it is a replay of far too many instances over many years in which Unites States representatives have needed to do that… Unites States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.
In response a Russian senator tweeted:
It looks like the new US representative at the UN came with remarks that were written by Power.
Nikki Haley obviously received her orders from above to slam Russia despite the US-Kiev collusion to recently renew aggression towards the citizens of Donbass. She also showed ignorance in failing to know that Crimea’s Ukrainian history was short. It was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1990, thus the Black Sea peninsula was forcibly part of Ukraine for less than a quarter century. Yet the entire pretext for US condemning Russia over Ukraine is completely based upon a lie. So are the sanctions, and so will the coming war. Again, this entire anti-Russian false narrative is such a nauseatingly tiresome US theme.
American exceptionalism means the murderous world bully can continue operating with total impunity while wrongly accusing Russia constantly, or any other nation in its crosshairs, of the exact same sinful crimes that Empire perpetrates every single day of the year. Empire’s European vassals and smaller intimidated countries must silently toe the line or else they too will be unjustly targeted with lies and punishment in the form of illegal invasions and wars (be it US boots on the ground or proxy allied mercenary terrorists), inhumane economic sanctions, trade embargoes, regime change coups and assassinations.
The only guilty nation that remains judge, jury and executioner in this world of other countries is the United States.
And Trump has already demonstrated as the White House figurehead that he is not in control but follows his globalist marching orders. Thus Trump is powerless to change rigid foreign policy still being dictated by the neocons. Nothing will change in Ukraine except more death and violence will escalate to the larger arena. Russia is still the West’s scapegoat as is every other nation that asserts its own will and independence free of the killing Empire. Only the US has invaded dozens of sovereign nations, initiated more wars and maintained the most aggressive foreign policy of any nation on earth over the last century. But it’s always Russia that’s the falsely accused aggressor that Washington and its corporate media endlessly hype in order to further justify Empire aggression and violence. After all, war has always been an American agenda.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.
President Trump is deeply embedded in the politics of the deep state structure of American imperialism. Contrary to occasional references to non-intervention in overseas wars, Trump has followed in the footsteps of his predecessors.
While neoconservatives and liberals have raised a hue and cry about Trump’s ties to Russia, his ‘heresies’ over NATO and his overtures to peace in the Middle East, in practice, he has discarded his market humanitarian’ imperialism and engaged in the same bellicose policies of his Democratic Party presidential rival, Hillary Clinton.
Because he lacks the slick ‘demagogy’ of former-President Obama, and does not slather his actions with cheap appeals to ‘identity’ politics, Trump’s crude, abrasive pronouncements drive young demonstrators into the streets in mass actions. These demonstrations are not-so-discretely supported by Trump’s major opponents among the Wall Street bankers, speculators and mass media moguls. In other words, President Trump is an icon-embracer and follower, not a ‘revolutionary’ or even ‘change agent’.
Prof James Petras (right)
We will proceed by discussing the historical trajectory, which gave birth to the Trump regime. We will identify ongoing policies and commitments determining the present and future direction of his administration.
We will conclude by identifying how current reaction can produce future transformations. We will challenge the current ‘catastrophic’ and apocalyptic delirium and offer reasons for an optimistic perspective for the future. In brief: This essay will point out how current negatives can become realistic positives.
Over the past two decades US presidents have squandered the financial and military resources of the country in multiple unending, losing wars, as well as in trillion dollar trade debts and fiscal imbalances. US leaders have run amok provoking major global financial crises, bankrupting the largest banks, destroying small mortgage holders, devastating manufacturers and creating massive unemployment followed by low-paid unstable jobs leading to collapse in living standards for the working and lower middle classes.
Imperial wars, trillion dollar bail-outs for the billionaires and unopposed flight of multinational Ccorporations abroad, have vastly deepened class inequalities and given rise to trade agreements favoring China , Germany and Mexico . Within the US , the major beneficiaries of these crises have been the bankers, high-tech billionaires, commercial importers and agro-business exporters.
Faced with systemic crises, the ruling regimes have responded by deepening and expanding US Presidential powers in the form of presidential decrees. To cover-up the decades-long series of debacles, patriotic ‘whistle-blowers’ have been jailed and police-state style surveillance has infiltrated every sector of the citizenry.
Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama defined the trajectory of imperial wars and Wall Street plunder. State police, military and financial institutions are firmly embedded in the matrix of power. Financial centers, like Goldman Sachs, have repeatedly set the agenda and controlled the US Department of Treasury and the agencies regulating trade and banking. The ‘permanent institutions’ of the state have remained, while Presidents, regardless of party, have been shuffled in and out of the ‘Oval Office’.
The ‘First Black’ President Barack Obama pledged peace and pursued seven wars. His successor, Donald Trump was elected on promises of ‘non-intervention’ and promptly picked up Obama’s ‘bombing baton’: tiny Yemen was attacked by US forces, Russia’s allies in the Donbas Region of Ukraine were savaged by Washington’s allies in Kiev and Trump’s ‘more realist’ representative, Nikki Haley, put on a bellicose performance at the UN in the style of ‘Madame Humanitarian Intervention’ Samantha Power, braying invectives at Russia.
Where is the change? Trump followed Obama by increasing sanctions against Russia , while threatening North Korea with nuclear annihilation in the wake of Obama’s major military build-up in the Korean peninsula. Obama launched a surrogate war against Syria and Trump escalated the air war over Raqqa. Obama encircled China with military bases, warships and warplanes and Trump goose-stepped right in with warmongering rhetoric. Obama expelled a record two million Mexican workers over eight years; Trump followed by promising to deport even more.
In other words, President Trump has dutifully picked up the march along his predecessors’ trajectory, bombing the same targeted countries while plagiarizing their maniacal speeches at the United Nations.
Obama increased the annual tribute (aid) to Tel Aviv to a whooping $3.8 billions while bleating a few pro-forma criticisms of expanding Israeli land-grabs in Palestine; Trump proposed to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem while blubbering a few of his own mini-criticisms of illegal Jewish settlements on stolen Palestinian land.
What is overwhelmingly striking is the similarity of Obama and Trump,’s policies and strategies in foreign policy, their means and allies. What is different is their style and rhetoric. Both ‘Change Agent’ Presidents immediately break the same phony pre-election promises and function well within the boundaries of the permanent state institutions.
Whatever differences they have are a result of contrasting historic contexts. Obama took over the collapse of the financial system and sought to regulate banks in order to stabilize operations. Trump took over after Obama’s trillion-dollar ‘stabilization’ and sought to eliminate regulations – in the footsteps of President Clinton! So ‘much ado’ about Trump’s ‘historic deregulation’!
The ‘winter of discontent’ in the form of mass protests against Trump’s ban against immigrants and visitors from seven predominantly Muslim countries follows directly from Obama’s ‘seven deadly wars’. The immigrants and refugees are direct products of Obama’s invasions and attacks on these countries leading to murder, injury, forced displacement and misery for million of ‘predominantly’ (but not exclusively) Muslims. Obama’s wars have created tens of thousands of ‘rebels’, insurgents and terrorists. The refugees, fleeing for their lives, have been largely excluded from the US under Obama and most have sought safe havens in the squalid camps and chaos of the EU.
As terrible and illegal as Trump’s border closure to Muslims and as promising as the mass public protests seem, they are all the result of the near decade long policy of murder and mayhem under President Obama.
Following the policy trajectory – Obama shed the blood and Trump, in his vulgar racist style is left to ‘clean up the mess’. While Obama has been made into a ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ peace maker, grumpy Trump is soundly attacked for picking up the bloody mop!
Trump has chosen to tread the path of obloquy and faces the wrath of purgatory. Meanwhile, Obama is off playing golf, wind surfing and flashing his ‘devil may care’ smile to his adoring scribblers in the mass media.
As Trump stomps down the path laid out by Obama, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators fill the streets to protest the ‘fascist’, with scores of major mass media networks, dozens of plutocrats and ‘intellectuals’ of all genders, races and creeds writhing in moral outrage! One is left confused at the deafening silence of these same activists and forces when Obama’s aggressive wars and attacks led to the deaths and displacement of millions of civilians, mostly Muslim, and mostly women – as their homes, weddings, markets, schools and funerals were bombed.
So much for American muddle-headedness! One should try to understand the possibilities that arise from a massive sector finally breaking their silence as Obama’s glib warmongering has been transformed into Trump’s crude march to doomsday.
There are many who despair but there are more who have become aware. We will identify the optimistic perspectives and realistic hopes rooted in current reality and trends. Realism means discussing contradictory, polarizing developments and therefore we accept no ‘inevitable’ outcomes. This means that outcomes are ‘contested terrain’ where subjective factors play a leading role. The interface of conflicting forces can result in an upward or downward spiral – toward more equality, sovereignty and liberation or greaterconcentration of wealth, power and privilege.
The most retrograde concentration of power and wealth is found in the oligarchic German-dominated European Union – a configuration which is under siege by popular forces. The United Kingdom voters chose to exit from the EU (Brexit). As a result, Britain faces a break-up with Scotland and Wales and an even greater separation from Ireland . Brexit will lead to a new polarization as London-based bankers depart to the EU and free market leaders confront workers, protectionists and the growing mass of the poor. Brexit fortifies nationalist-populists and leftist forces in France , Poland , Hungary and Serbia and shatters the neo-liberal hegemony in Italy , Spain , Greece , Portugal and elsewhere. The challenge to the EU oligarchs is that popular insurgency will intensify social polarization and can bring to the fore progressive class movements or authoritarian nationalist parties and movements.
Trumps ascent to power and his executive decrees have led to highly polarize electorates, increased politicization and direct action. The awakening of America deepens internal fissures between small ‘d’ democrats, progressive women, trade unionists, students and others against the big ‘D’ Democratic Party opportunists, speculators, life-long Democratic warmongers, bourgeois black ‘D’ Party hacks (the mis-leaders) and a small army of corporate-funded NGO’s.
Trumps embrace of the Obama-Clinton military and Wall Street agenda will lead to a financial bubble, bloated military spending and more costly wars. These will divide the regime from its trade union and working class supporters now that Trump’s cabinet is composed entirely of billionaires, ideologues, rabid zionists and militarists (as opposed to his promise to appoint ‘hard-nosed’ deal-making businessmen and realists). This could create a rich opportunity for movements to arise which reject the truly ugly face of Trump’s reactionary regime.
Trump’s animosity to NAFTA, and advocacy of protectionism and financial and resource exploitation will undermine the corrupt, murderous, narco-neoliberal regimes which have ruled Mexico for the past 30 years since the days of Salinas . Trump’s anti-immigration policy will lead to Mexicans choosing to ‘fight over flight’ in confronting the social chaos created by the narco-gangs and gangster police. It will force the development of Mexico ’s domestic markets and industry. Mass domestic consumption and ownership will embrace national-popular movements. The drug cartel and their political sponsors will lose the US markets and face domestic opposition.
Trump’s protectionism will limit the illegal flow of capital from Mexico , which amounted to $48.3 billion in 2016 or 55% of Mexico ’s debt. Mexico ’s transition from dependency and neo-colonialism will deeply polarize the state and society; the outcome will be determined by class forces.
Trump’s economic and military threats against Iran will strengthen nationalist, populist and collectivist forces over the neo-liberal ‘reformist’ and pro-Western politicians. Iran ’s anti-imperialist alliance with Yemen , Syria and Lebanon will solidify against the US-led quartet of Saudi Arabia , Israel , Britain and the US .
Trump’s support for Israel’s massive seizure of Palestinian land and its ‘Jews-only’ ban against Muslims and Christians will lead to the ‘shaking off’ of the multi-millionaire Palestinian Authority quislings and the rise of many more uprisings and intifadas.
The defeat of ISIS will strengthen independent governmental forces in Iraq , Syria and Lebanon , weaken US imperial leverage and open the door to popular democratic secular struggles.
China ’s President Xi Jinping’s large-scale, long-term anti-corruption campaign has led to the arrest and removal of over a quarter-million officials and businesspeople, including billionaires and top Party leaders. The arrests, prosecution and jailing has reduced the abuse of privilege, but more important, it has improves the prospects for a movement to challenge vast social inequalities. What began from ‘above’ can provoke movements from ‘below’. The resurrection of a movement toward socialist values can have a major impact on US vassal states in Asia .
Russia ’s support for democratic rights in Eastern Ukraine and the re-incorporation of Crimea via referendum can limit US puppet regimes on Russia ’s southern flank and reduce US intervention. Russia can develop peaceful ties with independent European states with the break-up of the EU and the Trump electoral victory over the Obama-Clinton regime’s threat of nuclear war.
The world-wide movement against imperialist globalism isolates the US-backed right-wing power grab in South America . Brazil , Argentina and Chile ’s pursuit of neo-liberal trade pacts are on the defensive. Their economies, especially in Argentina and Brazil , have seen a three-fold increase in unemployment, four-fold rise in foreign debt, stagnant to negative growth and now face mass-supported general strikes. Neo-liberal ‘toadyism’ is provoking class struggle. This can overturn the post-Obama order in Latin America .
Across the world and within the most important countries, the ultra-neoliberal order of the past quarter century is disintegrating. There is a massive upsurge of movements from above and below, from democratic leftists to nationalists, from independent populists to the right-wing reactionary ‘old guard’: A new polarized, fragmented political universe has emerged. The beginning of the end of the current imperial-globalist order is creating opportunities for a new dynamic democratic collectivist order. The oligarchs and ‘security’ elites will not easily give way to popular demands or step down. Knives will be sharpened, executive decrees will issue forth, and electoral coups will be staged to attempt to seize power. The emerging popular democratic movements need to overcome identity fragmentation and establish unified, egalitarian leaders who can act decisively and independently away from the existing political leaders who make dramatic, but phony, progressive gestures while seeking a return to the stench and squalor of the recent past.
TRUMP OR PUTIN? EU LOSES PLOT ON BIGGEST THREAT (“Thousands of rockets, mortars and tank artillery rounds rained down on civilian areas of Donetsk city and suburbs in some of the worse violence seen …” – … “The West on the tragic events in Ukraine: lies and an information blockade” …)
“Poroshenko Tries to Force Trump’s Hand in Ukraine” –
Courtesy “New Eastern Outlook” –
Ukraine crashed in on Mr. Trump’s administration this week, in what appears to be a spoiling attack on any US-Russia rapprochement. With the economy going to hell, and the West getting tired of no progress with Ukraine reforms, what choice does Kiev have but to attack Donbass and claim the Russians are to blame.
With countless ceasefire violations under Ukraine’s belt and no political consequences for them, Ukraine’s patrons share the blame for the continued wanton cycle of destruction. The same can be said for the collective murder of Syria.
The Ukraine army moved heavy weapons into the neutral zone, and shelling began on the outskirts of Donetsk. The small industrial town of Avdiivka became the center of the storm. The Donbass forces replied and the fight was on, to the dismay of the 20,000 inhabitants, and to poor 60-year-old Katya Volkova, who was killed by grad rocket shrapnel while taking a walk to get out of the house, another wasted life in this horrible tragedy.
Few suspect the timing was coincidental, as the phone chat reports between Putin and Trump on Saturday covered a wide range of issues during its 55 minutes, and will be followed by both sides’ expert teams preparing for a summit meeting, where agreements are usually expected on some initial things to establish momentum to improve relations.
Is it time for war or peace?
I suspect Porshenko feared his future could have been on the trading table. By that I mean not being able to have Western money shoveled into Ukraine’s economy for the oligarchs and corrupt government officials to steal. The IMF itself signaled a few months ago that the stalled reforms in Ukraine’s Rada, while aid money disappeared, were not something it would continue to support, a not too subtle warning.
Western media gave us its usual biased coverage, some of the silliest saying that Putin had initiated the Donbass fighting while Trump was “distracted” with his flurry of executive orders, by his cabinet not all being confirmed by Congress, and with a controversial immigration plan that was poorly executed, as was his first military ground action in Yemen with American losses. Putin had nothing to gain from instigating fighting in Ukraine while preparing a summit with Trump. The claim was yellow journalism at its worst.
Poroshenko, on the other hand, had a lot of motivation to stir up the fighting now, as he knows his government has been subsidized as part of the US-EU-NATO sanctions scheme against Moscow. They were not able to snatch Russia’s Black Sea naval base to block its naval projection power into the Mediterranean and make the Baltic a NATO lake
France and Germany have also continued their sordid roll in the Ukraine coup. As guarantors of the Minsk2 agreement on Kiev’s behalf, they have done nothing to pressure Kiev to fulfill any of its obligations, and have gone even further off the rails by accusing Moscow of noncompliance itself.
Obama’s World is Gone
But February 2017 presents a totally different geopolitical situation than February two years ago. The Syrian War looked terminal for the Assad regime, with the Syrian army crumbling due to a Western and Gulf State terror war being conducted against it, at a huge cost in death and destruction. The NATO creep began toward the Russian frontier; the Russian economy was under great strain; and the smart money bet that Moscow’s bases in Syria would fall with Assad, as payback for Crimea.
On September 1st 2015, Veterans Today had a crisis team in Damascus at a midnight briefing with the Syrian Justice Minister reviewing the order of battle for the Islamic State. The Russians were coming… literally out of the blue, and turned the combat situation around 180 degrees, to the delight of most of the long suffering Syrian people.
Aleppo now has been liberated, a ceasefire is holding, and factions of the opposition have joined the peace process, after repeated American failures, and intrigues, such as the US bombing of the Syrians in Deir Ezzur.
US-Russia Rapprochement – fact of fantasy?
President Trump had signaled during his interest during the campaign in normalizing relations with Russia when his Republican opponents all supported the opposite. Hillary Clinton was so anti-Russian that the Ukraine oligarchs were openly funding her, but there were no charges of their “interfering in the election”.
There was no cheering in Kiev when Trump won, but wailing instead. Some of his campaign opponents have powerful Congressional offices now, and many have been long time Russophobes, with John McCain and Lindsey Graham among the worst. McCain sent a formal letter to Trump claiming that Putin was “testing” Trump, with his “aggression” in Ukraine.
The Trump team knows it will be challenged on the Russian rapprochement; but has the President been able reach a deal already with Congressional leaders to give him some leeway on Ukraine to see what he can do with Mr. Putin on the joint fight against terrorism, and maybe a nuclear arms reduction included?
Or, is it that the Trump team is taking some time to review what actually went on with the Kiev coup? If the new President found a solid case of Western malfeasance, would he keep that quiet or hang it around Obama’s neck?
Europe is reeling politically with Brexit in motion, France’s Le Pen claiming she will take France out if she wins the coming election, plus the failing Euro. With growing numbers of EU citizens becoming disenchanted with EU elitists and their plantation-owner attitude, Mr. Trump’s coming onto the scene was their worst nightmare. Would Trump want to hang the Ukraine and Russian mess around EU and Obama’s necks together?
The Ukraine coup is a huge scandal for the EU. It became the plan B after its bungling of the Ukraine association negotiations by handing an ultimatum to Yanukovych to accept the no cash offer and no real EU market access for over a decade. Ukraine was broke. What Yanukovych really wanted was to remain in the middle and be subsidized by both the EU and Moscow.
While Syria was Obama’s foreign policy disaster, Ukraine was the EU’s, with the Netherlands having played an especially sordid roll. Its shameful handling of the MH-17 shootdown is deserving of a criminal investigation of its own conduct in its flagrant attempts to frame Russia, when Kiev and the real coupmiesters are the number one suspects for the deaths of those innocent passengers.
Remember the BUK missile that no one saw from the ground or took a photo of, even though its plume would have hung in the air for an hour after the launch? It became the new hoax story to replace the bogus Iran nuclear weapons program one. The Dutch seem to be stalling the investigation results as their assigned part of keeping the sanctions going with the MH-17 still hanging over Moscow’s head.
The Dutch investigators never demanded that Kiev turn over its flight data records. And after Russia finally sent its own radar data, the investigators now tell us that it is not in a standard format they can read, but had never asked Moscow for assistance.
Veterans Today learned that the US Aegis radar in Romania had actually been active many months before the US admitted. It could see all the way to Minsk and surely would have recorded a BUK launch, yet the US never produced that “proof”.
Southfront published a recent article about the Russian special operations veteran contractors that have operated under the Ministry of Defense, so that cat is now out of the bag. They have been active in Donbass, helping to prevent the slaughter of the ethnic Russians there, as had been promised by the Right Sector members of the Rada, and with no protest in a single Western capital to their eternal shame. The U.S. Defense Dept. would have done exactly the same thing in a similar situation.
The Russians were just borrowing that concept from the West, where large numbers of special operation veterans moved into “contract” employment , and then found themselves on various regime change battlefields pursuing whose interests we were not always sure. Syrian intelligence discovered and monitored a number of them in command and operation centers in Syria, inside both the opposition and Islamic State held areas. One of these operation centers was amnestied out of Aleppo as part of the deal to free the city.
So if Trump wants to, he can spill the beans on what really happened in the Ukraine coup and start off with a clean canvas there; or he can just threaten to, which is historically the preferred route. He could use that to blackmail the EU into going along with dropping the sanctions and pay up on the NATO dues.
The Russians have already stated they don’t expect Mr. Trump to be the Tooth Fairy and waive his magic wand to make the sanctions go away. Any lasting improvement in relations can only be the result of sincere and pragmatic negotiations. As with the Syrian situation, the trick is to get them started while fighting off the deal killers, both foreign and domestic. We wish both parties God speed in their journey.
Jim W. Dean, managing editor for Veterans Today, producer/host of Heritage TV Atlanta, specially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Material: “New Eastern Outlook”
-INFORMATION AS IN A BOTTLE THROWN TO THE SEVEN SEAS-
Николай БОБКИН – *Photo Reference:
В то время как на Украине разгорается пожар гражданской войны и льётся кровь,… “While in Ukraine the fire of civil war and bloodshed,…”
[You may possibly be able to read this article in English at http://www.strategic-culture.org ]
The Washington establishment’s hysteria over its favorite new “group think”:
-That Russian President Vladimir Putin put Donald Trump in the White House could set the stage for the Democratic Party rebranding itself as America’s “war party” alongside the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.
This political realignment – with the Democrats becoming the party of foreign interventionism and the Trump-led Republicans a more inwardly looking America First party – could be significant for the future. However, in another way, what we’re seeing is not new.
It is a replay of other “group thinks” in which some foreign leader is demonized beyond all reason allowing any accusation to be lodged against him with virtually no pushback from anyone interested in maintaining a U.S. mainstream career.
We saw this pattern, for instance, in the run-up to the Iraq War when Saddam Hussein was demonized to such a degree that any accusation against him was accepted without question, such as him hiding WMDs and colluding with Al Qaeda. In that context, some individuals supposedly with “first-hand knowledge” – “Iraqi defectors” – showed up to elaborate on and personalize the anti-Saddam propaganda message. We learned only later that many were scripted by the U.S.-government-funded Iraqi National Congress.
Since 2011, we saw the same demonization treatment applied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who was depicted as a ruthless monster opposed by a “moderate opposition” which, in turn, was embraced by “human rights” groups, touted by Western media and applauded even by citizen “peace groups” around the United States and Europe. The Assad demonization obscured the fact that many “opposition” groups were part of an externally funded “regime change” project spearheaded by radical jihadists connected to Al Qaeda.
A Reagan Strategy
For me, this pattern goes back even further. I have witnessed these techniques since the 1980s when the Reagan administration tapped into CIA psychological warfare methods to rally the American people around a more interventionist foreign policy – to “kick the Vietnam Syndrome,” the public skepticism toward war that followed the Vietnam debacle.
Back then, senior CIA propagandist Walter Raymond Jr. was assigned to the National Security Council staff where he tutored young neocons, the likes of Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, drumming into them that the key was to personalize the propaganda by demonizing a particular leader, making him eminently worthy of hate.
Raymond counseled his acolytes that the goal was always to “glue” black hats on the side in Washington’s crosshairs and white hats on the side that Washington favored. The grays of the real world were to be avoided and any politician or journalist who sought to deal in nuance was disparaged as a fill-in-the-blank “apologist.”
So, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration targeted Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega, “the dictator in designer glasses,” as President Reagan dubbed him.
In 1989, before the invasion of Panama, Gen. Manuel Noriega got the treatment. In 1990, it was Saddam Hussein’s turn, deemed “worse than Hitler” by President George H.W. Bush. During the Clinton administration, the demon du jour was Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic. In all these cases, there were legitimate criticisms of these leaders, but their evils were inflated to fantastical proportions to justify bloody military interventions by the U.S. government and its allies.
Regime Change in Moscow?
The main difference in recent years is that Official Washington’s neocons and liberal interventionists have taken aim at Russia with the goal of “regime change” in Moscow, a strategy that risks the world’s nuclear annihilation. But except for the stakes, the old script is still being followed.
Rather than a realistic assessment of what happened in Ukraine, the American people and the West in general have been fed a steady diet of propaganda. As U.S. neocons and liberal interventionists pushed for and achieved the violent overthrow of elected President Viktor Yanukovych, he was lavishly smeared as the embodiment of corruption over such items as a sauna in his official residence. Yanukovych wore the black hat and the street fighters of the Maidan, led by ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis, wore the white hats.
However, after Yanukovych’s unconstitutional ouster, his supporters, concentrated in Ukraine’s ethnic Russian areas, resisted the putsch. But the Western storyline was simply a Russian “invasion.” The absence of any evidence – like photos of an amphibious landing in Crimea or tanks crashing across Ukraine’s borders – didn’t seem to matter. Since Americans and Europeans had already been prepped to hate Putin, no evidence apparently was needed. The New York Times and other mainstream publications just reported any accusations as flat fact.
Even the exposure of a pre-coup phone call in which neocon U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who would lead the post-coup regime and how to “glue this thing” or “midwife this thing” didn’t matter either. Evidence of U.S. coup plotting wasn’t welcome because it didn’t fit the narrative of brave young Ukrainians promoting democracy by overthrowing the democratically elected leader.
Indeed, the leaked phone call, which the Western media attributed to Russian intelligence, became – rather than proof of U.S. coup plotting – an example of Moscow’s use of “kompromat” (i.e., compromising material) against the “victim,” Assistant Secretary Nuland, who was embarrassed because she had also disparaged the European Union’s lack of aggressiveness with the pithy remark, “Fuck the E.U.”
So, while many of these U.S. propaganda patterns can be traced back to Reagan and his desire to “kick the Vietnam Syndrome,” they have truly become bipartisan. Up had become down whichever party was in office with the mainstream media reinforcing the propaganda themes and deceptions.
The Trump Future
One can expect that the Trump administration will come to enjoy its own control over the levers of propaganda – especially given President Trump’s obsession with always being right no matter what the contrary evidence – but there has been some addition by subtraction in the changeover of administrations.
Many of the neocons and liberal hawks who nested in the Obama administration – people like Victoria Nuland – are gone. That at least creates the possibility for some fresh thinking on such issues as continuing the “information war” against Putin and Russia. A more realistic assessment regarding the Kremlin may be possible given the fact that Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn are not Russo-phobes and have personal experience with the Kremlin.
But the Democrats – and even progressives – appear determined to keep alive the anti-Russian hysteria that reached “group think” levels in the final weeks of the Obama administration and is now being carried forward by leading liberal organizations.
As James W. Carden reported for The Nation, “In the time between the November election and [Trump’s] inauguration, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and its president, former Hillary Clinton aide Neera Tanden, have been at the forefront of what some are calling ‘the resistance.’ Yet one troubling aspect of ‘the resistance’ seems to be its belief that Trump owes his surprise victory in the early morning hours of November 9 to the Russian government.”
Carden cited a session at CAP’s Washington headquarters at which Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Tanden hammered home the U.S. intelligence community’s still evidence-free claims that Putin ordered his intelligence services to sabotage Clinton’s campaign and help Trump. Again, details and nuance were unwelcome and unnecessary since the villains were the thoroughly demonized Putin and the widely despised (at least in Democratic circles) Trump.
But there are multiple dangers from the continuation of this propaganda narrative: the obvious one is the risk that the Washington establishment will make the Putin-Trump “guilt” a certified “group think” rather than a charge that needs careful analysis and that certitude could lead to an eventual nuclear showdown with Russia.
Another risk, however, is that the Democrats will come to believe that Putin’s interference defeated Hillary Clinton and thus a desperately needed self-evaluation won’t happen.
Even if Putin did have his intelligence agents hack Democratic emails and then slipped them to WikiLeaks (although its founder Julian Assange and an associate, former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied this), it is clear that the contents of the emails were legitimate and revealed some newsworthy facts about both the Democratic National Committee’s tilting the playing field against Sen. Bernie Sanders and what Clinton told Wall Street bankers in paid speeches that she was hiding from the voters. In other words, the emails weren’t disinformation; they provided real facts that the American people had a right to know before heading to the polls.
But the other key point is that these emails had little impact on the election. Even Clinton herself initially put the blame for her defeat on FBI Director James Comey for briefly reopening and then re-closing an investigation into her use of a private email server as Secretary of State. It was then that her poll numbers began to crater – and Putin had nothing to do with either her reckless decision to conduct State Department business through her private email server or Comey’s decisions regarding the investigation.
But the blame-Putin diversion has enabled the national Democratic Party to avoid reexamining its own contributions to Trump’s Electoral College victory, particularly its insistence on nominating Clinton despite many polls showing her high unfavorable numbers and a widespread recognition that 2016 was an anti-establishment year. The Democratic Party put on blinders to ignore the grave vulnerabilities of its candidate and the sour mood of the electorate.
In a larger sense, the Democratic Party ignored its own reputation as a home for internationalists, elitists and interventionists. Indeed, Clinton chose to cater to the neocons who are very influential in Official Washington but carry little weight in Middle America. Then, she made things worse by insulting many white blue-collar Americans as “deplorables.”
Yet, instead of conducting a thorough autopsy of their demise – sinking into minority status in Congress and across the country – the Democrats apparently think they can whistle past their political graveyard by blaming their defeat on Putin and by building a movement based on attacking Trump’s erratic and offensive behavior, very similar to the failed strategy that Clinton employed last fall.
Not only does this negative strategy threaten again to backfire but – by feeding into a new and dangerous Cold War – it risks tying the Democrats to conflict and militarism and letting the Trump Republicans position themselves as the alternatives to endless and escalating wars.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
The CIA’s “Deep State”, Donald Trump and His “War on Terrorism” By , January 30, 2017
The CIA is responsible for orchestrating international terrorism and untold atrocities. How does Trump plan on the CIA “ending” Islamic terrorism when it is the institution he “loves and respects” is the institution that foments and continues to spread this “fear and havoc”?
The Trump administration’s order against immigrants makes clear that the new government intends to utilize its control over the state to the maximum to enforce the interests of the financial oligarchy.
Wayne MADSEN | 29.01.2017
Although multi-billionaire hedge fund tycoon and international political pot-stirrer George Soros lost big with the election of Donald Trump… Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban now leads the anti-Soros groundswell in Europe. The optics of Orban becoming the first European Union leader to go after the Hungarian-born Soros and his destabilization operations has not been lost on other EU leaders, including those in Poland and the Czech Republic. Orban has accused Soros of masterminding the migrant invasion of Europe. In retaliation for these and other moves by Soros, Orban has warned that the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) backed by Soros risk being expelled from Europe altogether …
-INFORMATION AS IN A BOTTLE THROWN TO THE SEVEN SEAS-
READ MORE ABOUT TRUMP´S OBJECTIVES
IN DEPTH ANALYSIS HERE BELOW BY PROF. JAMES PETRAS
During his inaugural speech, President Trump clearly and forcefully outlined the strategic political-economic policies he will pursue over the next four years. Anti-Trump journalist, editorialists, academics and experts, who appear in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly distorted and lied about the President’s program as well as his critique of existing and past policies.
We will begin by seriously discussing President Trump’s critique of the contemporary political economy and proceed to elaborate on his alternatives and its weaknesses.
President Trump’s Critique of the Ruling Class
The centerpiece of Trump’s critique of the current ruling elite is the negative impact of its form of globalization on US production, trade and fiscal imbalances and on the labor market. Trump cites the fact that US industrial capitalism has drastically shifted the locus of its investments, innovations and profits overseas as an example of globalization’s negative effects. For two decades many politicians and pundits have bemoaned the loss of well-paid jobs and stable local industries as part of their campaign rhetoric or in public meetings, but none have taken any effective action against these most harmful aspects of globalization. Trump denounced them as “all talk and no action” while promising to end the empty speeches and implement major changes.
President Trump targeted importers who bring in cheap products from overseas manufacturers for the American market undermining US producers and workers. His economic strategy of prioritizing US industries is an implicit critique of the shift from productive capital to financial and speculative capital under the previous four administrations. His inaugural address attacking the elites who abandon the ‘rust belt’ for Wall Street is matched by his promise to the working class: “Hear these words! You will never be ignored again.” Trump’s own words portray the ruling class ‘as pigs at the trough’ (Financial Times, 1/23/2017, p. 11)
Trump’s Political-Economic Critique
President Trump emphasizes market negotiations with overseas partners and adversaries. He has repeatedly criticized the mass media and politicians’ mindless promotion of free markets and aggressive militarism as undermining the nation’s capacity to negotiate profitable deals.
President Trump’s immigration policy is closely related to his strategic ‘America First’ labor policy. Massive inflows of immigrant labor have been used to undermine US workers’ wages, labor rights and stable employment. This was first documented in the meat packing industry, followed by textile, poultry and construction industries. Trump’s proposal is to limit immigration to allow US workers to shift the balance of power between capital and labor and strengthen the power of organized labor to negotiate wages, conditions and benefits. Trump’s critique of mass immigration is based on the fact that skilled American workers have been available for employment in the same sectors if wages were raised and work conditions were improved to permit dignified, stable living standards for their families.
President Trump’s Political Critique
Trump points to trade agreements, which have led to huge deficits, and concludes that US negotiators have been failures. He argues that previous US presidents have signed multi-lateral agreements, to secure military alliances and bases, at the expense of negotiating job-creating economic pacts. His presidency promises to change the equation: He wants to tear up or renegotiate unfavorable economic treaties while reducing US overseas military commitments and demands NATO allies shoulder more of their own defense budgets. Immediately upon taking office Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and convoked a meeting with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.
Trump’s agenda has featured plans for hundred-billion dollar infrastructure projects, including building controversial oil and gas pipelines from Canada to the US Gulf. It is clear that these pipelines violate existing treaties with indigenous people and threaten ecological mayhem. However, by prioritizing the use of American-made construction material and insisting on hiring only US workers, his controversial policies will form the basis for developing well-paid American jobs.
The emphasis on investment and jobs in the US is a complete break with the previous Administration, where President Obama focused on waging multiple wars in the Middle East , increasing public debt and the trade deficit.
Trump’s inaugural address issued a stern promise: “The American carnage stops right now and stops right here!” This resonated with a huge sector of the working class and was spoken before an assemblage of the very architects of four decades of job-destroying globalization. ‘Carnage’ carried a double meaning: Widespread carnage resulted from Obama and other administrations’ destruction of domestic jobs resulting in decay and bankruptcy of rural, small town and urban communities. This domestic carnage was the other side of the coin of their policies of conducting endless overseas wars spreading carnage to three continents. The last fifteen years of political leadership spread domestic carnage by allowing the epidemic of drug addiction (mostly related to uncontrolled synthetic opiate prescriptions) to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly young American’s and destroy the lives of millions. Trump promised to finally address this ‘carnage’ of wasted lives. Unfortunately, he did not hold ‘Big Pharma’ and the medical community responsible for its role in spreading drug addiction into the deepest corners of the economically devastated rural America . Trump criticized previous elected officials for authorizing huge military subsidies to ‘allies’ while making it clear that his critique did not include US military procurement policies and would not contradict his promise to ‘reinforce old alliances’ (NATO).
Truth and Lies: Garbage Journalists and Arm Chair Militarists
Among the most outrageous example of the mass media’s hysteria about Trump’s New Economy is the systematic and vitriolic series of fabrications designed to obscure the grim national reality that Trump has promised to address. We will discuss and compare the accounts published by ‘garbage journalists (GJ’s)’ and present a more accurate version of the situation.
The respectable garbage journalists of the Financial Timesclaim that Trump wants to ‘destroy world trade’. In fact, Trumps has repeatedly stated his intention to increase international trade. What Trump proposes is to increase US world trade from the inside, rather than from overseas. He seeks to re-negotiate the terms of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements to secure greater reciprocity with trading partners. Under Obama, the US was more aggressive in imposing trade tariffs that any other country in the OECD.
Garbage journalists label Trump as a ‘protectionist’,confusing his policies to re-industrialize the economy with autarky. Trump will promote exports and imports, retain an open economy, while increasing the role of the US as a producer and exporter.. The US will become more selective in its imports. Trump will favor the growth of manufacturing exporters and increase imports of primary commodities and advanced technology while reducing the import of automobiles, steel and household consumer products.
Trump’s opposition to ‘globalization’ has been conflated by the garbage journalists of the Washington Post as a dire threat to the ‘the post-Second World War economic order’. In fact, vast changes have already rendered the old order obsolete and attempts to retain it have led to crises, wars and more decay. Trump has recognized the obsolete nature of the old economic order and stated that change is necessary.
The Obsolete Old Order and the Dubious New Economy
At the end of the Second World War, most of Western Europe and Japan resorted to highly restrictive ‘protectionist’ industrial and monetary policies to rebuild their economies. Only after a period of prolonged recovery did Germany and Japan carefully and selectively liberalize their economic policies.
In recent decades, Russia was drastically transformed from a powerful collectivist economy to a capitalist vassal-gangster oligarchy and more recently to a reconstituted mixed economy and strong central state. China has been transformed from a collectivist economy, isolated from world trade, into the world’s second most powerful economy, displacing the US as Asia and Latin America ’s largest trading partner.
Once controlling 50% of world trade, the US share is now less than 20%. This decline is partly due to the dismantling of its industrial economy when its manufacturers moved their factories abroad.
Despite the transformation of the world order, recent US presidents have failed to recognize the need to re-organize the American political economy. Instead of recognizing, adapting and accepting shifts in power and market relations, they sought to intensify previous patterns of dominance through war, military intervention and bloody destructive ‘regime changes’ – thus devastating, rather than creating markets for US goods. Instead of recognizing China’s immense economic power and seek to re-negotiate trade and co-operative agreements, they have stupidly excluded China from regional and international trade pacts, to the extent of crudely bullying their junior Asian trade partners, and launching a policy of military encirclement and provocation in the South China Seas. While Trump recognized these changes and the need to renegotiate economic ties, his cabinet appointees seek to extend Obama’s militarist policies of confrontation.
Under the previous administrations, Washington ignored Russia ’s resurrection, recovery and growth as a regional and world power. When reality finally took root, previous US administrations increased their meddling among the Soviet Union’s former allies and set up military bases and war exercises on Russia ’s borders. Instead of deepening trade and investment with Russia , Washington spent billions on sanctions and military spending – especially fomenting the violent putchist regime in Ukraine . Obama’s policies promoting the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, Syria and Libya were motivated by his desire to overthrow governments friendly to Russia – devastating those countries and ultimately strengthening Russia’s will to consolidate and defend its borders and to form new strategic alliances.
Early in his campaign, Trump recognized the new world realities and proposed to change the substance, symbols, rhetoric and relations with adversaries and allies – adding up to a New Economy.
First and foremost, Trump looked at the disastrous wars in the Middle East and recognized the limits of US military power: The US could not engage in multiple, open-ended wars of conquest and occupation in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia without paying major domestic costs.
Secondly, Trump recognized that Russia was not a strategic military threat to the United States . Furthermore, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin was willing to cooperate with the US to defeat a mutual enemy – ISIS and its terrorist networks. Russia was also keen to re-open its markets to the US investors, who were also anxious to return after years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry imposed sanctions. Trump, the realist, proposes to end sanctions and restore favorable market relations.
Thirdly, it is clear to Trump that the US wars in the Middle East imposed enormous costs with minimal benefits for the US economy. He wants to increase market relations with the regional economic and military powers, like Turkey , Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Trump is not interested in Palestine , Yemen , Syria or the Kurds – which do not offer much investment and trade opportunities. He ignores the enormous regional economic and military power of Iran , Nevertheless Trump has proposed to re-negotiate the recent six-nation agreement with Iran in order to improve the US side of the bargain. His hostile campaign rhetoricagainst Tehran may have been designed to placate Israel and its powerful domestic ‘Israel-Firsters’ fifth column. This certainly came into conflict with his ‘America First’ pronouncements. It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will retain a ‘show’ of submission to the Zionist project of an expansionist Israel while proceeding to include Iran as a part of his regional market agenda.
The Garbage Journalists claim that Trump has adopted a new bellicose stance toward China and threatens to launch a ‘protectionist agenda’, which will ultimately push the trans-Pacific countries closer to Beijing . On the contrary, Trump appears intent on renegotiating and increasing trade via bilateral agreements.
Trump will most probably maintain, but not expand, Obama’s military encirclement of China ’s maritime boundaries which threaten its vital shipping routes. Nevertheless, unlike Obama, Trump will re-negotiate economic and trade relations with Beijing – viewing China as a major economic power and not a developing nation intent on protecting its ‘infant industries’. Trump’s realism reflect the new economic order: China is a mature, highly competitive, world economic power, which has been out-competing the US , in part by retaining its own state subsidies and incentives from its earlier economic phase. This has led to significant imbalances. Trump, the realist, recognizes that China offers great opportunities for trade and investment if the US can secure reciprocal agreements, which lead to a more favorable balance of trade.
Trump does not want to launch a ‘trade war’ with China , but he needs to restore the US as a major ‘exporter’ nation in order to implement his domestic economic agenda. The negotiations with the Chinese will be very difficult because the US importer-elite are against the Trump agenda and side with the Beijing ’s formidable export-oriented ruling class.
Moreover, because Wall Street’s banking elite is pleading with Beijing to enter China ’s financial markets, the financial sector is an unwilling and unstable ally to Trump’s pro-industrial policies.
Trump is not a ‘protectionist’, nor is he opposed to ‘free-trade’. These charges by the garbage journalists are baseless. Trump does not oppose US economic imperialist policies abroad. However, Trump is a market realist who recognizes that military conquest is costly and, in the contemporary world context, a losing economic proposition for the US . He recognizes that the US must turn from a predominant finance and import economy to a manufacturing and export economy.
Trump views Russia as a potential economic partner and military ally in ending the wars in Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Ukraine , and especially in defeating the terrorist threat of ISIS . He sees China as a powerful economic competitor, which has been taking advantage of outmoded trade privileges and wants to re-negotiate trade pacts in line with the current balance of economic power.
Trump is a capitalist-nationalist, a market-imperialist and political realist, who is willing to trample on women’s rights, climate change legislation, indigenous treaties and immigrant rights. His cabinet appointments and his Republican colleagues in Congress are motivated by a militarist ideology closer to the Obama-Clinton doctrine than to Trumps new ‘America First’ agenda. He has surrounded his Cabinet with military imperialists, territorial expansionists and delusional fanatics.
Who will win out in the short or long term remains to be seen. What is clear is that the liberals, Democratic Party hacks and advocates of Little Mussolini black shirted street thugs will be on the side of the imperialists and will find plenty of allies among and around the Trump regime.
The war of words between China and the US flared again this week with warnings from Beijing that any move by Washington to implement a naval blockade in the South China Sea would trigger an armed conflict.
However, these tensions with China are just one of several global flashpoints that are testing the declared America First policy of President Donald Trump.
America First sounds like a laudable aspiration. But it would be naive to think that the US can simply reorient inwards and behave like a good global neighbor. Its economic power interests are dependent on foreign dominance, which in turn implies conflict and war with other nations. This is the harsh reality of US-led capitalism, regardless of what kind of president occupies the White House.
Trump campaigned on a platform of scaling back US military overseas interventions. In his inaugural speech on January 20, he again emphasized his America First pledge, whereby the focus of his presidency would be a nationalist-driven building of US economy and society. The overseas military adventurism of his predecessors, Barack Obama and George W Bush, and others before them, would be jettisoned in order to prioritize American interests at home.
Trump declared at his swearing-in on Capitol Hill that the US would «seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world» and «not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but let it shine as an example for others to follow». The days of foreign militarism were over, he said, so that American infrastructure would not fall into «disrepair and decay».
Nonetheless, within days of making those grand utterances, the Trump administration looks very much like any other predecessor in terms of willingness to continue getting embroiled in foreign conflicts.
Tensions with China this week featured prominently in the headlines. «Is Trump ready for war in the South China Sea?» asked the Washington Post. This followed a statement from the White House saying that it was prepared to block China’s access to reclaimed islands in the disputed strategic sea. Such a naval blockade by the US would constitute an act of war. It goes way beyond what the Obama administration ever gambled on in its wrangling with China over the contested territory.
The provocative brinkmanship by the Trump administration over the South China Sea is, disturbingly, only the latest in a series of perceived insults to Beijing. Trump has repeated accusations against China of unfair trading practices, threatening to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese exports, and he has scoffed at Washington’s long-held One China Policy, casting aspersions on Beijing’s historical claims over Taiwan.
The gravity of the US-China standoff was underscored by news reports that Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles have been newly stationed in the country’s northeast region, which are capable of targeting the US mainland. The move is bound to be seen as a response by Beijing to the Trump administration’s bellicose rhetoric.
If this were not perplexing enough, China is only one of several other global flashpoints that the Trump presidency seems to be playing with fire. North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and the ongoing escalation of NATO forces on Russia’s western borders are other major risks.
North Korea’s leader Kim Jung Un earlier this month vowed that his country would continue developing ICBM technology to eventually reach the capability of striking the US. (Hundreds of American nuclear missiles are already capable of striking North Korea, but this asymmetry is somehow deemed acceptable.) In typical cryptic language, Trump hit back at Kim Jung Un through a twitter soundbite, saying: «It’s not going to happen!» That curt message could be construed as meaning a pre-emptive American attack on the already isolated and heavily sanctioned Korean nation. Such veiled American threats will only incite further militarism.
If Trump were serious about taking care of domestic American business and society as a priority, he should be negotiating a draw-down of tens of thousands of US forces which have been on the Korean Peninsula for six decades since the Korean War ended in 1953. Not only troops, but also American warplanes, warships, missiles and punitive sanctions. Trump should be reviving multilateral regional talks with Pyongyang to establish a process of normalizing diplomatic relations. Instead Trump is continuing a failed and ticking time-bomb policy of militarism towards Pyongyang.
On Iran, Trump has again poured oil on troubled waters, rather than pursuing peaceful diplomacy. He has threatened to tear up the international nuclear accord, calling it «the worst deal ever». This week, Iran said that the US was failing to implement the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated last year between Tehran and six other parties, including Russia, China and the European Union. Iranian vexation is understandable considering that US obstructionism to the deal’s implementation is costing Iran billions of dollars in lost trade opportunities.
Trump’s appointment of General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis as Defense Secretary bodes for a much more hostile stance towards Iran. While serving in Iraq as a Marine commander, Mattis was known for hawkish views on Iran over the latter’s alleged support for Iraqi insurgents. The new Pentagon chief also wants to hit back with force over ongoing tensions in the Persian Gulf between Iranian and American navy vessels. An explosive incident could happen any day and Trump’s hot heads are itching to escalate.
Further fueling those tensions with Iran are reports that Trump has been holding talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on «how to contain the Iranian threat» in the region. If Trump follows through on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran, it can be expected that Iran will resume its nuclear program and step up its testing of ICBMs. Thus fulfilling the desires of Trump’s hawkish cabal to strike at Iran.
Another potential flashpoint is Venezuela. Rex Tillerson, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, last week announced that he would seek regime change against the «incompetent and dysfunctional government» in that South American country. In reply to Congressional questions concerning Trump’s still-to-be confirmed appointment, Tillerson said: «If confirmed, I would urge close cooperation with our friends in the hemisphere, particularly Venezuela’s neighbors Brazil and Colombia, as well as multilateral bodies such as the OAS, to seek a negotiated transition to democratic rule in Venezuela».
A «negotiated transition to democratic rule» is euphemistic language for regime change. Such a view from Trump’s would-be top diplomat marks a radical uptick in hostility towards the government of Nicolas Maduro compared with that under the Obama administration. The latter certainly slapped sanctions on Caracas and fomented internal political opponents to the socialist government. But Tillerson is now openly calling into question the legitimacy of the Venezuelan government, making unilateral demands for a «transition to democratic rule».
Venezuela is where Tillerson’s background as chief executive of Exxon Mobil becomes embroiled with American big business interests and personal vendetta. Exxon Mobil is the leading US oil giant, which Tillerson headed up until only a few weeks ago when Trump tapped him for the State Department. The company lost up to $16 billion in property and other assets when the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chavez, Maduro’s predecessor, nationalized its holdings in 2007. An international court of arbitration ruled in 2014 that the country should compensate the oil company with $1.6 billion – that is, only about 10 per cent of what Exxon Mobil had sued for. Some industry insiders say Tillerson has never forgiven Venezuela for «burning him».
If – and it seems likely next week – the US Senate finalizes Tillerson’s confirmation as Secretary of State, a key issue to watch will be whether Washington slaps more sanctions on the Venezuelan government over and above those already imposed by the former Obama administration. Washington may also cut back on oil imports from the South American supplier, thus putting more economic pressure on an already fragile Venezuelan economy. And, as Tillerson replied during his Congressional hearings, a further provocative move would be for Washington to begin openly agitating for political transition to «democratic rule» in Venezuela.
With regards to Russia, this may seem an unlikely volatile international scenario, given that Donald Trump has frequently called for restoring normal relations with Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin in particular. But apart from personal overtures for more cordial communications, the overall geopolitical situation continues to deteriorate.
This week, German and Belgian troops of the US-led NATO military alliance took up new positions in Lithuania adjacent to Russian territory. They are part of a continuing NATO reinforcement in Poland and the Baltic states, which earlier this month saw thousands of American troops and hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers newly arrived from the US. This relentless buildup of NATO forces on Russia’s border has been condemned by Moscow as an «aggression». Yet, the NATO escalation continues apace with the hollow official justification that it is aimed at «defending Europe from a Russian invasion».
Trump’s Cabinet members, including his Defense Secretary James Mattis and new CIA chief Mike Pompeo, as well as Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson, have all expressed fulsome support for NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe. The same Cabinet members have tendentiously laid the blame for tensions on Russia for its alleged annexation of Crimea and incursion into Ukraine. Indeed, Tillerson has compared the territorial claims by China in the South China Sea to the «taking of Crimea by Russia».
At least five international areas are fraught with incendiary tensions that are testing the Trump presidency’s self-declared America First policy. In all of the areas, the Trump administration bears responsibility for further stoking apprehensions. If the new president were true to his promise of scaling back American militarism abroad and devoting his supposed business acumen to reviving the US domestic economy and society, then what we should be witnessing is a determined effort to diffuse international antagonism. The opposite seems to be underway with regard to China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and Russia.
In a lot of favorable commentary about President Trump it is averred that his America First policy is a welcome departure from American «globalists», «neoconservatives» and «neoliberals». The assumption is that Trump’s brand of purported nationalist politics is a new departure from warmongering American policies.
That seems to be a naive perspective and false differentiation of American politics. Regardless of semantics, American corporate capitalism is predicated on imperialist hegemony, conflict and war. Even if Trump shifts economic production back to the US, the country will still need to dominate overseas markets for exploiting natural resources and exporting its commodities. That implies pursuing the same foreign policy underpinned by militaristic force that has been a hallmark of the US for decades.
Keep in mind the inherently aggressive nature of the United States as a modern capitalist state. Since its founding in 1776, out of 241 years of existence, the country has been at war for almost 90 per cent of that time, according to several historical accounts. Not a decade has gone by when the US was not involved in some kind of war, coup, counter-coup or proxy conflict. War is a fundamental function of American capitalism.
And the election of Donald Trump is not going to change that objective fact, despite the rhetoric otherwise.
“Economia Digital – Um Brilhante Futuro para a Humanidade ou Papo Furado?” (The Digital Economy: A Bright Future for Humanity or Bullshit?)
ECONOMIA DIGITAL: UM FUTURO BRILHANTE PARA A HUMANIDADE OU PAPO FURADO
A expressão “Economia Digital” cada vez mais aparece no dicionário dos políticos, empresários e jornalistas usada como uma palavra chave. Num dos principais relatórios do Banco Mundial (BM) da série “Desenvolvimento Mundial” – para 2016, apresentavam-se já também cálculos sobre a economia digital no mundo.
LEIA MAIS EM PRAVDA EM PORTUGUÊS
(MUCH MORE TO READ ON THIS SITE)
Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position to take action. The other good news is Trump’s inauguration speechwhich included this historical promise “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow”. Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary Clinton been elected.
The other interesting feature of Trump’s speech is that it centered heavily on people power and on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater. Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-millionaire capitalist be trusted when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to suddenly renounce imperialism.
But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.
For one thing, let’s begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the Anglo-American Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which the USA find themselves today which brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people (Hillary’s “deplorables”) to “drain the DC swamp” and “make America”, as opposed to the American plutocracy, “great again”. This might be somethhing crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do “more of the same” like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to.
I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.
Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21st Century Socialism, which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern 21st Century Socialism is very pro-Christian. Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
Furthermore, Trump inaugurational speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like Putin too?
There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words “We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first” he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a “friend” of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears.
Then there are Trump’s words about “forming new alliances” and uniting “the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth”. They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh, then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for “completely eradicating Radical Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth” for decades.
There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a direct result from the “tepid war” the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon’s messianic ideology. Now that a realist like Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.
The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree upon is much, much longer than the number of issues where irreconcilable differences remain.
So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is “for real”, and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies. Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself “what does Horowitz know which I am missing?”. What is certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that this shall not be me.
A SHORT EXTRACT FROM
“TRUMP´S DECLARATION OF WAR”
Trump’s Declaration of War
Paul Craig Roberts
President Trump’s brief inaugural speech was a declaration of war against the entirety of the American Ruling Establishment. All of it.
Trump made it abundantly clear that Americans’ enemies are right here at home: globalists, neoliberal economists, neoconservatives and other unilateralists accustomed to imposing the US on the world and involving us in endless and expensive wars, politicians who serve the Ruling Establishment rather than the American people, indeed, the entire canopy of private interests that have run America into the ground while getting rich in the process.
If truth can be said, President Trump has declared a war far more dangerous to himself than if he had declared war against Russia or China.
The interest groups designated by Trump as The Enemy are well entrenched and accustomed to being in charge. Their powerful networks are still in place. Although there are Republican majorities in the House and Senate, most of those in Congress are answerable to the ruling interest groups that provide their campaign funds and not to the American people or to the President. The military/security complex, offshoring corporations, Wall Street and the banks are not going to roll over for Trump. And neither is the presstitute media, which is owned by the interest groups whose power Trump challenges.
Trump made it clear that he stands for every American, black, brown, and white. Little doubt his declaration of inclusiveness will be ignored by the haters on the left who will continue to call him a racist just as the $50 per hour paid protesters are doing as I write.
Indeed, black leadership, for example, is enculturated into the victimization role from which it would be hard for them to escape. How do you pull together people who all their lives have been taught that whites are racists and that they are the victims of racists?
Can it be done? I was just on a program briefly with Press TV in which we were supposed to provide analysis of Trump’s inaugural speech. The other commentator was a black American in Washington, DC. Trump’s inclusiveness speech made no impression on him, and the show host was only interested in showing the hired protesters as a way of discrediting America. So many people have an economic interest in speaking in behalf of victims that inclusiveness puts them out of jobs and causes.
So along with the globalists, the CIA, the offshoring corporations, the armaments industries, the NATO establishment in Europe, and foreign politicians accustomed to being well paid for supporting Washington’s interventionist foreign policy, Trump will have arrayed against him the leaders of the victimized peoples, the blacks, the hispanics, the feminists, the illegals, the homosexuals and transgendered. This long list, of course, includes the white liberals as well, as they are convinced that flyover America is the habitat of white racists, misogynists, homophobes, and gun nuts. As far as they are concerned, this 84% of geographical US should be quarantined or interred.
In other words, does enough good will remain in the population to enable a President to unite the 16% America haters with the 84% America lovers? http://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
Consider the forces that Trump has against him:
Black and hispanic leaders need victimization, because it is what elevates them to power and income. They will turn a jaundiced eye toward Trump’s inclusiveness. Inclusiveness is good for blacks and hispanics, but not for their leaders.
The executives and shareholders of global corporations are enriched by the offshored jobs that Trump says he will bring home. If the jobs come home, their profits, performance bonuses, and capital gains will go away. But the economic security of the American population will return.
The military/security complex has a 1,000 billion annual budget dependent on “the Russian threat” that Trump says he is going to replace with normalized relations. Trump’s assassination cannot be ruled out.
Many Europeans owe their prestige, power, and incomes to the NATO that Trump has called into question.
The financial sector’s profits almost entirely flow from putting Americans into debt bondage and from looting their private and public pensions. The financial sector with their agent, the Federal Reserve, can overwhelm Trump with financial crisis. The New York Federal Reserve Bank has a complete trading desk. It can send any market into turmoil. Or support any market, because there is no limit on its ability to create US dollars.
The entire political ediface in the US has insulated itself from the will, desires, and needs of the people. Now Trump says the politicians will be accountable to the people. This, of course, would mean a big drop in their security in office and in their income and wealth.
There are a large number of groups, funded by we-know-not-who. For example, RootsAction has responded today to Trump’s forceful commitment to stand for all of the people against the Ruling Establishment with a request to “ask Congress to direct the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment investigation” and to send money for Trump’s impeachment.
Another hate group, human rights first, attacks Trump’s defense of our borders as closing “a refuge of hope for those fleeing persecution.” Think about this for a minute. According to the liberal-progressive-left and the racial interest group organizations, the US is a racist society and President Trump is a racist. Yet, people subject to American racism are fleeing from persecution to America where they will be racially persecuted? It doesn’t make sense. The illegals come here for work. Ask the construction companies. Ask the chicken and animal slaughter houses. Ask the vacation area cleaning services.
This list of those on whom Trump has declared war is long enough, although there are more that can be added.
We should ask ourselves why a 70 year old billionaire with flourishing businesses, a beautiful wife, and intelligent children is willing to give his final years to the extraordinary stress of being President with the stressful agenda of putting the government back in the hands of the American people. There is no doubt that Trump has made himself a target of assassination. The CIA is not going to give up and go away. Why would a person take on the grand restoration of America that Trump has declared when he could instead spend his remaining years enjoying himself immensely?
If he succeeds, he deserves the designation: Trump the Great!
Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and any other country on the CIA’s hit list should undersand that Trump’s rise is insufficient protection. The CIA is a worldwide organization. Its profitable businesses provide income independent of the US budget. The organization is capable of undertaking operations independently of the President or even of its own Director.
The CIA has had about 70 years to entrench itself. It has not gone away.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Trump’s Declaration of War
A Financial genocide, if there was ever one. Death by demonetization, probably killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, through famine, disease, even desperation and suicide – because most of India’s money was declared invalid. The official weak reason for this purposefully manufactured human disaster is fighting counterfeiting. What a flagrant lie! The real cause is of course – you guessed it – an order from Washington.
On 8 November, Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister, brutally declared all 500 (US$ 7) and 1,000 rupee-notes invalid, unless exchanged or deposited in a bank or post office account until 31 December 2016. After this date, all unexchanged ‘old’ money is invalid – lost. Barely half of Indians have bank accounts.
The final goal is speedy global demonetization. India is a test case – a huge one, covering 1.3 billion people. If it works in India, it works throughout the developing world. That’s the evil thought behind it. “Tests” are already running in Europe.
The Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, are moving rapidly towards cashless societies. Electronic money, instead of cash, allows the hegemon to control the entire western world, all those who are enslaved to the dollar monetary system. Meaning literally everybody outside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that includes, China, Russia, most of Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan and – yes, India is an apparent candidate to join the SCO alliance.
There was no limit set in rupee amounts that were allowed to be deposited in bank or postal accounts. But exchanges or withdrawals were limited the first two days to 2,000 rupees, later to 4,000 rupees, with promises to further increases ‘later on’. The restrictions have to do with limited new bank notes available. The new money is issued in denominations of 500 and 2,000 rupee-notes.
On 9 November, none of the country’s ATM machines were functioning. Withdrawing money was possible only from banks. Queues behind bank counters were endless – lasting hours and in some cases days. Often times, once at the teller, the bank was out of cash. Imagine the millions, perhaps billions of labor hours – production time and wages – lost – lost mostly by the poor.
The banned bank notes constitute about 85% in value of all cash in circulation. India is a cash society. About 97% of all transactions are carried out in cash. Only slightly more than half the Indian population has bank accounts; and only about half of them have been used in the last three months. Credit or debit cards are extremely scarce – basically limited to the ‘creditworthy’ elite.
In rural areas, where most of the poor live, banks are scarce or none existent. The poor and poorest of the poor, again – as usual – are those who suffer most. Hundreds of thousands of them have lost almost all they have and will be unable to fend for their families, buying food and medication.
According to most media reports, Modi’s demonetization was an arbitrary decision. Be sure, there is nothing arbitrary behind this decision. As reported on 1 January 2017 by German investigative business journalist, Norbert Haering, in his blog, “Money and More”, this move was well prepared and financed by Washington through USAID ().
In November 2010 President Obama declared with then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Strategic Partnership with India. It was to become one of his foreign policy priorities which was renewed during Obama’s visit to India in January 2015 with the current PM Modi (image right). The purpose of this partnership was not just to pull one of the most populous BRICS countries out of the Russia-China orbit, but also to use it as a test case for global demonetization. Mind you, the orders came from way above Obama, from the omni-potent, but hardly visible Rothschild-Rockefeller – Morgan – et al, all-domineering bankster cartel.
This horrendous crime that may cost millions of lives, was the dictate of Washington. A cooperation agreement, also called an “anti-cash partnership”, between the US development agency (sic), USAID, with the Indian Ministry of Finance, was worked out. One of their declared ‘common objectives’ was gradually eliminating the use of cash by replacing it with digital or virtual money.
It takes two to tango. The PM of the second largest nation in the world, one would expect, would have a say in the extent to which a foreign country may interfere in India’s sovereign internal affairs, i.e. her monetary policies – especially a foreign country that is known to seek only Full Spectrum Dominance of the globe, its resources and its people. The head of India, a prominent BRICS country (BRICS = Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), one would expect, could have sent the naked emperor to climb a tree – and say NO to this horrendous criminal request. But Modi did not.
Is India with PM Modi still a viable BRICS country? Or more importantly, India is currently poised to become a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Is India under Modi worthy of being admitted into this powerful Asian economic and military block, the only authoritative counterbalance to the west? – At this point, putting hundreds of millions of his countrymen at peril by obeying Washington’s nefarious dictate, Modi looks more like a miserable traitor than a partner of the New East.
USAID calls this operation “Catalyst”
Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership“. Its purpose is “effecting a quantum leap in cashless payment in India” – and of course, eventually around the globe. According to the Indian Economic Times, this program had been stealthily financed by USAID over the past three years. Funding amounts are kept secret. Who knows, where else in the world Catalyst is quietly funding and preparing other human financial disasters.
All fits into the Big Scheme of things: Reducing the world population, so less resources are needed to maintain 7.4 billion people – and growing – many of them finite resources that can be used by a small elite, supported by a few million slaves. This is the world according to still ticking war criminal numero UNO, Henry Kissinger. Forcefully reducing the world population is his one big objective since just after WWII, when he became a key member of the Rockefeller sponsored Bilderberg Society.
Some of the same people are currently spreading neo-fascist mantras around the world, at the infamous WEF (World Economic Forum) in Davos, Switzerland (17-20 January 2017). WEF attendees (by invitation only) are a mixed bag of elitist ‘private’ billionaires, corporate CEOs (only corporations registering at least US$ 5 billion in sales), high-flying politicians, Hollywood’s cream of the crop, and more of the kind. Pretty much the same definition applies to the Bilderbergers.
Like with the Bilderbergers, the key topics discussed at the WEF, those themes that are supposed to guide the world further and faster towards the New (One) World Order, are discussed behind closed doors and will hardly surface into the mainstream. It is, however, highly likely that the “Cashless India” decision – a trial for the rest of the world – had previously been discussed and ‘ratified’ by the WEF, as well as the Bilderbergers. None of this is known to the common people, and least to the Indians.
All-out efforts are under way to maintain highly lucrative disaster capitalism, or at least to slow down its decline – because its end is in sight. It’s just a question of time. Hence, the term Catalyst (accelerator) for the USAID program is well chosen. Time is running out. One of the best ways of controlling populations and unbending politicians is through financial strangleholds. That’s what a cashless society is all about.
According to Badal Malick, former Vice President of India’s most important online marketplace Snapdeal, later appointed as CEO of Catalyst:
“Catalyst’s mission is to solve multiple coordination problems that have blocked the penetration of digital payments among merchants and low-income consumers. We look forward to creating a sustainable and replicable model. (…) While there has been (…) a concerted push for digital payments by the government, there is still a last mile gap when it comes to merchant acceptance and coordination issues. We want to bring a holistic ecosystem approach to these problems.“
This is further supported by Jonathan Addleton, USAID Mission Director to India:
“India is at the forefront of global efforts to digitize economies and create new economic opportunities that extend to hard-to-reach populations. Catalyst will support these efforts by focusing on the challenge of making everyday purchases cashless.”
What an outright heap of bovine manure!
Those who are supporting the Catalyst idea in India – and presumably elsewhere in the world, are, as per an USAID Beyond-Cash report, more than 35 Indian, American and international organizations (http://cashlesscatalyst.org/), mostly IT and payment service providers, including the Better Than Cash Alliance, the Gates Foundation (Microsoft), Omidyar Network (eBay), the Dell Foundation Mastercard, Visa, Metlife Foundation. All of them want to make money from digital payments – another transfer from the poor to the rich – another catalyst for widening the rich-poor gab – worldwide.
Screenshots from http://cashlesscatalyst.org
Interestingly, the USAID – Indian partnership to temporarily banning most cash coincides with Raghuram Rajan as President of the Reserve Bank of India (September 2013 – September 2016). Mr. Rajan has also been chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and there is talk that he may be poised as Mme. Lagarde’s successor at the helm of the IMF. It is clear that the IMF, and by association the World Bank, is fully aboard with this project to transform western society into slavehood of digital money – with emphasis on wester society, because the East, the Russia-China-Iran-SCO axis, where the future lays, has already largely detached itself from the dollar based western – and fraudulent – monetary scheme.
Mr. Raghuram Rajan is an influential but also highly controversial figure. He is also a member of the so-called Group of Thirty, “a rather shady organization, where high ranking representatives of the world’s major commercial financial institutions share their thoughts and plans with the presidents of the most important central banks, behind closed doors and with no minutes taken.
It becomes increasingly clear that the Group of Thirty is one of the major coordination centers of the worldwide war on cash. Its membership includes other key warriors like Rogoff, Larry Summers and others” (N.Häring, 1.1.2017). On the other hand, Rajan is extremely disliked by the Indian business society, mostly because of his tight monetary policy as head of the Indian Central Bank (go figure!). Under pressure, he did not renew his term as India’s central bank governor in 2016.
The Group of Thirty sounds akin to the highly secretive Board of Directors of the infamous Basle-based BIS (Bank for International Settlement), also considered the central bank of all central banks, which meets once a month in secret (during a weekend for lesser visibility) and no minutes taken. The BIS is a Rothschild controlled private bank, close associate of the FED, also privately owned. It is clear, with the FED, BIS and IMF in connivance, the dice are cast for a cashless (western) society.
Washington’s interest in a cashless society goes far beyond the business interests of IT, credit card and other financial institutions. More importantly is the surveillance power that goes with digital payments. As with electronic communications today – every one of them read, listened to and spied on throughout the world – some 7 to 10 billion electronic messages per day – every digital payment and transfer will be controlled and checked worldwide by the Masters of the dollar-based hegemony. Every transfer will be registered and monitored by an American-Zionist control mechanism. This is the only way (totally illegal) sanctions can be dished out to governments that refuse the dictate of Washington and its western European lackeys. Cases in point are Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria — the list is endless.
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) recently reported that Employees of a German manufacturing firm doing completely legal business with Iran were put on a US terror list, which meant that they were shut off most of the financial system and even some logistics companies would not transport their furniture any more.
Norbert Häring concludes,
“Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the US government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the US or in dollars, basically amounts to shutting them down. Deutsche Bank had to negotiate [in September 2016] with the US treasury for months whether they would have to pay a fine of 14 billion dollars and most likely go broke, or get away with seven billion and survive. If you have the power to bankrupt the largest banks even of large countries, you have power over their governments, too. This power through dominance over the financial system and the associated data is already there. The less cash there is in use, the more extensive and secure it is, as the use of cash is a major avenue for evading this power.”
Back to India. It is not difficult to imagine what the implications of such a massive demonetization operation might have in a country like India, where hundreds of millions live in or near poverty, with a large rural population, where almost all transactions are carried out in cash – and where cash is everything for survival. This is death by financial strangulation.
No blood, No traces – no media coverage. It is a clandestine willful mass-murder, carried out by the Indian government on its own people, while instigated by the chief assassins, operating from within the Washington Beltway killer farms, no scruples, no morals, no ethics – what Washington knows best to achieve its purpose.
This no-holds-barred strategy is accelerating, as time runs out. The ship is slowly but surely turning towards another dimension, another world view – one of in which humanity may gain back its status of a solidary being. These atrocities around the globe may go some ways – but I doubt they will go all the way. There is a spiritual limit on how far evil can go.
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 Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. 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.
Trump vs. the CIA By , January 18, 2017
A Demand for Russian ‘Hacking’ Proof, by Veteran Intelligence Officials By , January 18, 2017
The Russians Did Not “Hack” the US Election – a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy (see more below)
President Barack Obama is stuck between false flag operations and political circus?
” I am deeply offended by the lies being told by the US Government – and more specifically, by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the explicit approval of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the President – with respect to the Russians “hacking” the US election. Robert David Steele, Intelligence expert
– I am reminded of the 935 now-documented lies told by Dick Cheney to justify a $5 trillion war and multiple occupations from Afghanistan to Niger – or in more Nordic terms, the falsification by the Swedish military, in collaboration with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and CIA, of a Russian submarine that never existed, allegedly “invading” Swedish waters.
As a CIA spy, I have faked intelligence, lied to government leaders, and managed a modest false flag operation (no one died). This is what CIA does. I accuse John Brennan, Director of the CIA, of being a liar who is in betrayal of the public trust with his lies. The most recent DHS-FBI report – and related reports from small companies seeking to curry favor with the Deep State – are absolute crap.
Image Left: Robert David Steele
I was the author of the first letter to the White House warning of our cyber-security shortfalls, in 1994. In the same year I was the opening speaker for Hackers on Planet Earth. The year before, in 1993, I introduced NSA to hackers — of the 900+ participants in my international conference roughly 60 were from NSA, bused down from Fort Meade to listen to a panel led by Emanuel Goldstein, founder of 2600.
Here are the facts as I understand them, augmented by public statements from Julian Assange, Craig Murray, William Binney, James Bamford, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi, and John McAfee – and others who do not wish to be named.
There is good news. It is my judgment that WWIII has been averted by a combination of restraint on the part of Vladimir Putin, confident that Donald Trump will make things right (pun intended) once he is in office, and public intelligence. For the first time in history, a sufficiency of retired intelligence professionals and alert citizens have come together to demonstrate with compelling depth that both the US secret intelligence community and their fellow travelers, the US media (both mainstream and “progressive”) cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything of import.
For those who wish to learn more, I offer the three links as starting points.
Those wishing to understand how Donald Trump won accidentally, against all odds within a system rigged twelve different ways, are invited to review the two links below.
In my view, the truth at any cost lowers all other costs. The truth is not available from the US secret intelligence world or the US media – for truth, we must look to one another.
READ ALSO FROM DR. PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS:
The Coup Against Truth
Paul Craig Roberts
Jon Rappoport’s mocking of the US presstitutes is superb:
“Vladimir Putin is the secret president of the United States.”
“Yep. That’s it. The US is now the USSR. It’s all over. Trump is a Communist who took orders from Putin. Trump is a Red. That was his game all along. He’s a billionaire Commie.”
Ridicule is effective, and nothing deserves ridicule more than the Washington Post, New York, Times, CNN, and the rest of the presstitutes who pretend to be real journalists. But as I have emphasized, and other real journalists, such as Glenn Greenwald (see, for example, https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/ and https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ ) imply, the fake news recklessly promoted by the presstitutes brings with it the threat of thermo-nuclear war.
For several years Russia and her president have experienced endless demonization. The Russians know that Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia (done while Putin was at the Beijing Olympics) was a Washington provocation. The Russians know that Washington’s coup in Ukraine (done while Putin was at the Sochi Olympics) was a provocation aimed at seizing Russia’s Black Sea naval base in Crimea and cutting Russia off from the Mediterranean. The Russians know that Washington knows that the charges that Russia hacked Hillary’s emails and the US presidential election are lies. The Russians know that the “Russian threat” created by Washington is a lie along with all of its permutations, such as an impending Russian invasion of Poland and the Baltics. The Russians understand that US ABM bases on Russia’s borders are provocations, as are NATO military exercises on Russia’s borders and in the Black Sea. You can add to this list on your own.
The lies are ubiquitous, have grown more absurd, and are now institutionalized in the US government in the CIA, executive branch agencies, and among many US senators and representatives. That these lies are validated by endless media repetitions throughout the Western world are viewed by Russia as indications that Western populations are being prepared for a military attack on Russia. Putin has warned publicly on many occasions that the Western propaganda is dangerously destabilizing. Yet, as he also notes, no one hears his warnings.
Washington is so intent on its anti-Russian propaganda that Congress has passed, and Obama has signed, an intelligence bill that contains a section, Title V, that authorizes active measures to counter purveyors of false news. These purveyors are alternative media websites, such as this one, that challenge the official lies. The truthful alternative media is accused of being under Russian influence. Last summer a website shrouded in secrecy was created that recently posted a list of 200 websites alleged to be under Russian influence, either directly or indirectly. The Washington Post irresponsibly published a long article endorsing the fake news of 200 websites working for the Russian government.
In other words, the suppression of the truth is the last defense of the corrupt American ruling establishment. During the last 24 years three Washington regimes have murdered millions of peoples in nine or more countries along with US civil liberty. To cover up these vast crimes, unparalleled in history, the presstitutes have lied, slandered, and libeled.
And the Washington criminal regime holds itself up to the world as the indispensable protector of democracy, human rights, truth, and justice. As the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said recently, what makes America exceptional is the use of might in the service of evil.
Washington brands not only its opponents but all who speak the truth “Russian agents,” hoping that the demonization of Russia has sufficiently frightened the population that Americans will turn their backs to those who speak the truth.
It would seem obvious even to the insouciant that an establishment that has gone so far out on a limb that the CIA director publicly attributes the election of Donald Trump to Russian interference but is unable to produce a shred of evidence—indeed in the face of totally conclusive evidence to the contrary—is determined to hold on to power at all costs.
The CIA’s open, blatant, and unprecedented propaganda attack against a president-elect has caused Trump to throw down the gauntlet to CIA director John Brennan. There are reports that Trump intends to revamp and reorganize the intelligence agency. The last president who said this, John F. Kennedy, was murdered by the CIA before he could strike against them. Kennedy believed that he could not take on the CIA until he was re-elected. The delay gave the CIA time to arrange his assassination.
Trump appears to understand his danger. He has announced that he intends to supplement his Secret Service protection (which was turned against JFK) with private security.
Isn’t it striking? The president of Russia states publicly that Washington is driving the world to thermo-nuclear war and that his warnings are ignored. The president-elect of the United States is under full-scale attack from the CIA and knows that he cannot trust his official security force. One might think that these extraordinary topics would be the only ones under discussion. But you can find such discussion only on a few alternative media websites, such as this one, branded by PropOrNot and the Washington Post as “under Russian influence.”
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, The Coup Against Truth
In the West Junk Information And Junk Judgment Prevail
The Western world and that part of the world that partakes of Western explanations live in a fictional world. We see this everywhere we look — in the alleged machinations of Russia to elect Donald Trump president of the US, in claims that Saddam Hussein and his (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction were a threat to the United States (a mushroom cloud over American cities), that Assad of Syria used chemical weapons against his own people, that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, that a few Saudi Arabians outwitted the entirety of the US, EU, and Israeli intelligence services and delivered the greatest humiliation to the «world’s only superpower» in the history of mankind, that Russia invaded Ukraine and could at any moment invade the Baltics and Poland, that the US rate of unemployment is 4.6%, that China’s trade surplus with the US is due to Chinese currency manipulation, and so on and on.
Allegedly we live in a scientific era of information, but what good can come from faulty orchestrated information? As long as fake news delivered by presstitutes serves powerful private and governmental interests, how can we know the truth about anything?
For example, consider the claim found everywhere in US government and US media statements that the massive US trade deficit with China is the result of Chinese currency manipulation, keeping the yuan underpriced relative to the US dollar.
This false claim is widely accepted. China’s currency is pegged to the US dollar. It moves with the dollar. China pegged its currency to the US dollar in order to create confidence in the Chinese currency. Over the past decade China has adjusted the peg of its currency to the dollar and permitted a rise in the value of the Chinese currency from 8.1 yuan to 6.9 yuan to the US dollar. (The yuan reached a strength of 6 to the dollar, but a rising dollar was pulling up the yuan, causing China to widen the float in order to avoid undue appreciation because of the US dollar’s rise to other Asian and European currencies.) How is a rising yuan «currency manipulation»? Don’t expect an answer from the presstitute financial media or the junk economists who comprise the neoliberal economics profession.
The function of the myth of Chinese currency manipulation is to hide from view the fact that the massive US trade deficit with China is due to US corporations offshoring their production for US markets to China. When US corporations bring goods and services produced offshore back to the US for sale, they enter as imports, thus swelling the trade deficit. The myth about currency manipulation shifts the blame from US corporations to China, while in fact it is the return of offshored production, such as Apple computers, for sale to Americans that swells the US trade deficit.
US corporations produce offshore because the much lower labor costs result in higher profits, higher stock prices for shareholders, and in performance bonuses for executives. One of the main causes for the high Dow Jones averages and the worsened income and wealth distribution in the US is the offshoring of jobs. In 2016 the richest people added $237 billion to their wealth, while the rise in student loan, auto loan, and credit card debt combined with stagnant or declining income left ordinary Americans poorer. During the 21st century, household indebtedness has risen from about 70% of GDP to about 80%. Personal income has not risen in keeping with personal debt.
The offshoring of jobs benefits only a small number of shareholders and executives, and it imposes massive external costs on American society. Former prosperous manufacturing states are in long term depression. Median real family incomes have fallen. Real estate values in abandoned manufacturing areas have fallen. The tax base has eroded. State and local government pension systems cannot meet their obligations. The social safety net is unraveling.
To get an idea of the external costs that offshoring imposes on the American population, go online and look at the pictures of decrepit Detroit, formerly an industrial powerhouse. Schools and libraries are abandoned. Public buildings are abandoned. Factories are abandoned. Homes are abandoned. Churches are abandoned. Here is one 4 minute video:
And it is not only Detriot. In my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism (Clarity Press, 2013), I report the 2010 US Census data. The population of Detroit, formerly America’s fourth largest city, declined by 25 percent in the first decade of the 21st century. Gary, Indiana, lost 22 percent of its population. Flint, Michigan, lost 18 percent. Cleveland, Ohio lost 17 percent. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania lost 7 percent. South Bend lost 6 percent. Rochester, New York, lost 4 percent. St. Louis, Missouri, lost 20 percent. these cities were once the home of American manufacturing and industrial might.
Instead of telling the truth, the presstitute financial media and the corrupt US economics profession have hidden the massive social and external costs of jobs offshoring under the totally false claim that offshoring is good for the economy. In my book, I take to task corporate shills such as Dartmouth’s Matthew Slaughter and Harvard’s Michael Porter, who produced through incompetence or complicity erroneous reports of the great benefits to Americans of having their jobs given to Chinese and American cities left in ruins.
Throughout its history the US has suffered from public lies, but not until the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes did lies become so ubiquitous that truth disappeared.
Consider the November jobs report. We were told that the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.6% and that 178,000 new US jobs were created in November. The recovery is on course, etc. But what are the real facts?
The unemployment rate does not include discouraged workers who have been unable to find employment and have ceased job hunting, which is expensive, exhausting and demoralizing. In other words, unemployed people are being pushed into the discouraged category faster than they can find jobs. That is the explanation for the low official unemployment rate. Moreover, this reported low rate of unemployment is inconsistent with the declining labor force participation rate. When jobs are available, people enter the work force in order to take advantage of the employment opportunities, and the labor force participation rate rises.
The reporting by the financial presstitutes adds to the deception. We are given the number of 178,000 new jobs in November. And that is it. However, the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows many problematic aspects of the data. For example, only 9,000 of the claimed 178,000 jobs are full time jobs (defined as 35 hours or more per week). October saw a loss of 103,000 full time jobs from September, and September had 5,000 fewer full time jobs than August. No one explains how an economy losing full time jobs is in recovery.
The age distribution of the November new jobs is disturbing. 77,000 of the jobs went to those 55 and over. Only 4,000 jobs went to the household forming ages of 25-34.
The marital status distribution of the jobs is also troubling. In November there were 95,000 fewer employed married men with spouse present and 74,000 fewer employed married women with spouse present than in October. In October there were 331,000 fewer married men and 87,000 fewer married women employed than in September.
One can conclude from these large differences month to month that the official statistics are not good, which might well be the case. For example, as I have stressed in my reports on the monthly payroll employment releases, there is always a large number of new jobs for waitresses and bartenders. Yet restaurant traffic has declined for 9 consecutive months.
Why do restaurants hire more employees as traffic declines?
As John Williams (shadowstats.com) has informed us, the monthly payroll jobs claims might consist entirely of add-ons from estimates from a flawed birth/death model and manipulations of seasonal adjustments. In other words, the reported new jobs might only be statistical illusions.
John Williams also emphasizes that the claimed real GDP growth numbers might be entirely the products of the under-measurement of inflation. Some years ago the inflation measures were «reformed» in order to cheat those on Social Security out of cost-of-living adjustments. In place of a weighted index that calulated the cost of a constant standard of living, substitution was introduced. In the reformed index, if the price of an item in the index rises, a lower-priced item is substituted in its place, thus negating the inflationary impact of the price rise. Also, price rises are defined away as «quality improvements». Clearly, this is an index designed to under report rising prices.
The bottom line is that the recovery allegedly underway since June 2009 might be a statistical illusion produced by a flawed measure of inflation.
What can Americans expect from the economy in 2017? First, some perspective. The defeat of stagflation by President Reagans supply-side policy gave the Clinton regime a good economy. The improved US economy was not entirely a good thing, because it masked the adverse consequences of jobs offshoring that began in earnest after the Soviet collapse in 1991.
The Soviet collapse encouraged the change in attitude of the Indian and Chinese governments toward foreign capital. Wall Street and big box retailers such as Walmart forced the relocation of much of US manufacturing to China, to be followed after the rise of the high speed Internet by offshoring professional skill jobs such as software engineering to India. These relocations of US economic activity to foreign locations hollowed out the US economy and reduced the job opportunities for Americans.
The growth of real median family income ceased. Without increases in consumer spending to drive the economy, the Federal Reserve substituted a growth in consumer debt for the missing growth in real median family income. But the growth of consumer debt is limited by the lack of growth in consumer income. Thus, an economy dependent on debt expansion is limited in its ability to expand. Unlike the federal government, the American people cannot print money with which to pay their bills.
Alone among those contending for political office, president-elect Trump has fingered jobs offshoring as a blow to the American people and the US economy. It remains to be seen what he can do about it, as jobs offshoring serves the interests of the global corporations and their shareholders.
For many years now the monthly payroll jobs reports show the US descending into Third World status, with the vast bulk of the claimed new jobs in lowly paid, non-tradable domestic services. The BLS 10-year job projections show few new jobs that require a university degree. If high value-added, high productivity middle class jobs cannot be brought back to the US, the American economic future is one of continuing decline into Third World status.
Considering the constraints on the consumer, a large share of corporate profits has come from labor cost savings from jobs offshoring. For corporations such as Apple, whose products are almost entirely produced in Chinese factories, there are no more profits to be secured from jobs offshoring. To keep the profits flowing, Apple plans to replace the inexpensive Chinese labor with robots, which do not have to be paid any wage. What better shows the disconnect between capital and labor than to robotize Chinese factories in the face of an excess supply of labor?
Paul Samuelson’s economic textbook taught the fallacy of composition, what is good for the individual might not be good for the group. The Keynesian economists applied this to savings. Saving is good for the individual, but if aggregate saving exceeds investment, aggregate demand falls, pulling down income, employment, and saving.
This is the case with jobs offshoring. It can increase profits for the firm, but in the aggregate it decreases aggregate income of the population and limits sales growth. What jobs offshoring does in this respect will be done in spades by robotics.
When I read economists and financial presstitutes glorifying the cost savings of robotics, I wonder where their mind is or if they have one. Robots don’t purchase housing, home furnishings and appliances, cars, food, clothing, vacations, entertainment. When robots have the jobs, where do humans get the incomes with which to purchase the products produced by robots?
This unexamined question has extraordinary implications for property rights and the social organization of society. Ralph Gomory told me a few years ago that a handful of people hold the robotic patents. Therefore, in a robotized world, the distribution of income and wealth would be concentrated in the hands of a few dozen people. Indeed, would there be any income or wealth of any magnitude? The only way humans could survive would be to again become self-sufficient farmers with no monetary income to purchase products made by robots. As few would be able to purchase products made by robots, there would be no source for income and wealth for the patent holders.
I am convinced that if robotics is going to supplant human labor, the patents will have to be socialized, and income distributed on a relatively equal basis throughout society.
So, can Trump fix the economy in 2017?
There can be no fix unless the ladders of upward mobility that made the US an opportunity society can be put back in place. This will require bringing home the offshored middle class jobs or, assuming that new high value-added jobs could somehow be created, preventing the new jobs from being moved offshore.
There is a way to do this: Base the corporate tax rate on the geographical location where corporations add value to their product. If corporations add value domestically with US labor, the tax rate would be low. If the value is added abroad, the tax rate would be high. The tax rate can be adjusted to offset the benefits of lower costs abroad.
Despite the propaganda about globalism and free trade, the US economy was built on protection, and its strength was the domestic market. US prosperity was never dependent on exports. And as the US dollar is the world reserve currency, the US doesn’t need exports in order to pay for its imports. This is why the US can tolerate the trade deficits caused by jobs offshoring.
Globalism is a concoction by the neoliberal junk economists in complicity with the big banks, Wall Street, and multinational corporations. Globalism is a disguise for the exploitation of the many in behalf of the few. The alleged benefits of globalism were used to justify the offshoring of jobs and to enrich corporate executives and shareholders.
It is the domestic economy that is important, not the global economy. The suffering population in flyover America finally learned this lesson and elected Trump.
Can Trump script «The Escape From Globalism?» He could lose the fight. Globalism has been institutionalized. The large corporations that have offshored their production for US markets would oppose moves against jobs offshoring. So would all their shills in the economics profession and financial media. I don’t know the extent to which globalism has taken root in people’s minds in Asia, Africa, and South America, but in Europe — even some in Putin’s Russia — people are brainwashed in the belief that they can’t exit globalism without paying a large economic price.
Consider, for example, the Greeks. For the sake of the balance sheets of a handful of northern European (and perhaps US) banks, the Greek and Portuguese peoples have been forced into extreme austerity, resulting in such high unemployment and plummeting living standards that women have been forced into prostitution in order to survive. This totally unnecessary outcome has occurred because the Greek and Portuguese peoples and governments are so brainwashed that they believe they cannot survive as independent countries without globalism and the entry to globalism provided by EU membership. In the UK 45% of the population suffers from the same misconception.
Globalism is the latest technique by which capitalism loots and destroys. In the Western world it is the working and middle classes that are looted of their jobs and careers. In Asia, Africa, and Latin America self-sufficient farming communities are looted of their land and forced into monoculture as laborers who produce an export crop. Countries formerly self-sufficient in food become dependent on food imports, and their currency, which carries that burden, is subject to endless speculation and manipulation.
Was it universal ignorance or bribes that compelled governments everywhere to ransome their populations to globalism?
Frontline journalists, such as Chris Hedges, who have seen and reported a lot, have concluded that the fate of the world is in such few hands that act only in their narrow self-interests that only revolution can correct the imbalance between the interest of a handful of oligarchs and the mass of humanity. Hedges’ position is not an easy one with which to argue.
Trump descending into the snake pit that is Washington, D.C., needs to remember what happened to President Jimmy Carter. In fact, the best thing Trump can do for his presidency is to go spend some time with Carter prior to taking office.
Carter was an outsider, a principled person, and the Washington establishment did not want him. They reduced his effectiveness by framing up his budget director and chief of staff. The same thing can happen to Trump, assuming he is able to get his appointees confirmed by the Senate, members of which are allied with the CIA against Trump.
Reaganites had a similar experience in the Reagan administration. Reagan had political experience as governor of California, the largest state, but he was an outsider to the Republican establishment, whose candidate for the presidential nomination was George H.W. Bush.
Reagan defeated Bush for the nomination, but was advised by Republicans, who remembered the Goldwater wipeout when the Rockefeller forces turned on Goldwater for not choosing the defeated Rockefeller as his VP running mate, costing Goldwater the election, to select Bush as VP. Otherwise, Reagan would find himself, like Goldwater, running against both the Democratic and Republican establishments.
Reagan’s first term took place with George H.W. Bush’s main operative as chief of staff of the White House. This confronted me with problems as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy where I was the point man for Reagan’s supply-side economic policy.
Both political party establishments are more interested in controlling the party than in doing well for the country. During President Carter’s four years, the main concern of the Democratic establishment was in regaining control of the party from the forces that had sent an outsider to the White House. During Reagan’s eight years, the main concern of the Republican establishment was in regaining control of the Republican party from Reaganites.
It is likely that Trump will now experience in spades what presidents Carter and Reagan experienced. The effort will be made to force him into compromises and to neuter his agenda. Ironically, this determined attack on Trump is being aided by the leftwing, progressive forces that stand to gain by Trump’s standing up for the working and middle classes and for peace with Russia. Many of the liberal, progressive, leftwing websites are already soliciting donations in order to fight against Trump.
So, even when we get a president who might try to represent the interests of the American people, those who claim to speak in behalf of the people join in the oligarchs’ attack on Trump. The left side of the spectrum seems always, like the extreme righwing side, to defer to their hatreds: Trump is a billionaire = hatred. Trump appointed an energy magnate = hatred. Trump appointed two 3-star generals = warmonger and more hatred.
The liberal, progressive, leftwing cannot get beyond their bogeymen. Of course, they might be correct. However, as I have emphasized, Trump has chosen mavericks who have gone against the establishment. Moreover, these are strong men, like Trump, which is what it takes to bring change from above. The Exxon CEO wants energy deals, not war, with Russia. Gen. Flynn is the one who exposed on TV Obama’s use of ISIS to overthrow Syria against the recommendation of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Gen. Mattis is the one who challenged the effectiveness of torture.
Trump’s main appointments are people who have challenged the Establishment. The usual assortment of establishment-approved appointees cannot bring change to Washington.
The liberal, progressive, left-wing should be happy at the prospect of a government on the outs with the Establishment. Instead, the liberal, progressive, left has aligned with the Establishment in opposition to Trump.
Every day I receive a half dozen requests for donations to «help us fight Donald Trump.» What are these people thinking? Why do they want to fight someone that the entire US political establishment opposes? What they should first try is to gain Trump’s confidence and win him to their agenda, as General Mattis did.
I cannot assure you that Trump is not another fake like Obama. But it is a mistake to begin with this assumption. Why write off in advance the only person with the courage to put his life on the line and take on the corrupt and evil Washington establishment?
Why help the Establishment defeat Trump? If Trump sells out Americans, we can turn on him then, or we can decide whether Chris Hedges is correct that only revolution can rectify the situation.
If we take this report at face value, it tells us that Kissinger, an old cold warrior, is working to use Trump’s commitment to better relations with Russia in order to separate Russia from its strategic alliance with China.
China’s military buildup is a response to US provocations against China and US claims to the South China Sea as an area of US national interests. China does not intend to attack the US and certainly not Russia.
Kissinger, who was my colleague at the Center for Strategic and International studies for a dozen years, is aware of the pro-American elites inside Russia, and he is at work creating for them a “China threat” that they can use in their effort to lead Russia into the arms of the West. If this effort is successful, Russia’s sovereignty will be eroded exactly as has the sovereignty of every other country allied with the US.
At President Putin’s last press conference, journalist Marat Sagadatov asked if Russia wasn’t already subject to forms of foreign semi-domination:
“Our economy, industry, ministries and agencies often follow the rules laid down by international organizations and are managed by consulting companies. Even our defense enterprises have foreign consulting firms auditing them.”
The journalist asked, “if it is not time to do some import substitution in this area too?”
Every Russian needs to understand that being part of the West means living by Washington’s rules. The only country in the Western Alliance that has an independent foreign and economic policy is the US.
All of us need to understand that although Trump has been elected president, the neoconservatives remain dominant in US foreign policy, and their commitment to the hegemony of the US as the uni-power remains as strong as ever. The neoconservative ideology has been institutionalized in parts of the CIA, State Department and Pentagon. The neoconservatives retain their influence in media, think tanks, university faculties, foundations, and in the Council on Foreign Relations.
We also need to understand that Trump revels in the role of a tough guy and will say things that can be misinterpreted as my friend, Finian Cunningham, whose columns I read, usually with appreciation, might have done.
I do not know that Trump will prevail over the vast neoconservative conspiracy. However, it seems clear enough that he is serious about reducing the tensions with Russia that have been building since President Clinton in violation of the George H. W. Bush administration’s promise that NATO would not expand one inch to the East.
Unless Trump were serious, there is no reason for him to announce Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson as his choice for Secretary of State. In 2013 Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia’s Order of Friendship.
As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, a global corporation such as Exxon has interests different from those of the US military/security complex. The military/security complex needs a powerful threat, such as the former “Soviet threat” which has been transformed into the “Russian threat,” in order to justify its hold on an annual budget of approximately one trillion dollars.
In contrast, Exxon wants to be part of the Russian energy business. Therefore, as Secretary of State, Tillerson is motivated to achieve good relations between the US and Russia, whereas for the military/security complex good relations undermine the orchestrated fear on which the military/security budget rests.
Clearly, the military/security complex and the neoconservatives see Trump and Tillerson as threats, which is why the neoconservatives and the armaments tycoons so strongly opposed Trump and why CIA Director John Brennan made wild and unsupported accusations of Russian interference in the US presidential election.
The lines are drawn. The next test will be whether Trump can obtain Senate confirmation of his choice of Tillerson as Secretary of State.
The myth is widespread that President Reagan won the cold war by breaking the Soviet Union financially with an arms race. As one who was involved in Reagan’s effort to end the cold war, I find myself yet again correcting the record.
Reagan never spoke of winning the cold war. He spoke of ending it. Other officials in his government have said the same thing, and Pat Buchanan can verify it.
Reagan wanted to end the Cold War, not win it. He spoke of those “godawful” nuclear weapons. He thought the Soviet economy was in too much difficulty to compete in an arms race. He thought that if he could first cure the stagflation that afflicted the US economy, he could force the Soviets to the negotiating table by going through the motion of launching an arms race. “Star wars” was mainly hype. (Whether or nor the Soviets believed the arms race threat, the American leftwing clearly did and has never got over it.)
Reagan had no intention of dominating the Soviet Union or collapsing it. Unlike Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, he was not controlled by neoconservatives. Reagan fired and prosecuted the neoconservatives in his administration when they operated behind his back and broke the law.
The Soviet Union did not collapse because of Reagan’s determination to end the Cold War. The Soviet collapse was the work of hardline communists, who believed that Gorbachev was loosening the Communist Party’s hold so quickly that Gorbachev was a threat to the existence of the Soviet Union and placed him under house arrest. It was the hardline communist coup against Gorbachev that led to the rise of Yeltsin. No one expected the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The US military/security complex did not want Reagan to end the Cold War, as the Cold War was the foundation of profit and power for the complex. The CIA told Reagan that if he renewed the arms race, the Soviets would win, because the Soviets controlled investment and could allocate a larger share of the economy to the military than Reagan could.
Reagan did not believe the CIA’s claim that the Soviet Union could prevail in an arms race. He formed a secret committee and gave the committee the power to investigate the CIA’s claim that the US would lose an arms race with the Soviet Union. The committee concluded that the CIA was protecting its prerogatives. I know this because I was a member of the committee.
American capitalism and the social safety net would function much better without the drain on the budget of the military/security complex. It is more correct to say that the military/security complex wants a major threat, not an actual arms race. Stateless Muslim terrorists are not a sufficient threat for such a massive US military, and the trouble with an actual arms race as opposed to a threat is that the US armaments corporations would have to produce weapons that work instead of cost overruns that boost profits.
The latest US missile ship has twice broken down and had to be towed into port. The F-35 has cost endless money, has a variety of problems and is already outclassed.
The Russian missiles are hypersonic. The Russian tanks are superior. The explosive power of the Russian Satan II ICBM is terrifying. The morale of the Russian forces is high. They have not been exhausted from 15 years of fighting without much success pointless wars against women and children.
Washington, given the corrupt nature of the US military/security complex, can arms race all it wants without being a danger to Russia or China, much less to the strategic alliance between the two powers.
The neoconservatives are discredited, but they are still a powerful influence on US foreign policy.
Until Trump relegates them to the ideological backwaters, Russia and China had best hold on to their strategic alliance. Anyone attempting to break this alliance is a threat to both Russia and China, and to America and to life on earth.
The US and its terrorist-sponsoring partners are seeing their criminal regime-change project in ruins, as the Syrian army and its allies win a spectacular victory to retake the strategically important city of Aleppo.
Western governments and their flunkies at the UN are cynically, perversely decrying a «meltdown of humanity».
Closer to the truth is their own «meltdown of sanity». This is because the official Western narrative about the Syrian war is finally being exposed on a glaring scale.
The exposure for the whole world to see is one of a systematic, fake propaganda cover that concealed a criminal enterprise – an enterprise involving terrorist proxies, or fake moderate rebels, whom the Western governments have sponsored for the past six years in a conspiracy to overthrow the government of Syria. The gravity of this systematic crime committed by Washington and its various partners is now unfolding.
Unable to cope with their own cognitive dissonance over the criminality, the Western governments and their complicit corporate news media are resorting to outright denial and to compounding lies with even more lies.
Instead of dealing with the reality that Syrian state forces have recaptured Aleppo from brutal, illegally armed groups, which the West and its regional clients have bankrolled and armed, the West distorts the dramatic victory as the «fall of Aleppo». One report on American channel CNN even referred to the victorious Syrian army and its allies as «persecutors».
With typical unhinged emotion, US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power cited unverified reports of civilians being executed in Aleppo, and slammed Syria and its allies Russia and Iran for having «no shame». It is Power and her Western partners-in-crime, including top UN officials, who should be hanging their heads in shame.
Among the hysterical soundbites about alleged atrocities and slaughter being lobbed around this week was this from UN «humanitarian» official Jens Laerke who said Aleppo was seeing a «meltdown of humanity». Catchy words, but divorced from reality.
Western news media outlets were screaming headlines alleging summary executions of women and children by the Syrian army and its Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies as they moved in to finally retake the whole of the northern city.
Outgoing UN chief Ban Ki-Moon talked in disparaging tones about an «uncompromising military victory», while his underlings Rupert Colville and Jan Egeland decried «hellish» conditions and «war crimes» committed by Syria and Russia.
The problem is that all these sensational, reckless assertions are based on unverified claims by anonymous «activists» or persons involved with militants – militants who are integrated with terror groups like Jaysh al Fatah, Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham and Nour al din al Zenki. All of them affiliated with the internationally proscribed Al Qaeda terrorist network – which the Western governments claim to be at war with.
It truly is a grotesque revelation when Western governments and UN officials publicly spout propaganda on behalf of terrorist groups.
Samantha Power and her British counterpart at the UN Matthew Rycroft cited UN «reports» of 82 civilians being executed, including 11 women and 13 children, by the pro-government Syrian forces during the final hours of recapturing Aleppo. But the same UN «reports» were themselves based on unverified sources supposedly embedded among the terrorists. This is not reportage. It is simply recycling rumors aimed at saving the necks of terrorist groups.
The simple fact of the information coming from unverified sources did not stop the UN, Power, Rycroft and the raft of Western media outlets, including the Washington Post, CNN, Guardian, Independent, France 24 etc, presenting the claims as if they were fact.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Western governments and their dutiful, unquestioning news media of spreading «fake news» about the dramatic events in Syria this week. Lavrov pointed out that none of the alleged atrocities were acknowledged by independent humanitarian groups.
Syria’s ambassador to the UN Bashar al Jaafari also refuted the claims of atrocities that Western counterparts appeared to be so perplexed by.
Western governments and media outlets persisted in their gory fantasies despite abundant video footage that even they themselves were broadcasting which showed thousands of civilians calmly walking away from militant-held pockets of Aleppo towards the Syrian state forces. Is that the behavior of people who are being massacred, summarily executed, slaughtered?
One of the most absurd distortions was this from France 24. The state-owned broadcaster of one of the countries that has supplied weapons and propaganda cover to terrorists in Syria over the past six years described this week how «people in government-held areas of Aleppo were celebrating». Given that the Syrian government holds virtually all of Aleppo that means that the vast majority of Syrians were celebrating. Yet France 24 roils its words to contrive a false division between pro and anti-government populations.
The more logical and truthful depiction is that Syrian civilians are at last able to flee from terror gangs that have held them under siege. But in reporting that the whole false Western narrative about what has been going on in Aleppo and Syria for the past six years would implode like a house of cards.
Why aren’t the Western news media interviewing the tens of thousands of civilians who have now managed to flee from the defeated terrorist groups? Why don’t the Western media ask questions about the nature of their captivity? Such as, why could they not escape from militant-held eastern Aleppo until now? What do these civilians think of the Syrian army and its allies who have crushed the militants?
The curious, gaping absence of any testimonies carried by the Western media from the thousands of liberated civilians in Aleppo is mirrored by the same curious, gaping absence of testimonies from thousands of civilians liberated elsewhere in Syria by the army over the past year.
That’s because those civilians are telling media outlets which are willing to report, such as the Syrian state broadcaster SANA, as well as RT, Press TV and Al Manar, that their nightmare siege imposed by the Western-backed terrorists is over. If Western media outlets were to actually bother to conduct real journalism they would go into liberated areas of Aleppo and other towns and villages across Syria and report that life is returning to happy normalcy for these families and communities.
The truth is Aleppo was invaded by Western-backed mercenaries in July 2012, who turned the eastern side of the city into a den ruled under a reign of terror. A twisted, demented caliphate run by head-chopping Wahhabi jihadists was imposed. Like Syria as a whole, these mercenaries were sanitized in the West as «moderate, pro-democracy rebels» – albeit somehow supposedly «intermingled» with jihadi extremists.
If that were the case, then where are these supposed «moderates» now that the last den of the «rebels» in Aleppo has been routed?
The stark absence of «moderate», «pro-democracy», «Western-value-supporting rebels» emerging from the ruins of Aleppo is as stark as the absence of petrified civilians denouncing Syrian army «atrocities» or Russian «war crimes».
In one resounding moment this week, the Western narrative about Aleppo, and the Syrian war more generally, has collapsed in a pile of dust. No amount of denials and further distortions can hide the exposure of Western lies and propaganda fabrications.
So ironically, Western media outlets have recently whipped up the phenomenon of «fake news» in the context of trying to discredit Russia over alleged electoral interference in the US and Europe.
What Syria has demonstrated is that the real culprits of peddling false news, and more gravely false narratives, are the Western governments and their conceited, self-important news media.
Unable to deal with the unbearable truth of criminal complicity, the official West is displaying a meltdown of sanity.
Aleppo and Syria will one day emerge again from the present ruins. No such recovery from ruins will be made by the ignominious Western governments and their lying, criminally complicit media.
This is a long story which extends over fifteen years. NATO first attempted to silence those citizens who were trying to discover the truth about the attacks of 11 September 2001. Then it turned on those who contested the oficial version of the «Arab Springs» and the war against Syria. One thing leading to another, it then attacked those who denounced the coup d’état in Ukraine. Now NATO is behind the accusations by a pseudo-NGO that the people who campaigned for Donald Trump are Russian agents.
Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 5 December 2016
The attacks of 11 September 2001 were followed by a permanent state of emergency and a series of wars. As I wrote at the time, the theory that they were directed by a group of jihadists from a cave in Afghanistan does not stand up to analysis. On the contrary, everything points to the conclusion that the attack were organised by a faction of the military-industrial complex.
If this analysis is correct, the course of events could only lead to repression in the United States and the Allied states.
Fifteen years later, the wound that I opened is still not shut – in fact the opposite is true, given the events that followed. The «Arab Springs» were added to the Patriot Act and the oil wars which followed. Not only does the majority of the US population no longer believe what the government has been telling it since 9/11, but by voting for Donald Trump, it has expressed its rejection of the post-9/11 system.
It so happens that I opened the debate on 9/11 to the world, that I was part of the last government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and that I report on the war against Syria from the ground. At first, the US administration thought that they could extinguish the blaze by accusing me of writing contentious rubbish for money, hitting me where they thought it would hurt most, in other words, my wallet. And yet my ideas have never ceased to spread. In October 2004, when 100 US personalities signed a petition demanding the re-opening of the enquiry on the attacks of /9/11, Washington began to worry . In 2005, in Brussels, I gathered more than 150 personalities from all over the world – including Syrian and Russian guests such as the ex-Chief of Staff for the Federation armies, General Leonid Ivashov – to denounce the neo-conservatives, and demonstrate that the problem was becoming global .
While during the mandate of Jacques Chirac, the Elysée worried about my safety, in 2007 the Bush administration asked newly-elected President Nicolas Sarkozy to have me physically eliminated. When I was warned by a friend, an officer of the Staff, that Sarkozy’s response had been positive, there was only one way out left to me – exile. My other friends – for thirteen years I had been the national secretary of the Parti Radical de Gauche – stared at me in disbelief, while the Press accused me of spiralling into paranoïa. No-one came publicly to my help. I found refuge in Syria, and travelled the world outside of NATO territory, escaping numerous assassination or kidnap attempts. For the last fifteen years, I have been opening debates which have become generalised. I have always been attacked when I was alone, but when my ideas have been shared, thousands of people have been persecuted for having analysed and developed them.
It was during this same period that Cass Sunstein (husband of US ambassador to the UNO, Samantha Power ) wrote a mémoire with Adrian Vermeule for the universities of Chicago and Harvard concerning the struggle against «conspiracy theories» – the name they gave to the movement I had initiated. In the name of the defence of «Liberty» confronted by extremism, the authors defined a programme to annihilate this opposition :
«We can easily imagine a series of possible reponses.
1. The government could forbid conspiracy theories.
2. The government could impose a sort of tax, financial or other, on those who distribute such theories.
3. The government could engage in counter-discussion to discredit conspiracy theories.
4. The government could engage credible private parties in a counter-discussion.
5. The government could engage in informal communication with third parties and encourage them» .
The Obama administration hesitated to publicly choose this path. But in April 2009, at the NATO summit in Strasbourg-Kehl, it proposed to create a «Strategic Communication Service». It also fired Anthony Jones from the White House in 2009, because the famous lawyer had spoken bluntly on the subject .
The project for NATO’s Strategic Communication Service slept in boxes until the Latvian government manifested itself. It was finally set up in Riga under the direction of Janis Karklinš – who was also an executive at the UNO World Summit on the Information Society and the Forum on the Governance of the Internet. Conceived by the British, it included participations from Germany, Estonia, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland and the United Kingdom. In the beginning, it limited itself to producing an increasing number of studies.
Everything changed in 2014 when the Khodorkovsky family think tank, the Institute of Modern Russia in New York, published an analysis by journalists Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss . According to their report, Russia had deployed a vast propaganda system abroad. However, rather than presenting themselves in a favourable light, as they had sone during the Cold War, Moscow had allegedly decided to inundate the West with «conspiracy theories» in order to create general confusion. And the authors also specified that these «theories» no longer concerned just 9/11, but also the coverage of the war against Syria.
By seeking to reactivate the anti-Soviet feelings of the Cold War, this report marked a turning-pont in values. Until then, the US ruling class had sought only to mask the crime of 11 September, by accusing a handful of insignificant «beards». From now on, the aim was to accuse a foreign state of being responsible for the crimes committed by Washington in Syria.
In September 2014, the British government created the 77th Brigade, a unit tasked with countering foreign propaganda. It was composed of 440 soldiers plus a thousand civilians from the Foreign Office, including MI6, and the Co-operation and Stabilisation Unit. We do not know what their targets were. This brigade worked with the 361st Civil Affairs Brigade of the US Land Army (based in Germany and Italy). The military units were used to disturb Western Internet sites which were trying to establish the truth about 11 September as well as the war against Syria.
At the start of 2015, Anne Applebaum (wife of the Polish ex-Minister for Defence, Radosław Sikorski), created within the Washington Center for European Policy Analysis a unit called the Information Warfare Initiative . It was originally intended to counter Russian information in Central and Eastern Europe. It entrusted Peter Pomerantsev (mentioned above) with this initiative, as well as Edward Lucas, one of the chief editors of The Economist.
Even though Pomerantsev was both the co-reporter for the Institute of Modern Russia and the assistant chief executive of the Information Warfare Initiative, he no longer mentioned 9/11, and no longer considered the war against Syria to be central, but only as a recurring theme which enabled him to speculate about the actions of the Kremlin. He concentrated his attacks on the TV channel Russia Today and the Press agency Sputnik, two Russian public organisms.
In February 2015, the Fondation Jean-Jaurès, think tank of the French Socialist Party and contact for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), published in its turn a Note, Conspirationism, state of play . It ignored the developments concerning Russia, and picked up the debate where Cass Sunstein had left it. She recommended, purely and simply, to forbid the «conspiracy theorists» to express themselves. From his side, the Minister of Education organised workshops in schools to warn school-children against these «conspirationists ».
On 19 and 20 March 2015, the European Council asked the High Representative Federica Mogherini to prepare a plan of «strategic communication» to denounce the Russian disinformation campaigns concerning Ukraine. The Council mentioned neither 9/11 nor the war against Syria, and changed targets to concentrate exclusively on the events in Ukraine.
In April 2015, Madame Mogherini created within the European External Action Service (EEAS) a Strategic Communications Unit . She was directed by an agent of the British MI6, Giles Portman. Twice a week, she distributed to a large number of European journalists arguments which were supposed to demonstrate Moscow’s bad faith – arguments which went on to supply the European media with an abundance of fodder.
From its creation, NATO’s Centre of Strategic Communication incorporated a service of the Atlantic Council, the Digital Forensics Research Lab. A Manual of Strategic Communication was drawn up by NATO. It was intended to co-ordinate and replace the old system in terms of Public Diplomacy, Public Relations (Public Affairs), Public Military Relations, Operations on Electronic Communication Systems (Information Operations) and Psychological Operations.
Inspired by NATO, on 23 November 2016, the Polish ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs and now European Deputy, Anna Fotyga, forced through the European Parliament a resolution about «Strategic Communication of the Union aimed at countering propaganda directed against her by third parties» . Once again the target had been displaced – it was no longer a case of countering the dispute over 9/11 (now 15 years old), nor that of the war against Syria, but to create an amalgam between the contesting positions on the events in Ukraine, and Daesh. So we had come full circle – according to NATO, those who contested 9/11 were attempting to rehabilitate al-Qaïda, and those who were playing Russia’s game were attempting to destroy the West, like Daesh. And so what if NATO supports al-Qaïda in East Aleppo?
Launched by a resounding article in the Washington Post, on 24 Novembre 2016 , a mysterious group entitled Propaganda or Not? established a list of de 200 Internet sites – including Voltairenet.org – who were allegedly tasked by the Kremlin with relaying Russian propaganda and intoxicating US public opinion to the point where they elected Donald Trump.
While Propaganda or Not? does not publish the names of its directors, it does indicate that it unites four organisations – Polygraph, The Interpreter, the Center for European Policy Analysis and the Digital Forensic Research Lab.
Polygraph is one of the sites of Voice of America, the US public radio and television organisation controlled by the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
The Interpreter is a magazine of the Institute of Modern Russia, now broadcast by Voice of America.
The Center for European Policy Analysis is a pseudopod of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) directed by Zbigniew Brzeziński and Madeleine Albright.
And finally, the Digital Forensic Research Lab is a programme of the Atlantic Council.
In a document distributed by Propaganda or Not?, this pseudo-NGO, born of associations financed by the Obama administration, clearly names its enemy – Russia. It accuses Russia of having been the origin of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Internet sites supporting Syria and Crimea.
On 2 December 2016, the United States Congress voted a law forbidding all military co-operation between Washington and Moscow. In the space of a few years, NATO has re-activated MacCarthyism.
Referências e Notas:
Material and Copyright Voltaire Network – Voltairenet.org –
 « 100 personnalités contestent la version officielle du 11 septembre », Réseau Voltaire, 26 octobre 2004.
 « 11-Septembre : Obama congédie un de ses conseillers », Réseau Voltaire, 8 septembre 2009.
 « The Menace of Unreality : How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money », Peter Pomerantsev & Michael Weiss, The Interpreter/ Institute of Modern Russia, 2014.
 « Résolution du Parlement européen sur la communication stratégique de l’Union visant à contrer la propagande dirigée contre elle par des tiers », Réseau Voltaire, 23 novembre 2016.
 “Russian Propaganda Effort Helped Spread ’Fake News’ During the Election, Experts Say”, Craig Timberg, The Washington Post, November 24, 2016.
Thierry Meyssan considers that General Flynn is getting ready to rock the world of US intelligence and override all post 9/11 reforms. This would put an end to the obsession with secret prisons and targeted assassinations and mark a return to the true nature of intelligence: making sense of and anticipating developments around the world.
General Michael T. Flynn, the next US National Security adviser is in the process of organizing a radical overhaul of the Intelligence Services.
According to our sources, he is getting ready to challenge the big reforms that took place during the Bush and Obama years:
placing all 16 Intelligence agencies under the exclusive authority of a Director of National Intelligence, supposed to supervise information sharing;
abolishing the line between agents on the ground and analysts in favour of functional centres such as the ones we see in the TV series 24.
As we had highlighted at the time, and as General Flynn has also subsequently emphasized:
the Director of National Intelligence clearly had the power to centralize intelligence which until then had been dispersed, but he lacked the power to interfere with how the different agencies were operating. So for example, he did not have the power to remove an incompetent officer.
key point: the current functional centres excel in providing information instantly. They are able to pinpoint an individual anywhere in the world and, if need be, eliminate him. But this is not Intelligence. The correct term is crime. Even if the CIA miraculously topples the regimes that the White House disapproves of and sets up secret prisons, it is not by any measure more knowledgeable on anticipating political developments, and to a lesser extent still, military developments.
Michael T. Flynn was so disappointed with how the new CIA was working that he tried – in vain – to set up a service within the Defense Department to compensate for its shortcomings: the Clandestine Defense Service.
Colonel James H. Baker, who is currently directing the strategic office of the Pentagon and who is, like Flynn opposed to the neo-conservatives, should be promoted.
The nomination of Mike Pompeo as the next director of the CIA would have been conditional upon him agreeing to override the reforms brought into being under President Bush and Obama. Despite his extreme declarations – in favour of secret prisons and against the shi-ites – the Kansas representative and the former captain of the calvary, should behave like an obedient soldier.
The current director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper announced that his role would end with President Obama. Thus his post should disappear.
The 16 agencies should no longer be accountable to the National Intelligence Director but only to the National Security Adviser. In other words, they will be accountable to General Flynn personally.
Referências e Notas:
Material and Copyright Voltaire Network – Voltairenet.org –
Presentation ARTIGOS POLÍTICOS
TEXTS IN ENGLISH FOLLOW BELOW AFTER THE RUSSIAN ONE BEING PRESENTED HERE. MUCH WELCOME.
Кто будет оплачивать атлантическую солидарность?
Por Nicolai Bobkin
Tradução Anna Malm
Как считает Der Spiegel, наибольшую обеспокоенность победа Дональда Трампа на выборах президента США вызвала в структурах НАТО. Всё-таки Трамп называл НАТО «устаревшей» организацией и даже намекал на возможность пересмотра отношений Вашингтона с военным блоком, в который кроме США и Канады входят 26 европейских государств.
Como apresentado no ”Der Spiegel” ( считает ) , a maior preocupação com a vitória de Donald Trump nas eleições levantou-se na estrutura da OTAN. Tem-se aqui que Trump estava denominando a OTAN como uma “velha” [outdated, obsolete, antiquated, outmoded, archaic, obsolescent] organização e ainda por cima estava insinuando uma possibilidade de revisar ou renegociar as relações de Washington com o bloco militar, no qual além dos EUA e do Canadá entram ainda 26 países europeus.
Похоже, аргументы союзников из Старого Света, призывающих крепить оборону против «агрессивной» России, большого впечатления на Трампа не производят. Поэтому после телефонного разговора с избранным президентом США генеральный секретарь НАТО Йенс Столтенберг начал энергично призывать членов альянса раскошелиться ради укрепления «трансатлантических связей».
Semelhante e paralelamente a isso os argumentos dos parceiros do Velho Mundo, ou seja, da Europa, incentivavam um reenforçamento militar contra a “agressão” da Rússia, mas isso parece não ter impressionado muito a Trump. Por isso, depois da sua conversa telefônica com o presidente eleito dos EUA, o secretário geral da OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, começou com muita energia a tentar influenciar os membros europeus da aliança a desembolsar a fim de reenforçar as “relações transatlânticas”.
Прибыв 23 ноября с визитом в Лондон, Столтенберг заявил, что европейские страны должны последовать британскому примеру и выделять на оборону не менее 2% от ВВП каждой страны-члена альянса. Напоминание Трампа об этой цифре звучит как ультиматум. Уже нет сомнений, что европейцам придётся увеличивать свои военные расходы, уменьшая этим финансирование блока из американской казны и отказываясь от затратной идеи создания единых европейских вооружённых сил. Доклад, подготовленный генсеком НАТО, признаёт, как отмечает Der Spiegel, что от Трампа можно ожидать и других неприятностей. В их числе – возможный отказ новой администрации США от размещения американских войск в Восточной Европе и сокращение контингента вооружённых сил в Германии. На фоне таких опасений вариант с увеличением европейцами затрат на нужды НАТО выглядит, пожалуй, для них лучшим в плане удовлетворения требований Трампа.
Chegando em 23 de novembro a sua visita a Londres Stoltenberg disse que os países europeus membros da aliança militar da OTAN deveriam seguir o exemplo britânico e encaminhar para essas suas despesas militares não menos do que 2 % dos seus respectivos PIB. Lembremo-nos de que as palavras de Trump em relação a essa sifra soavam como um ultimato. Não há dúvidas de que os europeus terão de aumentar suas despesas militares reduzindo assim o financiamento vindo do Tesouro americano. Depois terão mesmo ainda de renunciar a cara idéia de criação de uma força militar europeia unificada. O relatório preparado pelo secretário geral da OTAN admitia, como observado pelo Der Spiegel, que de Trump poderiam ser esperados ainda outros problemas. Entre esses então a possibilidade de uma recusa pela nova administração dos EUA de colocar tropas americanas na Europa Oriental assim como também uma diminuição das forças dos contingentes armados [americanos] na Alemanha. Tendo-se em vista o atual contexto e as variações de tais medos, temores, receios, apreensões e preocupações poderia parecer melhor para os atuais membros da aliança militar o aceitar das exigências de Trump, ou seja, o aceitar o aumento das despesas com a OTAN.
Если говорить о финансовой стороне вопроса, то нельзя не отметить, что Трамп не зря поднял тревогу по поводу «безбилетного» проезда в поезде НАТО абсолютного большинства стран-членов альянса. США покрывают 73 % общих расходов НАТО, это около 650 млрд. долларов ежегодно. Остальные, вместе взятые (26 европейских стран и Канада), выделяют 250 млрд. долларов. А многие члены альянса, следуя примеру Германии, отказываются оплачивать «справедливую долю», отдавая в НАТО не более 1% своего ВПП.
Caso se fale do lado financeiro da questão então tem de ser ressaltado que Trump estava muito bem consciente de quando dando o alarme a respeito dos “passageiros clandestinos” no trem da OTAN, passageiros esses que corresponden a absoluta maioria dos países membros da mesma. Os EUA cobrem 73% da despesa total da OTAN, o que significa mais do que 650 bilhões de dólares por ano. Os restantes, tomados todos juntos – (26 países europeus e Canadá) – aloucam para isso 250 bilhões de dólares. Tem-se aqui que muitos membros da aliança seguem o exemplo da Alemanha, que dá para a OTAN não mais do que 1% do seu PIB.
В установленную норму 2% ВПП из 26 европейских стран укладываются только четыре страны – Великобритания, Эстония, Греция и Польша (не самые богатые, если не считать Соединённое Королевство). Подводя бухгалтерию, Столтенберг отмечает, что если все члены НАТО будут следовать правилу об отчислении в бюджет альянса 2% ВВП, то это будет означать получение дополнительных 100 млрд. долларов в год.
Satisfazendo a norma de 2% do PBI dos 26 países europeus tem-se por enquanto só quatro – Reino Unido, Estônia, Grécia e Polônia. Esses não são dos países mais ricos, excluindo-se aqui então o Reino Unido. Resumindo a contabilidade Stoltenberg ressaltou que se todos os membros da OTAN seguissem a regra de aloucar 2% do PIB para o orçamento da aliança isso iria significar a obtenção de mais de 100 bilhões de dólares por ano.
Однако и при таком относительном выравнивании расходов Соединённым Штатам придётся тратить вдвое больше, чем всем остальным 27 странам-членам НАТО, вместе взятым. Трамп недоумевает: если Европа так заботится о своей безопасности, то почему за деньги американских налогоплательщиков?
Entretanto, com esse realinhamento relativo a despesa dos Estados Unidos continuaria a ser muito maior do que a dos demais e o mesmo viria a gastar o dobro do que os resterande 27 países membros da OTAN, somados conjuntamente. Trump poderia estar se perguntando: se a Europa se preocupa tanto com a sua segurança então porque isso se pagaria as custas do dinheiro dos contribuintes, pagadores de impostos, americanos?
ВВП США составляет чуть больше 16 триллионов долларов; ВВП европейских стран-членов НАТО – почти 20 триллионов долларов. Трамп убеждён, что европейцам вполне по силам оплачивать расходы альянса в размере 400 млрд. долларов. Цена «крохоборства» Трампа – примерно 150 млрд. долларов.
O PIB dos EUA é de um pouco mais de 16 trilhões de dólares. O PIB dos países europeus membros da OTAN é de quase 20 trilhões de dólares. Trump está convencido de que os europeus estariam completamente na capacidade de pagar um valor de 400 bilhões de dólares. O preço da “mesquinhez” de Trump [?] – cerca de 150 bilhões de dólares.
И, конечно, остаётся вопрос: а в ответ на какую угрозу надо тратить такие деньги и с кем нужно готовиться к войне? В разгар холодной войны у СССР и его союзников по Варшавскому договору была в Европе группировка вооружённых сил численностью более 1 миллиона военнослужащих, сегодня в России армия не превышает полумиллиона человек. Без войск США и Канады армии стран НАТО располагают вооружёнными силами, превосходящими российские вооружённые силы по численности как минимум в три раза. Европейский взнос в содержание НАТО обсуждается ныне на уровне 250-300 млрд. долларов, что в 4-5 раз больше военных расходов РФ. Не одному Трампу, а и любому здравомыслящему политику непонятно, как при таком соотношении Россия может создавать военную угрозу для Европы.
Naturalmente que aqui segue a pergunta: em resposta a que perigo, ameaça ou risco deve-se pagar tal quantia e quem é que está precisando de se preparar para a guerra? No meio da guerra fria, junto da União Soviética e seus aliados do Pacto de Varsóvia, o agrupamento das forças armadas podiam atingir mais de 1 milhão de militares em ação na Europa. Hoje em dia em toda a Rússia o exército não excede meio milhão de pessoas.
Sem as tropas dos EUA e Canadá o exército da OTAN dispõe de forças armadas que ultrapassam de três vezes as forças armadas da Rússia. A contribuição europeia para a manutenção da OTAN é discutida a nível de 250-300 bilhões de dólares, o que é 4-5 vezes mais do que o total de toda a despesa militar da Federação Russa. Aqui não seria só para Trump, mas também para qualquer pessoa ou político em sã consciência, incompreensível de que maneira forças convencionais russas frente a tal proporção poderiam ser uma ameaça militar para a Europa.
НАТО потеряла смысл существования с исчезновением СССР. Недовольство американских политиков необходимостью оплачивать европейские страхи перед Россией зрело годами. Как сейчас признаёт Столтенберг, об этом ему говорили и президент Обама, и многие конгрессмены, с которыми он встречался. В американских правящих кругах уже никто не спорит, когда Трамп говорит, что США оплачивают «непропорционально большую долю расходов НАТО». Многие политики в США полагают, что американские гарантии безусловного выполнения статьи 5-й Соглашения о взаимной обороне альянса вполне достаточны с точки зрения готовности администрации любого американского президента защищать европейских союзников.
A OTAN perdeu sua razão de ser com o desaparecimento da União Soviética e agora os políticos americanos já não ficam satisfeitos de ter de pagar para o medo dos europeus frente a Rússia. Stoltenberg também reconhece isso e admite que já esteve falando a respeito com o presidente Obama e muitos representantes do congresso.
Nos círculos dominantes americanos ninguém já discute quando Trump diz que EUA está pagando “desproporcionalmente pela maior parte dos gastos da OTAN”. Muitos políticos dos EUA acham que a garantia americana de garantir incondicionalmente a implementação do parágrafo 5 do Acordo de Defesa Mútua da Aliança é mais do que suficiente do ponto de vista de demonstrar a prontidão da administração de qualquer presidente americano para a proteção de seus aliados.
Джон Мак-Тернан (McTernan), бывший спичрайтер Тони Блэра, отмечает, что самая большая проблема для стран НАТО – не избранный президент США, а отсутствие уверенности у общественности этих стран в целесообразности сохранения альянса. Мак-Тернан указывает на опасность «нового Brexit»: одним этим словом, считает он, можно выразить недовольство европейцев существованием военной организации, которая достаётся им из поколения в поколение, ничуть не меняя своей направленности против русских. В глазах миллионов граждан европейских стран Россия – не виновник международной напряжённости, а жертва неумной политики их правительств.
John Mc Ternan, ex-escritor de discursos de Tony Blair disse (отмечает) que o maior problema para os países membros da OTAN não seria o presidente eleito dos EUA, mas a falta de confiança entre o público desses países sobre a conveniência de se manter a Aliança. Mc Ternan ressalta o perigo de ”Novos Brexit”: essas palavras, diz ele, poderão levantar desconforto e insatisfação em cidadãos europeus a respeito da existência dessa organização militar – OTAN – que lhes foi passada de geração em geração e que em nada mudou quanto a sua atitude contra a Rússia. Aos olhos de milhões de cidadãos europeus a Rússia não é a culpada da tensa situação internacional mas sim uma vítima da política desvairada dos governantes de seus próprios países nos últimos anos.
О том, что европейцы заигрались, говорит многое, в том числе авантюризм планов создания собственных вооружённых сил ЕС. Кроме того, что реализация этого замысла требует огромных затрат, сам замысел оказывается невыполним. Это признаёт и Столтенберг, предлагающий забыть об этой идее, исходившей от примкнувших к НАТО стран Восточной Европы и Прибалтики. Они мечтали перевооружить свои армии по американским стандартам, принятым у старожилов альянса. Теперь вряд ли получится.
Entre as coisas que os europeus já estão cansados de brincar, dizem muitos, entra também o plano de aventureirismo de se construir forças armadas próprias da União Europeia. Além de tudo tem-se que isso exigiria enormes despesas se o plano em princípio ainda fosse possível de ser realizado. Isso compreendeu até mesmo Stoltenberg que sugeriu o esquecimento dessa idéia ressaltando aqui a correlação dessa idéia com os países da Europa Oriental e dos Países Bálticos. Esses sonham com o rearmar seus exércitos com armas que mantenham o standard americano e isso através de veteranos da aliança. Entretanto, pelos prós e contras, isso dificilmente estaria em condições de ser um sucesso.
На встрече в Лондоне Йенс Столтенберг и Тереза Мэй подтвердили, что любые инициативы по обороне Европы должны быть связаны с укреплением существующих структур НАТО, а не дублировать их путём создания новых вооружённых формирований. Комментируя ненадобность в параллельных вооружённых силах, состоящих исключительно из армий стран-членов ЕС, Столтенберг заявил, что Европа выиграет от более тесной интеграции в области военной техники. Он призвал брать пример с Соединённых Штатов, где производится всего три типа ракет класса «воздух – воздух», а в европейских странах НАТО – 13 разных типов. США имеют один тип боевой машины пехоты, в то время как Европа – 19. Такая же картина и в других видах вооружений. Нет у НАТО денег на подобные излишества. «Cтраны НАТО и члены ЕС просто не могут позволить себе два набора сил и возможностей», – заявил Столтенберг.
Nas conversas entre Jens Stoltenberg e Theresa May foi confirmado (подтвердили) que qualquer iniciativa militar por parte da Europa deveria ser relatada ao reenforçamento da existente estrutura da OTAN e não a uma eventual duplicata da mesma via uma construção de novas formações militares.
Comentando a inutilidade de forças armadas paralelas constituidas exclusivamente dos exércitos de países membros da União Europeia Stoltenberg disse que a Europa está brincando com a idéia de uma integração muito mais próxima na área da tecnologia militar. Ele tomou como exemplo de comparação os Estados Unidos, onde a produção de todo tipos de raquetes da classe “Ar-Ar”, ou seja Air-to-Air, se resume a sómente tres tipos diferentes, enquanto a produção dos países europeus integrados na OTAN tem 13 diferente tipos das raquetes aqui acima mencionadas. Depois tem-se também que os EUA tem sómente um tipo de máquina de combate de infantaria, ou seja, infantry fighting vehicles, enquanto a Europa tem 19 diferente tipos. Uma tal situação apresenta-se também olhando-se de outras perspectivas. A OTAN não tem dinheiro para tantos excessos. “Os países da OTAN e membros da UE simplesmente não podem pagar dois conjuntos de forças e capacidades”, – disse então Stoltenberg.
Washington has shown us again on 8 November that they offer only the choice between risking nuclear annihilation of humanity and total corporate privatization of our lives and our live services that we, the people, have created. The latter means impoverishment and enslavement to corporations for the majority of the population. It is a choice between the Satan and Lucifer.
Here are just a few examples of what the establishment gets away with and nobody protests.
The UN Human Rights Commission Expels Russia
On 28 October 2016, the UN kicked Russia out of the UN Human Rights Commission, but keeps Saudi Arabia and of course the US in the HRC – both of which are the largest, most audacious human rights abusers of our planet.
This is the first time in HRC’s history that a member of the Security Council was voted out. The reasons given by the western vassals was Russia’s involvement in Syria, “bombing hospitals and civilians, and supporting the atrocities of the Assad regime”, when exactly the contrary is true.
There is ample evidence that the US/NATO supported ISIS forces and the US / NATO / France / UK themselves are responsible for these deadly bombing raids on Aleppo, executed so that they can blame Russia. It is a ridiculous farce.
Image Saudi King Salman
By now the world knows that the US, NATO and Washington’s Gulf puppets are responsible for devastating the entire Middle East – but nobody objects. The empire – alias the Deep State behind the empire – calls the shots based on flagrant lies. The Deep State, some call it the Illuminati, others the ‘elusive super elite’, is a semi-secretive clan of a few obscenely rich and powerful Zionist-dominated families that since several hundred years have gradually taken over the world which today is at the verge of falling – or has already fallen – under the aegis of the New World Order (NWO).
Baron Nathan Rothschild said already around the year 1700,
“I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”
These words are today as true as they were 320 years ago.
The President of the United States literally boasts about international capital crimes he commits and which nobody condemns – the extra-judiciary drone killings which he personally approves have killed at least 4,700 innocent people, according to official Washington statistics. The real number is at least triple or quadruple that amount. He is wiping out children, women, men, entire families, and nobody beeps.
All those bought western US puppet-UN members, who were compelled to vote against Russia, of course know the truth; they know in their innermost selves – which they are denying – that Russia is actually the only country seriously attempting to bring stability to the Middle East, that the real culprits for the three decades of bloodshed in the Middle East (including the first Gulf War, the Iran-Iraq war, the destabilization of Somalia, the destruction of South Sudan and the West Sudan Region of Darfur – and counting) are the United States and her corrupted vassals, the Saudis, Turkey, Qatar and other Gulf States that are at the mercy of the empire. By now they also know that the CIA created the Islamic State (IS or ISIS) from Saddam Hussein’s elite forces, that they were trained, funded and armed by the US, Israeli, NATO, French and British secret services. They all obey the orders of the Empire for FEAR, are afraid of sanctions, of bombs and invasions and regime change; they fear of being deprived of Washington’s favors. Fear is the weapon of cowards and against cowards.
The world just looks on, as Russia, one of the few defenders of peace, justice and stability in the Middle East, is expelled from the Human Rights Commission, while the United States is allowed to remain; the country currently involved in seven wars and counting – which has the record in extra-judiciary drone killings (this is a MUST read: “I don’t know how many people I have killed”, says a US drone pilot – and which is responsible for 10 to 12 million people killed in wars and conflicts directly initiated by Washington, or by proxies, in the last 15 years.
Crisis in Crimea
On 15 November 2016, a UN special committee approved a resolution condemning Russia’s “temporary occupation of Crimea and reaffirming the United Nations’ commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty over the Black Sea peninsula.” The resolution was approved by 73 to 23 with 76 abstentions. The resolution will most likely be adopted by the 193-member assembly. Most leaders of the world know the truth, but don’t protest against the lies, for fear – what else? – Another horrendous farce!
The US instigated in February 2014 the coup d’état in Ukraine – which prompted the Maidan massacre, actually directed from the US Embassy in Kiev, followed by an atrocious civil war, supported and nurtured by Washington, the European Union and NATO. The autonomous authorities of Crimea, of which more than three quarters of the population are Russians, decided they didn’t want to remain part of the newly western implanted Nazi regime in Kiev. They launched on 16 March 2014 a referendum to rejoin Russia. It was approved by over 95% of Crimean. The Duma (Parliament) of the Russian Federation accepted integrating Crimea into the Russian Federation. Crimea was not annexed, as the western propaganda apparatus likes its audience to believe. The Crimea peninsula was reintegrated at her own request.
In 1783, through an agreement with the Ottoman Empire, Russia took over Crimea. In 1942 Crimea was briefly occupied by Nazi Germany, but soon retaken by the Soviet Union. In 1954, President Nikita Khrushchev, who had Ukrainian roots, for no apparent reason, transferred Crimea to Ukraine. However, the Soviet Union and later Russia under a 1997 agreement between Ukraine and Russia continued to station part of its Black Sea fleet in Sebastopol, the Crimean Black Sea port. This agreement has since been extended until at least 2042. These legitimate Russian troops in Crimea are called by the presstitute MSM, ‘Russian occupation troops’; a complete lie.
The UN now wants to send a team of human rights inspectors to Crimea to report on Russian occupation and Russian human rights abuses. This is nothing more than a shabby show of propaganda, to make believe that human rights are being abused. For the western brainwashed public, its sufficient that the UN says it sends observers. The public doesn’t even care whether the observers are actually sent, or if they are, what the result is. The sheer fact that the UN is ‘suspicious’, is already an indication of Russian guilt. – Who is the UN anyway? – Lamentably it has become a mere instrument of the US and its western vassals to manipulate public opinion, to bully whoever doesn’t want to bend to the demands of Washington, and to facilitate provocations of conflicts and wars – and lend them legitimacy. There is no Russian occupation and there are no human rights abuses. It’s the typical Russia / Putin bashing propaganda.
Do not just accept what the mainstream media tells you! – Get the news from alternative media, on internet, if the national communication authorities prevent you from acceding alternative broadcasting stations, such as RT (Russia Today – English, French, Spanish, German), TeleSur (broadcast in Spanish and English), Chinese CCTV (broadcast in many, including European languages), PressTV, Iran (English, French, Spanish); and websites and journals, like Global Research (English and French), Information Clearing House (ICH), Voltaire Net (many languages), CounterPunch, NEO (New Eastern Outlook), KenFM (German); and many more. Be informed, before it is too late. Tomorrow maybe you are trying to flee from war zones, just to find out that there is nowhere to go. The planet is demolished into smoldering ashes from wars and conflicts everywhere – which We, the People, allowed to happen.
In the neoliberal world, where unbridled capitalism reigns, syndicates throughout the west, report that the private sector in general and especially the construction industry (a key economic indicator) is massively firing long-term workers and employees, just to rehire them the next day as part-time workers, with none or drastically reduced social benefits. Corporations increase their profit margins and transfer more public and social capital from the people, the workers, to an ever-smaller elite. The pressure of massive unemployment, the result of western imposed austerity (FED, IMF, World Bank, European Central Bank – ECB), deprives the workers of their dignity and power to resist. They have to fight for their and their families’ sheer survival and are thus, vulnerable for exploitation and abuse. It is western colonization of their own people. No scruples, no moral, no conscience – and foremost, no solidarity. Ever increasing unemployment is what Marx called the capitalists’ cushion on which wages can be suppressed to a minimum for mere survival.
Cartoon David Simonds
‘If you are not happy with working for less, no problem, we’ll outsource your jobs to cheap labor countries. There are plenty’. So, the blackmail goes. And so, oppression is swallowed. And so, the caviar left is whining (and dining) over what can be done to soften the blow, but in no case will they cause any significant risk to the established order, lest they might be next in line for falling between the cracks.
And don’t be fooled, the decaying US infrastructure President-elect Trump wants to rebuild, will be rebuilt by the typical public-private partnership farce – the capital comes from the state – your taxes – and the private sector will take over its exploitation, i.e. you pay twice – first the capital, then the private operator’s profit in the form of fees he will levy on the reconstructed bridges, roads and railways. Another transfer from the poor to the rich.
People, wake up! There is no longer a ‘left’, since it has been decimated by the CIA led operation GLADIO (an elaborate series of false flags) of the 1960s and 1970s throughout Europe.
Left and right are long-gone concepts our conditioned minds still try to hang on to. They are old fixtures from our ‘democratic’ past, and now they have become part of our delusionary existence. They have long ago yielded to globalized neoliberalism that makes no distinction between left and right, but uses these defunct terms to confuse the public into believing that their vote still means what they believed it once did.
Just look at Greece – where the ‘leftist’ elite allows that their ‘socialist’ Syriza government ruins the lives of 90% of their citizens and compatriots. What they are doing is facilitating crime after crime after crime, as in successive ‘rescue packages’, i.e. debt, and steadily increasing and suffocating austerity. With a declining GDP – (yes, austerity does this to the economy) and an ever-increasing debt, now reaching close to 300% of GDP, it is obvious that Greece can never pay back its debt. Never. Most economists see eye to eye on this. Even the IMF does, if asked off the record, but they too are a mere tool of the Rothschild-led banking establishment, of the world’s Deep State – that has decided that Greece must go the path of no return, as a warning to others who may be intent to no longer bend to the master’s demands. And this is helped because the Greek elite is in connivance with them. They don’t want to leave the Eurozone, as their accumulated (and stolen) wealth is lodged in European banks. They know as well as internationally renowned economists do, that the only rescue for Greece and their compatriots in dire misery is to do a GREXIT, leaving the euro and leaving the EU.
On 16 September 2016, the Greek Parliament rush-approved a Brussels made legislation, written in English (not translated into Greek!), of 7,500 pages. The Parliament was unable to read it, for time and language; and even if they would have read it, they were obliged to sign off on it fast and without squabble. The legislation essentially transferred all public assets to the “European Stability Mechanism” (ESM), and this for 99 years, including infrastructure, sea and airports, public beaches, natural resources – you name it. The ESM, a supranational undemocratic entity will sell off these assets to private people or corporations, as they see fit. Greece has no saying. The ESM does not report to any elected parliament. With this 7,500-page legislation, the Greek Parliament also abrogated its own authority to pass any sovereign Greek fiscal legislation, transferring it quietly to Brussels and signing away Greek sovereignty. The last time a similar event happened was in 1933, when the German Reichstag (Parliament) transferred its legislative authority to Hitler.
How many Greek are aware of this? And nobody is screaming. This is equal to murder of a nation.
People wake up! – What’s happening to Greece can happen tomorrow to anyone of the European countries, starting with the southern Mediterranean nations.
It has already happened in a ‘softer form’, as a parliamentary coup to Spain. And nobody seems to have noticed.
Parliamentary coups coupled with election fraud appear to become the weapon of choice for ‘regime change’, or ‘regime continuation’ (Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Spain – to name just a few), as best suits the empire. Remarkably, shortly after Obama’s farewell visit to Berlin, where he had intense talks with Madame Merkel and named her the new leader of Europe, Angela Merkel declared on 21 November that she will run for a fourth term during the elections in the Fall of 2017. It will be interesting to see, what Obama promised her on how to ‘convince’ and trick a majority of Germans who are opposed to Mme. Merkel into voting for her anyway. Sputnik reports that two thirds of Germans, according to a YouGov poll, do no longer support her.
Return to national currencies.
There is nothing that can be done, short of abolishing the system altogether, short of accelerating the dismantling of the European (non-)Union, the fall of the Euro, disengagement from NATO – and finally, but most importantly, short of detaching from the fraudulent dollar based pyramid monetary system. For those who are afraid of what might happen when the euro bites the dust – no worries. First, European countries ahve happily (and better) lived without the euro and with their own currencies until only 15 years ago; and second, it may take only a few months to maximum a year for a country to prepare and revert to her own national currency.
A looming banking collapse.
After the election of Donald Trump and perhaps in response to his critique of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve (image right) has announced that it may increase the target range from 0.25%-0.50% to 0.50%-0.75%. This, after it was increased last December for the first time in nearly a decade.
With much of the banking sector – especially the TBTF (too-big-to-fail) banks overstretched and over-speculated to the brink, the slightest interest hike could trigger an avalanche that makes the 2008 crisis look like a walk in the park.
Don’t just swallow another manufactured crisis that transfers the money from your savings, your pension funds, your homes, to the elusive elite behind the banksters and corporations.
GMO Food: We are subject to food monopolies.
Image: GMO chemicals
Be sure, they don’t work for your health, they work for their profit which means cutting costs on farming and production processes – and inserting GMOs everywhere. Genetically modified food can be engineered to reduce fertility (already happened as a Monsanto trial with poor farmer families in India in the 1990s), or to carry long-gestation germs of debilitating or deadly diseases, so that when years after ingestion they evolve into epidemies, they may be untraceable to GMOs.
Yet, they serve their purpose, helping massive population reduction, so that a small elite may maintain their lush lifestyle longer with the finite resources of Mother Earth. Population reduction is the key dictum of the Rockefeller-led Bilderberg Society. Henry Kissinger, a Bilderberger ‘scholar’, infamously said already in the seventies, “who controls the food, control the people”.
The machinery moves relentlessly forward on all fronts towards our civilization’s demise. And we don’t even notice it.
People wake up! Humanity’s Intrinsic Values
We need a change, as in redesigning our society according to humanity’s intrinsic values of justice and solidarity. May we follow the little spark of consciousness with which we were all born. It remains in all of our minds, despite the neo-fascist doctrine we are made to live day-in and day-out on an increasing intensity for the last 30-some years. If we do not wake up to this innermost call of conscience, we, as a society, may simply extinct ourselves. And like in times past, the wisdom of indigenous people may survive and carry our human genes forward for a new civilization to emerge – with a new conscience, perhaps increased by a tiny nudge – perhaps.
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 writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. 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.
By Prof. James Petras, November 23 2016
The world’s largest billionaire bankers had bankrolled Hillary Clinton, the ‘million-dollar-a-speech’ War Goddess. They had bet heavily against the populist-nationalist Donald Trump and they lost.
Material Global Research – http://www.globalresearch.ca
President Putin: Russia Pledges Response to NATO Expansion
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia would take countermeasures in response to NATO expansion.
The remarks were part of an interview with American filmmaker Oliver Stone, a famous Academy Award winner. It was broadcast on November 21. The interview was part of Mr. Stone’s documentary titled Ukraine on Fire. The Russian leader noted that he was «concerned» about what NATO is doing and put into question the bloc’s decision making process.
The president emphasized that NATO members could hardly resist the pressure of the United States. Talking about Crimea, he said there was a possibility of NATO deploying new bases, strike systems or missile defense sites in the peninsula before it became part of Russia. Vladimir Putin said the situation is tense as Russia has to target the NATO systems that pose a threat to its security.
Also on November 21, it was reported that Russia had deployed Bastion mobile coastal defense missiles to Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave wedged between Lithuania and Poland. It is to deploy its S-400 air missile defence system and Iskander mobile short range surface-to-surface missile system in that region. Viktor Ozerov, Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defence and Security, stated that Russia sees the deployment as a response to the US deployment of missile shield in Europe. Russia has been provoked into taking urgent measures to ensure its security.
For instance, NATO defense ministers meeting confirmed the decisions to boost the military posture against Russia along its borders on October 26-27. Four multinational battalions stationed in the Baltic States and Poland will be operational in early 2017.
Despite NATO’s pledge to refrain from deploying substantial forces along the NATO-Russia border on a permanent basis, frequent war-games and rotational deployments essentially amount to permanent military presence.
The NATO-Russia Founding Act, which states no substantial forces are to be deployed, appears all but dead amid the alliance’s push to beef up its presence on its eastern flank. The document has played a very important role in the relationship for almost 20 years. Now the legal foundation for Russia-NATO relationship is valid only on paper.
The arguments that the forces will be deployed on temporary basis do not hold water. Actually, stationing forces abroad under the pretext of holding exercises cannot be done on a non-rotational basis, because each unit has an operational cycle, including training events.
Earlier this year, the US Defense Department requested $3.4bn for its operations in Europe in 2017, a four-time increase compared to its $789-million budget this year. The American forces will begin receiving continuous troop rotations of US-based armored brigade combat teams to the European theater next year, bringing the total Army presence in the continent up to three fully-manned Army brigades.
The US Army will deploy pre-positioned stocks to store the equipment in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany for contingency operations. The stocks will be sufficient for another armored brigade to fall in on. With the rotating brigade to bring its own equipment, the move will add hundreds of the Army’s most advanced weapons systems to beef up the European Command. It will also free up an entire brigade’s worth of weapons currently being used by American forces training on the continent to enable more US troops to be rushed in on short notice.
An armored brigade combat team comprises about 4,200 troops and includes approximately 250 tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Paladin self-propelled howitzers, plus 1,750 wheeled vehicles. The US military has about 62,000 permanently assigned service members in Europe.
NATO is pushing ahead with its military «Schengen zone» on the continent. There will be no need to ask for permissions to move forces across national borders to undermine the sovereignty of member states but facilitate the cross-continent operations instead. The restrictions still in place make more difficult the rapid movement of the 5,000 strong «Very High Readiness Joint Task Force». The formation of the much larger 40 thousand strong NATO Response Force (NRF) is on the way.
NATO says it is concerned over the situation in the Baltic Sea. There has been a surge in airspace violations and instances where aircraft are scrambled to intercept foreign jets amid a sharp rise in tensions in the region. NATO surveillance aircraft occasionally operate without transponders, especially on missions near the Russian border.
In September, Russia came up with a proposal to reach an agreement of flight safety in the region with all military planes flying with their transponders on, emitting an identifying signal in response to other radio signals. The proposal was rejected by NATO.
The US and Norway are discussing the deployment of American marines at the Værnes military base near Trondheim, about 1,000 kilometres from the Russian-Norwegian frontier. The facility also serves as part of Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway that allows storing thousands of vehicles and other major pieces of equipment in temperature-controlled caves ready for combat contingency. In February, it was revealed that US Marines were using Cold War era Norwegian caves to store new tanks, artillery and other military equipment to ramp up their presence near the Russia-NATO border. With stocks in place, the 300 Marines can be easily reinforced anytime.
Recently, NATO has been ratcheting up tensions in the Black Sea. Next year, Romania and Bulgaria are to host increased air patrols in the region. The UK, Canada and Poland will send aircraft to be based in the Romanian southeastern Mihail Kogalniceanu air base. In 2017, Romania plans to head a multinational force. The US supports the Romania’s initiative to establish a multinational naval brigade in the region.
With the naval brigade on the agenda, Bulgaria has agreed to participate with 400 troops in the multinational brigade in Romania. The unit is intended to facilitate the flow of forces throughout the region. It amounts to a new land presence in NATO’s southeast. Georgia and Ukraine will be fully involved in the plans.
Romania already hosts a ballistic missile defense (BMD) and the plans are underway to have another operational BMD system deployed on Polish soil in 2018. Russia believes the weapons threaten its response capability in case of US nuclear attack. With Iran nuclear deal in force, nothing justifies the implementation of the plans hostile to Russia.
There is a related problem. The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty – the agreement to prevent the deployment of nuclear-tipped intermediate missiles from Europe – is threatened by ballistic missile defense (BMD) deployment. Aegis Ashore uses the naval Mk-41 launching system capable of firing long-range cruise missiles. This is a flagrant violation of the INF Treaty provisions.
It should be clear that the countries that host BMD sites automatically become targets for Russia’s Iskander surface-to-surface missiles and aviation. The Russian president confirmed it in his statement.
NATO has plans to deploy modernized US B61-12 nuclear warheads in Europe. About half of the munitions are earmarked for delivery by national aircraft of these non-nuclear states, although they all are parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 that prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from nuclear-weapons states to other countries. Russia views these forward-based tactical nuclear weapons as an addition to the US strategic arsenal that is capable of striking deep into its national territory.
As a result, tensions are running high and a spark may be enough to start a big fire. There is an urgent need to address these burning issues. With Donald Trump in office, there is a hope to move Russia and NATO from abyss. Fresh winds are blowing in Europe too. New faces appear in European politics to call for changes in NATO’s policy on Russia. Some members of the alliance taking a more independent stance regarding their relationship with Moscow.
The NATO-Russia Council offers a chance to focus on the issues that divide the parties. Moscow is ready to revive the dialogue with NATO but it won’t betray its national interests and it cannot be intimidated. That was the essence of President Putin’s message as Russia and the West are expected to take yet another run at trying to improve the relationship.
*TRADUÇÕES ARTIGOS POLÍTICOS
Президентские выборы в США: два кандидата – две модели развития
PRESIDENCIAIS DOS EUA: DOIS CANDIDATOS – DOIS MODELOS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO
Завершившиеся президентские выборы в США обнажили проблемы, которые накапливались десятилетиями. Неожиданно для многих стало очевидно, что Америка разделена: выборы высветили классовые противоречия в американском обществе. В американских СМИ замелькали заголовки: «Восстание рабочего класса», «Американский пролетариат проснулся». Действительно, большая часть населения Америки – наёмные работники, реальные доходы которых перестали расти уже с 80-х годов ХХ века. А реальная безработица сегодня – это не те пять процентов, о которых рапортует Министерство торговли США, а в несколько раз больше.
O encerramento das presidenciais nos EUA veio a revelar os problemas que se acumularam nos últimos dez anos. O que se apresentava como inesperado para muitos estava mesmo evidente. A América estava dividida e as eleições ressaltavam agora contradiςões de classe na sociedade americana. As manchetes se sucediam: “Revolta da Classe Operária”, “O Proletariado Americano Despertou” , e outras do gênero. Na realidade grande parte da populaςão americana de trabalhadores assalariados teve a sua renda real estagnada nos anos oitenta, no século 20, e o verdadeiro desemprego de hoje não é de 5%, como diz o Ministério do Comércio dos EUA, mas muitas vezes mais alto.
И всё-таки главный разлом в Америке проходит не по линии традиционно понимаемых (в духе Маркса) классовых противоречий. Большинство американцев – даже тех, кого СМИ называют «рабочим классом», – мыслят категориями «старая добрая Америка» и «новая Америка». А набор определений «новой Америки» очень разнообразен: злая, жестокая, безжалостная, коррумпированная, несправедливая, нищающая, деградирующая…
Entretanto, a maior linha divisória na América passa não pela linha tradicional compreendida no sentido marxista como contradiςão de classe. Muitos americanos, mesmo os que a mídia denomina como “classe operária”, pensam mais é no sentido “Velha Boa América” e “América Nova”. Agora, o conjunto determinando o conceito “Nova América” tem muitos conotaςões: Má, Cruel, Implacável, Corrupita, Injusta, Empobrecida, Degradada …
Американские интеллектуалы называют это двумя политико-экономическими моделями развития. Если посмотреть на послевоенную историю США, то мы действительно увидим, как незаметно происходил роковой переход Америки с рельс одной модели на рельсы другой модели.
Estudiosos americanos denominan a isso como os dois modelos de desenvolvimento político-econômico. Se analisando a história dos EUA de após guerra pode-se notar bem como despercebidamente na América se deu uma passagem decisiva dos trilhos de um desses modelos para os trilhos do outro.
Отсчёт можно начать с 1944 года, когда в США в штате Нью-Хэмпшир в местечке Бреттон-Вудс была проведена международная конференция по вопросам послевоенного устройства мировой финансовой системы. Конференция приняла судьбоносное решение о введении золотодолларового стандарта. Доллар был провозглашён мировой валютой, которая ничем не хуже золота. Уже тогда часть Америки ликовала по поводу этого решения, а другая впала в уныние. 72 года назад борьба вокруг решений Бреттон-Вудса была такой же острой, как нынешние предвыборные баталии 2016 года. Против решений Бреттон-Вудской конференции выступили представители отраслей реальной экономики.
A contagem pode começar em 1944 quando nos Estados Unidos, no estado New Hampshire, em uma pequena localidade chamada Bretton Woods, deu-se uma conferência para estudar a questão da construção de um sistema econômico mundial.
Nessa conferência tomou-se uma decisão crucial: a introdução de um padrão, um standard, para a relação dólar-ouro. Aí o dólar foi então proclamado como uma moeda mundial, a qual de maneira nenhuma seria a ser vista como inferior ao próprio ouro,
Desde quando uma parte da América exultava com a tomada dessa decisão uma outra caia em depressão. A 72 anos atrás a luta a respeito da decisão de Bretton Woods foi tão duramente aguda como a atual batalha eleitoral de 2016. Contra a decisão da conferência de Bretton Woods estavam os representantes do mercado da Economia Real.
Одна из двух моделей, о которых мы говорим, базируется на промышленной и экономической мощи страны. Америка в этом случае сохраняет свое влияние в мире, но источником влияния являются её экономика, конкурентоспособное производство, предлагаемые всему миру товары и услуги. Это модель промышленного капитализма. Иногда её называют моделью американского изоляционизма, но это не совсем точно. Речь идёт о том, что Америка реализует свои национальные интересы за счёт внутренних источников развития, а не за счёт других стран.
Um dos dois modelos do qual estamos falando, é baseado na força industrial e econômica do país. Nesso caso América manteria sua influência sobre o mundo, mas no entanto a fonte de sua influência mostraria-se como econômica, como produção competitiva através do fornecimento de produtos e serviços para todo o mundo. Esse é um modelo de capitalismo industrial. As vezes esse modelo foi chamado de isolacionismo americano. Entretando, isso não é exatamente assim. Trata-se do fato da América realizar os seus interesses nacionais através de fontes internas de desenvolvimento, e não à custa de outros países.
Другая модель, запрограммированная решениями Бреттон-Вудса, базируется на гегемонии доллара США. Доллар обслуживает все человечество. Федеральная резервная система (ФРС) с помощью своего печатного станка удовлетворяет потребности мира в зелёной бумаге. Однако, чтобы зелёная бумага заполонила весь мир, надо, чтобы торговый и платежный баланс Америки стал дефицитным, чтобы Америка начала жить в долг, покрывая его своими долговыми расписками, называемыми «доллар».
Um outro modelo, também planejado para as resoluções de Bretton Woods baseava-se na dominância internacional do dólar americano. O dólar atenderia a toda a humanidade. O Sistema da Reserva Federal dos Estados Unidos [Federal Reserv System, conhecido informalmente na sigla americana como FED – faz o papel de um Banco Central mas é de propriedade particular] usando as suas impressoras atenderia as necessidades de todo o mundo para as suas notas de papel verde. Entretanto para que essas notas, pedaços de papel verde, inundassem todo o mundo seria necessário que a balança americana de compras e pagamentos entrasse em deficit, que a América comeςasse a viver de dívidas, cobrindo essas com suas “notas promissórias”, ou seja o que conhecemos como o dólar.
Сталелитейные, автомобильные, судостроительные, электротехнические и прочие промышленные компании США прекрасно понимали, что реализация решений Бреттон-Вудса кончится деиндустриализацией Америки. А некоторые прозорливые эксперты еще в 1944 году предрекали, что со временем доллар как мировая валюта потеряет свое экономическое обеспечение. И у хозяев денег (акционеров ФРС) появится соблазн компенсировать утрату экономического обеспечения доллара военной силой. Эта модель – модель банковского капитализма, она программирует, с одной стороны, демонтаж реальной экономики страны, с другой – милитаризацию и глобальную проекцию военной силы.
Siderurgia, indústria de automóveis, construção naval, indústria elétrica e outras companhias industriais americanas compreenderam que a implementação da decisão de Bretton Woods seria o começo da desintrustrialização dos Estados Unidos. Alguns peritos industriais perspicazes e visionários profetizavam já em 1944 que uma era do dólar como moeda internacional traria perdas para as suas atividades econômicas e que, junto aos donos do dinheiro, ou seja junto dos acionistas da Reserva Federal, apareceria a tentação de compensar a perda de utilidade do dólar através da força militar. Esse modelo – O Modelo Bancário do Capitalismo – traria como consequência a desmontagem da real economia do país, a militarização, assim como a projeção global da força militar [essa realidade trágica e fatal que vivemos agora no nosso dia a dia].
Первые полтора десятилетия после окончания войны явных признаков деиндустриализации Америки не наблюдалось, происходило восстановление разрушенной экономики Европы. Когда в Белый дом пришел Джон Кеннеди, обозначились первые признаки ослабления экономики США на фоне восстановившейся Европы, а отчасти и Японии. Кеннеди пытался остановить этот процесс, но его действия пошли вразрез с интересами хозяев денег. Кончилось всё это убийством президента.
Nos primeiros cinco anos depois do final da grande guerra mundial sinais de desindustrialização da América ainda não tinham sido notados. Estava-se também na fase de reconstrução econômica da Europa. Quando John Kennedy chegou a Casa Branca os primeiros sinais do enfraquecimento da economia americana começaram a se mostrar e isso num cenário de reestabelecimento da Europa e em parte também do Japão. Kennedy tentou parar o processo de enfraquecimento da econmia americana, mas as suas providências iam ao contrário dos interesses dos donos do dinheiro. Tudo isso acabou com no assassinato do presidente.
Окончательный переход Америки к модели банковского капитализма произошёл в 70-е годы. Тогда была проведена полная «отвязка» доллара от золота, официально закреплённая решениями Ямайской международной конференции по валютно-финансовым вопросам (1976).
A transição final da América ao modelo do capitalismo bancário deu-se nos anos setenta e isso então de quando do desligamento da ligação dólar-ouro o qual se deu oficialmente na Conferência Internacional da Jamaica para questões monetárias-financeiras (1976).
Все четыре последние десятилетия Америка катилась по рельсам банковского капитализма. Этот процесс сопровождался гигантским ростом финансовых рынков, которые правильнее называть пузырями. Они интенсивно отсасывали и продолжают отсасывать соки у реальной экономики. На сегодняшний день на промышленность и другие отрасли реальной экономики (сельское хозяйство, строительство, часть транспорта и др.) приходится всего 22% валового внутреннего продукта США.
Nos últimos quarenta anos a América veio rolando nos trilhos do capitalismo bancário. Esse processo foi acompanhado por um gigantesco crescimento do mercado financeiro, o qual muito adequadamente foi denominado como de bubbles/bolhas. Esse mercado tinha sugado intensivamente a seiva da economia real, o que diga-se de passagem, ainda continua fazendo. Hoje em dia a área industrial, assim como outros ramos, sectores, ou mercados da economia real, como por ex. o sector agrário, o sector de construção, uma parte do sector de transportes e outros, representam não mais do que 22% do produto interno bruto dos EUA. [!!!!!!!!!!!]
Модель банковского капитализма предусматривает бесконечный рост всех видов долга – домашних хозяйств, корпоративного сектора, государства. Ещё немного и пирамида суверенного долга США дотянется до отметки 20 трлн. долл. Суммарная величина всех видов долгов – выше 100 трлн. долл. Корпорация USA – классический банкрот. Доллар превратился в пустую бумажку, покупательная способность которой поддерживается с помощью 6-го американского флота и сотен военных баз по всему миру. Вашингтон сеет в мире «управляемый хаос», и главная цель этого – поддержание «доверия» к доллару США.
O modelo do capitalismo bancário estipula um crescimento sem fim de todos os tipos de dívidas – particulares, do sector empresarial, e do estatal. Não falta muito e a pirâmide da dívida soberana dos Estados Unidos toca a marca dos 20 trilhões de dólares. A soma do valor maior de todas as dívidas – é maior do que 100 trilhões de dólares. Essa é a dívida conjunta das companhias/empresas/ dos EUA. Isso significa, em outras palavras, a falència global, a insolvência, a bancarrota, a concordata. O dólar se transformou em um pedaço de papel em branco [outros diriam num papel higiênico verdinho]. O poder de compra do mesmo é agora mantido através da Sexta Frota americana e centenas e centenas de bases militares por todo o mundo. Washington está semeando pelo mundo “o cáos controlado” e o fim último disso é o manter a “confiança” no dólar americano.
Хиллари Клинтон представляет интересы Уолл-стрит, хозяев денег. Она типичный представитель интересов банковского капитализма. Дональд Трамп, придя в Белый дом, возьмёт курс на развитие промышленного капитализма (хотя он никогда не использовал этот термин; он вообще избегает слова «капитализм»).
Hillary Clinton representa os interesses da Wall Street, dos donos do dinheiro. Ela é uma típica representante dos interesses do capitalismo bancário. Ao contrário, Donald Trump entrando na Casa Branca provavelmente tomará um curso levando ao desenvolvimento do capitalismo industrial (apesar de que ele próprio na campanha nunca ter usado o termo; de modo geral ele sempre evita a palavra “capitalismo”.)
Если Трамп займет кресло президента США, то первое, что он сделает, как мне кажется, это выполнит своё обещание довести до конца расследование «октябрьских скандалов», в которых, как в капле воды, отразилась вся гнилость американской политико-экономической системы. Результаты расследований и заключения компетентных органов США послужат исходной точкой для принятия практических шагов по наведению порядка в системе государственного управления США.
Caso Trump venha ocupar a cadeira presidencial dos EUA, o que ele fará em primeiro lugar, na minha opinião, será cumprir sua promessa de levar ao fim a investigação dos “episódios de escândalo”, nos quais, tal como numa gota d´agua, está se refletindo toda a podridão do sistema político-econômico. Os resultados e conclusões da investigação pelas autoridades competentes dos orgãos oficiais americanos servirão como ponta de partida para passos práticos levando a uma limpeza no sistema de governo dos Estados Unidos.
Какими могут быть эти шаги?
QUAIS SERIAM ESSES PASSOS?
Во-первых, проведение полного аудита Федерального резерва, чего не было за сто с лишним лет существования этого института.
Em primeiro lugar: a realização de auditoria da Reserva Federal, o que nunca foi feito nos anos de existência deste instituto.
Во-вторых, Трамп будет добиваться смены председателя ФРС. Нынешний руководитель Федерального резерва Джанет Йеллен, по мнению Трампа, зависит от руководства Демократической партии, а стало быть, и хозяев денег. Трампа, в частности, не устраивает, что Йеллен продолжает держать процентную ставку ФРС «на уровне плинтуса» (0,25-0,50).
Em segundo lugar Trump irá buscar a mudança do presidente do FED. O atual chefe da reserva Federal, Janet Yellen, segundo Trump, depende da liderança do partido Democrático, os quais tornaram-se nos donos do dinheiro. Trump, em particular, não está satisfeito com o fato de que Yellen continua a manter a taxa de juros do FED “em nível de rodapé” (0,25-0,50).
В-третьих, произойдёт возврат к закону Гласса-Стиголла, который действовал в Америке в период 1933-1999 гг. и который в угоду хозяевам денег был отменён Биллом Клинтоном, когда тот находился в Белом доме. Суть закона – разведение в банковской деятельности инвестиционных и кредитных операций, что должно предотвратить спекулятивные игры банкиров на финансовых рынках с помощью денег вкладчиков.
Em terceiro lugar: deveria voltar-se a lei Glass-Steagall, que atuou no América no período 1933-1999, lei essa que para agradar os senhores do dinheiro, Bill Clinton cancelou de quando ele se encontrava na casa Branca. A essência da lei era a criação de regulamentos para a banca de investimento e de operações de crédito. A intenção aqui era a de impedir a especulação de banqueiros nos mercados financeiros usando o dinheiro dos depositantes.
В-четвёртых, новый президент США начнёт практическую реализацию Закона Додда-Франка, который ещё называют законом о банковской реформе. Напомню, что банки Уолл-стрит, спровоцировав финансовый кризис 2007-2009 гг., фактически обокрали Америку, получив из бюджета США на своё спасение суммы от 1 до 2 триллионов долларов. Оказавшись в Белом доме, Барак Обама сумел в 2010 году провести через конгресс указанный закон, но на практическую его реализацию сил у Обамы не хватило. Среди предусмотренных законом мер – разукрупнение банков, усиление банковского надзора и т.д.
Em quarto lugar: o novo presidente dos Estados Unidos deveria começar a implementação prática da Lei Dodd-Frank, que também é chamada de lei sobre a banca de reforma. Lembro-me de que os bancos da Wall Street, provocaram uma crise financeira em 2007-2009. Eles realmente roubaram a América, e receberam depois, do orçamento dos EUA, e para a sua própria salvação, uma quantia de 1-2 trilhões de dólares. Uma vez na casa Branca, Barack Obama conseguiu, em 2010, passar no congresso o especificado pela lei, mas na prática a execução do especificado por lei nunca foi realizado aqui. O poder de Obama não foi suficiente. Previsto em lei estavam medidas para uma diminuição da escala dos bancos e o reforço da supervisão bancária, entre outras coisas.
В-пятых, Трамп чётко заявил, что дальше наращивать долговую пирамиду Америки нельзя, кончится всё катастрофой. Он сформулировал крамольное, с точки зрения хозяев денег, предложение: начать с иностранными держателями американских долговых бумаг переговоры о реструктуризации суверенного долга США. Для хозяев денег такое предложение звучит дико: они никогда даже не помышляли выполнять свои долговые обязательства перед иностранными держателями американских бумаг.
Em quinto lugar. Trump disse claramente que quanto mais se construir a pirâmide da dívida da América pior seria e que tudo iria acabar em desastre. Ele disse que negociações deveriam ser iniciadas com os títulares estrangeiros da dívida dos EUA e que negociações da reestruturação da dívida soberana dos Estados Unidos também deveriam ser estudadas. Para os donos do dinheiro tal proposta pareceria desconcertante. Eles nunca nem mesmo pensaram em algum dia cumprir com suas obrigações de dívida com os portadores estrangeitos de papéis de valores, promissórias ou títulos norte-americanos.
Мы прекрасно понимаем, что обещания кандидатов в президенты после того, как они попадают в Белый дом, следует делить даже не на два, а как минимум на десять. Однако я думаю, что Трампу всё-таки придется делить на два, а не на десять. Потому что в Америке возникла ситуация, которую можно обозначить фразой «Кто кого?». Борьба будет бескомпромиссной. К тому же Трамп своей предвыборной кампанией «зарядил» Америку – страна проснулась и задумалась о своём будущем.
Nós compreendemos muito bem que as promessas dos candidatos a presidência depois que eles chegam a Casa Branca deveriam ser divididas não só por dois, mas por dez. Entretanto eu penso que com Trump a divisão deveria ser por dois e não por dez. Isso porque na América surgiram situações que corresponderiam a pergunta “Quem é Quem? A luta a vir será sem compromissos. No mesmo, Trump com a sua campanha eleitoral cobrou dos americanos uma resposta a isso. O país foi acordado e começou a pensar.
Большая часть американцев – против банковского капитализма, за возврат к прежней модели «старой, доброй Америки». И речь идет не только об экономике, но и о политике, и об общей атмосфере в стране. Хозяева денег создали в Америке атмосферу страха, когда люди опасались публично выражать свою поддержку Трампу. Вернее, даже не самому Трампу, а тому, о чём он открыто говорил вслух.
Uma grande parte dos americanos é contra o capitalismo bancário e quer voltar ao prévio modelo “Velha Boa América”. Trata-se aqui não sómente da economia, mas também da política, além do ambiente geral do país. Os donos do dinheiro tinham construido ao longo dos anos no país um ambiente de medo, temor e receio, e as pessoas agora receavam mostrar publicamente sua aprovação a Trump. Cetamente assim também como receavam falar no próprio Trump e nas coisas das quais ele próprio abertamente falava em voz alta.
Отсюда и расхождения между прогнозами и результатами голосования. О том, что результаты оказались для хозяев денег неожиданными, можно судить хотя бы по тому, как отреагировали на подсчёт голосов финансовые рынки: они обвалились. Все крупные игроки делали ставку на Клинтон. И на данный момент они проиграли.
Daí a discrepância entre prognóstico e resultado dessa eleição. O que o resultado mostrou aos donos do dinheiro foi uma coisa inesperada. Isso pode ser julgado pelo menos pelo fato de como o mercado financeiro reagiu a contagem dos votos. Todos os grandes especulantes que apostaram em Clinton estäo agora cara a cara com a sua derrota.
REFERÊNCIAS E NOTAS:
*TRADUÇÕES ARTIGOS POLÍTICOS
Faço essas traduções como diletante do russo e não como tradutor oficial dessa lingua.
Делают эти переводы как дилетант русский а не как официальный переводчик этого языка.
Qualquer erro de interpretação será de minha responsabilidade. Junto as traduςões segue sempre o original em russo. Fontes serão sempre dadas.
Любой синтаксической будет моя ответственность. Здесь вместе всегда повторяет оригинал русский. Источники всегда будут даны.
Todo o material russo como português exclusivamente para uso não-comercial.
Весь материал русский, так как и португальский, исключительно для некоммерческого использования
Direitos Autorais devem ser respeitados tanto ao material russo quanto ao português. Caso apresente ou mencione o texto de maneira não comercial o URL do site original, assim como o da traduςão do texto, devem ser dados claramente. Benvindo.
Авторские права должны соблюдаться на материал русский так как на португальский. Если покажите или укажите текст не коммерческого: URL-адрес веб-сайта оригинала, и перевода, должны быть четко указанный. ПОЖАЛУЙСТА.
FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.
First let us outline the official MSM story as presented by the media (November 6): Washington Post echoed by CNN Anderson Cooper et al. What the reports intimate is that the FBI worked assiduously around the clock and found nothing incriminating in the trove of 650,000 emails:
From the moment they secured a warrant, dozens of FBI agents worked night and day to analyze a trove of messages that they thought might help advance their probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according to a U.S. official.
The pressure was intense. …. The agents’ work, at first, seemed endless. They had to use special software to sift through some 650,000 emails.
(WP, November 9, 2016)
According to CNN, Hillary is Clean. “Cleared” by the FBI: ”FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn’t changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails.”
“Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July,” Comey wrote in the new letter to congressional committee chairmen. (CNN, November 6, 2016)
There is however something fishy with the mainstream media story. The report is accepted at face value by the media. No discussion, no debate of what’s in the emails, etc. The Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus issued the following statement in a letter to Congress:
“The FBI found evidence Clinton broke the law, that she placed highly classified national security information at risk and repeatedly lied to the American people about her reckless conduct.”
“None of this changes the fact that the FBI continues to investigate the Clinton Foundation for corruption involving her tenure as secretary of state. Hillary Clinton should never be president,”
Washington Post Video
Who Was in Charge of the Investigation
About Turn at the FBI? The media reports fail to mention the name of the FBI official who was in charge. It wasn’t Comey. It was his number two man, deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe. (image right).
While McCabe was in charge of the investigation, FBI Director Comey was entrusted with the release of a formal statement to the US Congressional committee.
There is reason to question the validity of the investigation led by Andrew McCabe.
To put it mildly: Andrew McCabe is in conflict of interest. (This has been the object of a previous article by the author)
Let us review the chronology.
1. Andrew McCabe is senior official of the FBI and husband of Dr. Jill McCabe who ran for the State senate of Virginia in 2015.
2. According to the WSJ, Hillary’s “Ally” Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe allocated $675,000 in support of Jill McCabe’s candidacy.
“The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use” (WSJ, October 23, updated October 24, 2016)
3. A few months later, in late January 2016, Andrew McCabe is promoted to the rank of Deputy Director of the FBI and put charge of the investigation into Hillary’s Emails.
Screenshot of FBI Press Release, January 29,2016
4. Following the release of a WSJ report on October 23, the nearly $500,000 transaction in favor of Andrew McCabe’s wife is made public.
5. The WSJ as well as other reports suggest internal conflicts as well as corruption within the FBI: Possible divisions between Comey and his Deputy who was “indirectly” bribed by Hillary Clinton?
6. Five days later on October 28, FBI director James Comey decides “to go clean” with a Second letter to the US Congress.
7. Upon the release of Comey’s second letter, the FBI director is accused of breaking the law.
8. In a bitter irony, nobody actually points to the fact that Andrew McCabe rather than James Comey had broken the law. The fact that Andrew McCabe’s wife had received close to half a million dollars has gone totally unnoticed. Was James Comey being sidelined in favor of Andrew McCabe? Was Andrew McCabe involved in stalling the investigation? The Wall Street Journal (October 30, 2016) points to an Internal Feud within the FBI:
FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe
Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton’s private server
“…Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.”
Was James Comey and the senior staff of the FBI pressured into accepting McCabe’s twisted report?
“… Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction. (Ibid)
9. Hillary had bought out the police chief, who in January 2016 was promoted Number Two Man of the FBI and put in charge of investigating her alleged wrongdoings. How convenient. Needless to say Andrew McCabe was NOT the object of a police investigation. If he had things would have turned out differently.
10. While James Comey issued an official statement on November 6, “clearing Clinton” none of the news reports mentioned that Andrew McCabe rather than James Comey was in charge of the police investigation.
11. None of reports point to conflict of interest and the fact that Andrew McCabe was protected by Hillary Clinton.
12. Without getting into the detail of what’s in the trove of emails, which has been the object of media coverage and analysis (See recent articles by Global Research), there are grounds to question the validity of both Andrew McCabe’s investigation as well as the official statement issued by FBI Director James Comey.
British Media Wet Their Pants With MI5 Russian Scare Story *
The annual festive Halloween holiday is commonly a time for spooky pranks and scare stories. And the British news media delivered – albeit unintentionally it seems. This week several top national newspapers conveyed a stark message from the chief spook at Britain’s secret service, MI5. Andrew Parker, chief of Military Intelligence (Section) 5, warned that Russia was presenting a clear and present danger to the security of the state.
It was The Guardian that first broke the story, with an «exclusive» article on its front page headlined: «MI5 chief warns of growing Russian threat in UK».
With virtually the same headline, the story was replicated in the pages of The Independent, Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, among others.
Russia swiftly scorned the British media coverage as fatuous.
However, this was no Halloween prank being played on the British public for kicks. The issue was presented as serious journalism, reporting on a grave matter of national security. The coincidence of the netherworld festival only lends a certain unintended ironical mirth.
More importantly, though, it is one more example of how Western publics are being conditioned by a relentless mental diet of Russophobia. That a host of British newspapers in unison published without question «talking points» from the head of MI5 alleging a threat to national security from Russia is in itself indicative of a «psychological operation». It reflects the abject standard of supposedly independent media in Britain.
The Guardian billed its «exclusive» by saying it was the «first interview given by a serving spy chief». Andrew Parker has been head of Britain’s state security service for the past nine years. Neither he nor his predecessors have ever given such a full-court press briefing.
MI5 was first established in 1909 and serves as Britain’s premier internal state security agency, dealing with counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism. The organization’s MI6 counterpart deals with foreign military intelligence.
The unprecedented public intervention by MI5 this week is again suggestive of a psychological operation.
Moreover, for anyone with a critical faculty, what is bizarre about the latest claims of a Russian «threat» is that despite the gravity and the factual-sounding wording of the headlines, there is a dearth of substance reported to support said claims.
MI5’s Andrew Parker merely makes vague assertions about Russia «pushing foreign policy in increasingly aggressive ways involving propaganda, espionage, subversion and cyber-attacks».
These are the same zero-evidence, breathless assertions that are echoed by American security services and media. The Obama administration citing its own intelligence agencies last month accused Russia of state-sponsored cyber-attacks and interference in the US presidential elections.
Moscow has categorically rejected these insinuations as baseless. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov notes that repeated requests for evidence have been ignored by US authorities. While Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has dismissed allegations of political interference as a cynical «distraction» from real internal American problems.
Another indicator of psychological operation is the way that the alleged Russian threats are packaged as «talking points» which are easily disseminated and regurgitated. After a while, the claims become hackneyed and stale from lack of supporting substance.
The alleged threats which MI5’s Andrew Parker treated the British media and public to have less the ring of truth and more the dull thud of tedium. And yet the British media – like a circus dog – jumped on cue this week to the instruction as if it was something novel and exciting.
How many times have we heard from sundry atlanticist, pro-NATO think tanks warning us about Russian «subversion» or «cyber-attacks» or trying to undermine Western democracies? The level of repetition and coordination of talking-points that we hear from the likes of the Atlantic Council, Center for Strategic and International Studies, the National Endowment for Democracy, NATO, and so on, are reflective of central authorship in state intelligence emanating from the CIA and MI5 / MI6, which in turn feeds into the foreign policy establishments of nominally democratic governments. In short, the Deep State network that transcends Western electoral politics.
Last month at an EU leaders’ summit in Brussels, European Council President Donald Tusk urged the bloc to adopt harsher economic sanctions on Russia, as did the leaders of Germany, Britain and France. Tusk listed a litany of purported Russian malfeasance, including «cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, interference in the EU’s political processes» and «trying to weaken the European Union».
Fortunately, Italy, Austria, Spain, Hungary and a number of other European leaders rejected Tusk’s appeal for tougher sanctions on Russia, saying they were counterproductive.
But the point here is that Tusk, supposedly a guiding political light for the EU, sounds more like a hired-hack for the CIA or M15, as ascertained by the trite talking points that he so readily recites about Russian «threats».
The comparison with the briefing given this week to British media by the head of MI5 tends to prove that there is a sinister group-think shared by certain American and European political leaders with unelected Deep State agencies. This relationship as expressed in formulaic Russophobia raises disturbing questions about the true nature of democracy and democratic accountability in Western states. Are the elected leaders following the people’s will or are they following instructions from shadowy agencies whose whole purpose is driven by geopolitical conflict, in particular conflict with Russia?
This perhaps explains why in the US, the Washington establishment and the military-intelligence apparatus appear to be so hostile to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. For all his flaws, one thing that can be said to Trump’s credit is that he doesn’t trot out the usual canned talking points manufactured by the Deep State towards demonizing Russia. On that score, he is not a hack, whereas Hillary Clinton has repeatedly toed the Russophobia line.
The Western corporate news media are integral to the political establishment. It is therefore not surprising that senior journalists and editors belonging to media outlets are susceptible to manipulation by state intelligence agencies, either wittingly or unwittingly. Former German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed how the CIA infiltrates European journalists to relay the agency’s talking-points to the wider public.
The way that the British media so pliantly provided a platform to the head of M15 this week to disseminate Russophobia is a strong indicator of state-orchestrated propaganda. It speaks of the deplorable lack of independence and genuine public service that the British media conceitedly claim to provide. They are evidently serving as a propaganda device, peddling disinformation whose ultimate logic is to condition the public into accepting hostile policy, and even war with Russia.
That is not journalism. It is flagrant manipulation of public perception on the same level as telling children scary stories about ghouls and ghosts.
But the funny thing is that it is MI5 and all the other spooky agencies of the Western Deep State who are really afraid. What they mean by Russian «propaganda» and «subversion» is that Russian news media are increasingly exposing the systematic deception on numerous world issues that Western media and their intelligence handlers have for too long gotten away with in the pursuit of imperialist interests.
Unable to bear the exposure, Western Deep State creatures are lashing out desperately with scare story upon scare story in order to distract the «children». That’s why Britain’s MI5 came out of its murky swamp of secrecy this week to give a first-ever «exclusive» to the British media. Boo! Boo! Boo! But that power of deception is no longer working.
In the 1930s an important line of Soviet propaganda was that «fascism means war» (fashizm – eto voina). After Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, the USSR rang the alarm bells and sought to organise an anti-Nazi alliance with the major western powers, France, Britain, and the United States. Soviet diplomats called it «collective security» but really it was a strategy to contain Nazi Germany, or defeat it in war if containment failed.
Caption: In the 1930s an important line of Soviet propaganda was that «fascism means war»
Unfortunately, it turned out to be «the alliance that never was». Not because the USSR did not want it, but because the French, British, and Americans did not want it. At least, until it was too late for France which disappeared in 1940, and very late for the three partners of the Grand Alliance who only came together after the Nazi invasion of the USSR in June 1941.
Western historians have built up elaborate, deeply researched rationales for why Britain and France did not join the USSR to confront Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not enough guns and gold, these historians say: it was practical matters, not ideology which account for failure of the first grand alliance. But of course ideology, or Sovietophobia and anti-communism, did have a great deal to do with the failure to unite against Nazism. Parliamentary democracy was in crisis during the interwar years. The Anglo-French elites, with notable exceptions, seemed to lose their confidence. So they admired the perceived strength and force of fascism. The Nazis knew how to deal with the left and especially with communists. Fascism was like an aphrodisiac for European elites, doubtful of their own virility and power. Fear of victory in alliance with the USSR against Nazi Germany was greater than fear of defeat without it.
Caption: Fascism was like an aphrodisiac for European elites, doubtful of their own virility and power
This is a far cry from how the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) explain the origins of World War II. You know their lines: the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was «an alliance» between Stalin and Hitler, the two chums, who divided up Europe between them? The PACE has even declared a holiday on 23 August to commemorate the non-aggression pact of the «two totalitarians». Just the other day the Ukrainian and Polish parliaments got into the act with resolutions along the same lines, blaming everything on Hitler and Stalin. This is no-nothingism enlisted in the cause of fascism, Russophobia and the New World Order. You really do have to know nothing to believe this bogus «history».
Let’s take the example of Poland, the cry baby of Europe, claiming victimization because of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. In 1934, Poland signed a non-aggression pact in Germany. Thereafter, Poland was a spoiler, the skunk in the wood pile, which sabotaged at every turn Soviet proposals for collective security against Hitler. «Given a choice between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany», Polish officials openly declared to anyone who would listen, «we will choose the latter». During this same period, the deeply anti-Semitic Polish elite contemplated forcibly sending Polish Jews to Madagascar. In 1938 Poland was a Nazi ally against Czechoslovakia. In 1939 in spite of the imminence of war Poland attempted to sabotage Soviet proposals for a defensive, war fighting alliance against Nazi Germany. For Poland, «Ivan» was «a swine» until the very end. The Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact was the result of the failure of Soviet collective security, not the cause of that failure. If you are looking for the chief culprits for the checking of Soviet proposals for collective security, go to London first of all, and then to Paris and Warsaw.
Caption: Anti-Semitic Ukrainian militias are celebrated, the very same who participated in the mass killings of Jews and fought side-by-side with Nazi Wehrmacht and SS
And what can one say about the Ukraine? Nazis and Nazi collaborators are now national heroes. Their faces, like that of Stepan Bandera, appear on Ukrainian stamps and they are remembered with statues in prominent places. Anti-Semitic Ukrainian militias are celebrated, the very same who participated in the mass killings of Jews and fought side-by-side with Nazi Wehrmacht and SS. Do you remember the photographs of Ukrainian women and girls forced to strip naked, queuing to be executed by the Nazis and their Ukrainian collaborators? It was at Babi Yar. The Kiev junta has turned murderous beasts into heroes, and the west does not object.
Caption: Do you remember the photographs of Ukrainian women and girls forced to strip naked, queuing to be executed by the Nazis and their Ukrainian collaborators? It was at Babi Yar
At the end of World War II, it looked like Nazism was dead. Hitler shot his dog, his blond took cyanide and then he shot himself. Red Army soldiers threw down the banners and flags of the Wehrmacht and SS in Red Square. That celebration of victory should have marked the end of European fascism, but it did not. In fact, fascism never really died in Europe; it went underground. Then former fascists were rehabilitated and reintegrated into European politics as the United States whipped up the Cold War, Act II, with Marshall Plan money and the CIA. In the 1950s the Dulles brothers, John Foster, Secretary of State, and Allen, CIA director, made a great team deciding which governments the United States should overthrow and which leaders it should have murdered. President Dwight Eisenhower, with his warm smile for the public, approved it all.
Caption: At the end of World War II, Red Army soldiers threw down the banners and flags of the Wehrmacht and SS in Red Square
Nothing has changed. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United States ran amuck, plotting against governments it did not like. Arab Spring, colour revolutions, responsibility to protect, democracy exportation are all euphemisms for US subversion and aggression in the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia. And fascists who had gone underground, crawled out of their dens in Eastern Europe. Former Nazi collaborators and SS soldiers in the Baltics took their old uniforms out of mothballs to parade in the streets with gold-toothed smiles and signs of victory.
Caption: After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the United States ran amuck, plotting against governments it did not like
They whip up hatred of Russia and taunt Russians and the Russian Federation. Poland has reverted back to a regime redolent of the quasi-dictatorship of Polish Marshal Jozef Pilsudski’s colonels in the 1930s, with the same hatred of Russia, underscored by the destruction of monuments remembering the Red Army victory over Nazism and the vandalism of Red Army cemeteries. After the collapse of the USSR, it was supposed to be the «end of history». Remember? For PACE and OSCE, it is the end of history. Theirs is garish propaganda directed against Russia.
The worst re-eruption of fascism has taken place in the Ukraine. In a so-called colour revolution in Kiev in February 2014, backed by the United States and European Union (EU), fascist bravos overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, installing a junta of fascists and other «nationalist» hooligans who ran roughshod over the Russophone population, looting, burning, and killing. In central and western Europe, the birthplace of fascism, no one seemed to mind the open displays of the swastika and other fascist symbols, the ribbon-draped pictures of World War II Nazi collaborators like Bandera, the torchlight parades and the intimidation of the Russian population.
Caption: In central and western Europe, the birthplace of fascism, no one seemed to mind the open displays of the swastika and other fascist symbols in the Ukraine
What the west did mind was when Russians fought back, first in the Crimea and then in the Donbass. In reaction to the fascist coup d’état, the Russian population of the Crimea armed themselves, and under the protection of the «polite people», voted massively to return to Russian suzerainty. In the East, the Donbass took up arms against the fascist militias and managed to hold a small part of the eastern Ukraine inflicting grievous loss upon the enemy.
The United States and its EU vassals blamed everything on Russia and its president Vladimir Putin. The only Russia the west will tolerate is one which is weak and compliant. Behave like «house negroes», or else we will flog you is the subliminal EU line. Be like us, they mean, since the EU is the «house negro» of the United States, although there are signs of rebellion amongst its members. It’s about time. A candid-speaking Russian president backed by a strong Russian people, refusing to bow before the American Hegemon, must arouse feelings of envy and resentment amongst EU «leaders». No wonder the west refuses to recognise Russia’s right to defend its national interests.
Caption: There can be no doubt that fascist Ukraine is an American client state
So Russians fought back against the Ukrainian fascists. «Aggression», the US government claimed. It’s an old American trick: you know, the aggressor state accusing its intended victim of aggression. When Malaysian Airlines MH17 was shot down in the summer of 2014, the United States and EU accused the Russians of being responsible without a shred of evidence. The idea was to whip up opinion in the western vassal states for hard sanctions against Russia. In fact, a police investigator looking for means, motive and opportunity would undoubtedly see the Kiev junta as the prime murder suspect. But of course the west closes its eyes to the war crimes of its puppets.
There can be no doubt that fascist Ukraine is an American client state. At first glance it might seem paradoxical that Ukrainian «nationalists» would eagerly become western puppets. It is however only a continuation of past history when previous generations of Ukrainian so-called nationalists were willing to sell themselves to France or Germany during World War I or to Nazi Germany during World War II. Nothing has changed. Ukrainian «nationalism» is built on negatives, hatred of Russia, false historical narratives and now… the celebration of fascism and Nazi collaboration.
Russia reacted to the rise of Ukrainian fascism by doing the minimum possible to defend its interests without excessive provocation of the west. It reassumed sovereignty over the Crimea, but not of the eastern Ukraine. It helped the Donbass resistance defend itself and agreed to participate in negotiations leading to the Minsk accords I & II ultimately to settle the civil war. It pretended more or less not to notice the fascists in Kiev. It discouraged the advocates of Novorossiya, accepted two premature Minsk «ceasefires» and prevented the anti-fascist opolchentsy (militias) from exploiting their remarkable military victories against the Ukrainian marauders.
The Russian government is not a signatory to the Minsk accords, but the west treated Russia as though it were entirely responsible for the success of the agreement. Any failure of the accords has been Russia’s responsibility. The western idea was and is to compel Russia to enforce the surrender of the Donbass. In fact, the Ukrainian junta never respected and never intended to respect the Minsk accords, not for a single day. Kiev’s armed forces continue to probe Donbass defences, to bombard civilians and to assassinate Donbass leaders without a word of protest from the west. No western sanctions are ever aimed at fascist Ukraine, which is a Minsk signatory. In Kiev, they must laugh at how they have been able to flaunt the Minsk accords, and Russia is «sanctioned» for it.
The Minsk initiative has proved to be a catastrophe. The Kiev junta continues to build up its military strength with the assistance of US, Canadian, Polish, and various other «advisors». It recruits foreign mercenaries to stiffen the ranks of its forces in the east all the while accusing Russia of aggression. How long can the Ukraine powder keg smoulder before it explodes?
How long can the Russian Federation play along with the Minsk charade, forgetting the inexorable law that «fascism means war»? How can Moscow force the Russian people in the Ukraine to live under a violent, repressive fascist regime? What possible security guarantees could they obtain from the Russophobic Kiev junta? Indeed, what security can the Russian Federation expect to maintain on its southern frontiers? What security will the eventual Kerch straits bridge have against Ukrainian terrorist attacks? The longer the crisis simmers, the more the threat to Russia itself will continue.
Caption: The Ukraine front offers to Washington a splendid opportunity to destabilise Russian security
President Putin is «playing the long game», say analysts, and no doubt he is playing this «game» with great skill. But the US government is a past master of subversion and indirect aggression. The Ukraine front offers to Washington a splendid opportunity to destabilise Russian security. In Moscow the «long game» is apparently to wait for the economic and political implosion of the Kiev junta, and to wait for a cracking of EU unity on sanctions, counting on Europeans and European governments to recognise at last the danger to their own security by continued vassalage to the United States. But will all this happen? Or, will it happen before the Ukraine powder keg explodes at a moment, which is not advantageous for Russia?
The west is turning a blind eye to the rebirth of fascism in Eastern Europe. As in the 1930s, western elites now see fascism, though not calling it by that name, as a weapon against Russia. The erasure of the memory of the Red Army victory over the Wehrmacht has its practical uses. Fascism by another name is being re-legitimised as though the destruction of Nazism was a mistake. The real enemy, or enemy no. 1, if you like, is the Russian Federation. As the Americans might say of the Ukrainian hooligans, «they’re sons of bitches, but they’re our sons of bitches».
The Real Humanitarian Crisis Is Not Aleppo
Paul Craig Roberts
Why do we hear only of the “humanitarian crisis in Aleppo” and not of the humanitarian crisis everywhere else in Syria where the evil that rules in Washington has unleashed its ISIL mercenaries to slaughter the Syrian people? Why do we not hear about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen where the US and its Saudi Arabian vassal are slaughtering Yemeni women and children? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Libya where Washington destroyed a country leaving chaos in its place? Why don’t we hear about the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, ongoing now for 13 years, or the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan now 15 years old?
The answer is that the crisis in Aleppo is the crisis of Washington losing its ISIL mercenaries to the Syrian army and Russian air force. The jihadists sent by Obama and the killer bitch Hillary (“We came, we saw, he died”) to destroy Syria are being themselves destroyed. The Obama regime and the Western presstitutes are trying to save the jihadists by covering them in the blanket of “humanitarian crisis.”
Such hypocrisy is standard fare for Washington. If the Obama regime gave a hoot about “humanitarian crisis,” the Obama regime would not have orchestrated humanitarian crisis in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen.
We are in the middle of a presidential campaign in the US and no one has asked why the US is determined to overthrow a democratically elected Syrian government that is supported by the Syrian people.
No one has asked why the White House Fool is empowered to remove the president of Syria by siccing US-supplied jihadists, which the presstitutes misrepresent as “moderate rebels,” on the Syrian people.
Washington, of course, has no acceptable answer to the question, and that is why the question is not asked.
The answer to the question is that Washington’s strategy for destabilizing Iran and then the Muslim provinces of the Russian Federation, former Soviet central Asia, and the Muslim province of China is to replace stable governments with the chaos of jihadism. Iraq, Libya, and Syria had stable secular societies in which the government’s strong hand was used to prevent sectarian strife between Muslim sects. By overthrowing these secular governments and the current effort to overthrow Assad, Washington released the chaos of terrorism.
There was no terrorism in the Middle East until Washington brought it there with invasions, bombings, and torture.
Jihadists such as those that Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi appeared in Syria when the British Parliament and the Russian government blocked Obama’s planned invasion of Syria. As Washington was prevented from directly attacking Syria, Washington used mercenaries. The prostitutes that pretend to be an American media obliged Washington with the propaganda that the jihadist terrorists are Syrian democrats rebelling against “the Assad dictatorship.” This transparant and blatant lie has been repeated so many times that it now is confused with truth.
Syria has no connection whatsoever to Washington’s original justification for introducing violence into the Middle East. The original justification was 9/11 which was used to invade Afghanistan on the fabrication that the Taliban was shielding Osama bin Laden, the “mastermind,” who at the time was dying of renal failure in a Pakistani hospital. Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset who was used against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He was not the perpetrator of 9/11. And most certainly, neither were the Taliban.
But the Western presstitutes covered up for the Bush regime’s lie, and the public was deceived with the phrase that we must “defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.”
Of course, Muslims were not going to attack us at home. If Muslims are a threat, why does the US government keep bringing so many of them here as refugees from Washington’s wars against Muslims?
9/11 was the neoconservatives “new Pearl Harbor” that they wrote they needed in order to launch their wars in the Middle East. George W. Bush’s first Secretary of the Treasury said that the topic of Bush’s first cabinet meeting was the invasion of Iraq. This was prior to 9/11. In other words, Washington’s wars in the Middle East were planned prior to 9/11.
The neoconservatives are zionists. By reducing the Middle East to chaos they achieve both of their goals. They remove organized opposition to Israeli expansion, and they create jihadism that can be used to destabilize countries such as Russia, Iran, and China that are in the way of their exercise of unilateral power, which, they believe, the Soviet collapse bequeathed to the “indispensable nation,” the USA.
Osama bin Laden, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, was dying, not directing a terror war against the US from a cave in Afghanistan. The Taliban were focused on establishing their rule in Afghanistan, not on attacking the West. After blowing up weddings, funerals, and childrens’ soccer games, Washington moved on to Iraq. There was no sign of Iraqi beligerance toward the US. UN weapons inspectors said that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but Washington did not hear. The whores who comprise the American media helped the Bush regime create the image of a nuclear mushroom cloud going up over America if the US did not invade Iraq.
Iraq had no nuclear weapons and everyone knew it, but facts were irrelevant. There was an agenda at work, an undeclared agenda. To advance its agenda that the government did not dare reveal, the government used fear. “We have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.”
So Iraq, a stable, progressive country was reduced to ruins.
Libya was next. Gaddafi would not join Washington’s Africa Command. Moreover, China was developing the oil fields in eastern Libya. Washington was already troubled by Russia’s presence in the Mediterranean and did not want China there also. So Gaddafi had to go.
Next Assad was set up with faked evidence that he had used chemical weapons against the rebellion that Washington had started. No one believed the transparent Washington lie, not even the British Parliament. Unable to find support to cover an invasion, Killary the Psychopath sent the jihadists Washington used to destroy Libya to overthrow Assad.
The Russians, who until this point had been so naive and gullible as to trust Washington, finally figured out that the instability that Washington was brewing was directed at them. The Russian government decided that Syria was their red line and, at the request of the Syrian government, intervened against the Washington-supported jihadists.
Washington is outraged and is now threatening to commit yet another criminal violation of the Nuremberg Standard with blatant aggression against Syria. Such an ill-advised step would bring Washington into military conflict with Russia and by implication with China. Before Europeans enable Washington to initiate such a dangerous conflict, they had best consider the warning from Sergey Karaganov, a member of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Foreign Policy and Defense council: “Russia will never again fight on its own territory. If NATO initiates an encroachment against a nuclear power like ourselves, NATO will be punished.”
That the government of the United States is criminally insane should frighten every person on earth. Killary-Hillary is commited to conflict with Russia. Regardless, Obama, the presstitutes, and the Democratic and Republican establishments are doing everything in their power to put into the Oval Office the person who will maximize conflict with Russia.
The life of the planet is in the hands of the criminally insane. This is the real humanitarian crisis.
Note: Lt. General Michael Flynn, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency stated in an interview that the creation of ISIS was “a willful Washington decision.” See, for example:
https://www.rt.com/usa/312050-dia-flynn-islamic-state/ Also: http://russia-insider.com/en/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad/ri7364
The DIA warned that ISIS would result in a Salafist principality over parts of Iraq and Syria. http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf The warning went unheeded as the neoconservative Obama regime saw ISIS as a strategic asset to be used against Syria.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, The Real Humanitarian Crisis Is Not Aleppo. Source: www.paulcraigroberts.org
*Anna Malm: Fil.Lic. – Risk Research – Stockholm School of Economics. “Risk Perception in Brazil and Sweden”.
-Information As In a Bottle Thrown To The Seven Seas.-
Photo Source: http://www.strategic-culture.org